Microsoft Agrees to Stop Hijacking Music-Shopping

ScottSpeaks! writes "CNN , ABC, and others are reporting that Microsoft has agreed to fix Windows XP so that it no longer launches IE (instead of the user's chosen default browser) when the user selects the "Shop for Music Online" option in Windows XP. MS isn't admitting that it's a violation of the consent decree they signed to get the DoJ to drop the anti-trust suit against them, but threats to take them to court over it are what prompted the move."

Comments

I'm seeing...

[JamesP]

Microsoft has agreed to fix Windows XP so that it no longer launches IE (instead of the user's chosen default browser) when the user selects the "Shop for Music Online" option in Windows XP

Pops up Mozilla... "This site requires IE 6.0 to be viewed".

C'mon, it's not that difficult...

Re:I'm seeing...

[mark_lybarger]

moz can pose as ie also, that's not what most sites do. they'll use java script or a server side preprocessor to determine your browser and lock you out w/o ie browser. posing even w/ moz gets around this.

Re:I'm seeing...

[operagost]

Kind of like the bug reporting. If you report a bug, it will pop up a browser window so you can type data into their bug-tracking system (oca.microsoft.com). It does this in your default browser. Problem is, once you get there the site says it only supports IE, and you're SOL.

Lovely spin

[grub]

[from the CNN article:] .. available to customers by February or March in the form of a Windows update that it will offer for download, the department said.

[from the ABC article:] Microsoft has agreed to make changes in its Windows XP operating system to satisfy US government concerns [...] "Without necessarily agreeing with the Department's position, Microsoft has agreed to remove the override of the user's default browser..

Why is it that whenever these crooks are forced to follow the rules of any legal settlement it's spun in such a way as to appear like they're doing the consumer a favour? "offer [the patch] for download" and "Microsoft has agreed"?!

[sarcasm]Thank you so very much, Bill.[/sarcasm]

Re:Lovely spin

[the Man in Black]

"alright you whining pricks, here's your goddamned update, yeah we screwed up and the government got us for it. fuck 'em. fuck you too. take the update. IT'S FREE DAMMIT"

That quote is much funnier when you picture Ballmer saying it, pit stains and all, while making obscene gestures.

Is this really MS?

[ruiner13]

Since when is it Microsoft's policy to implement changes without an actual lawsuit? Granted this is probably nothing more than a registry change, but does this signal a new non-court driven Microsoft? I tend to think not. In this case, they probably calculated that it would be cheaper to change the link than to spend years in court feeding their legal team.

Re:Is this really MS?

[nologin]

Hmm, I suppose that Microsoft realizes that in their last anti-trust suit (in which they were found 'guilty'), their 'slap on the wrist' was a compliance order.

Now that they have been threatened with a lawsuit with respect to a violation of their compliance order, the likelyhood that MS would win is minimal. Contempt of court is not something to be taken lightly, especially when it comes to orders issued by a court of law.

Interesting....

[The One KEA]

Does it say anywhere how MS was preventing these programs from honoring the default browser setting?

Re:Interesting....

[loconet]

I'm assuming they don't use that default browser launcher api call and instead hardcode a call to IE.

MSN?

[loconet]

Some recent versions of MSN messenger used to do this as well. The latest version I've downloaded uses my default browser.

Re:MSN?

[loconet]

No it's not the same thing. It seems like It's not so much of an annoyance if the program uses the ie control to render html inside it the program itself ie: Media player uses the IE control to show the windows media content page. The problem is when it launches the actual ie program to view a url. That is not the same as Mozilla's mail reader using gecko to render html.

Coolness factor....

[BWJones]

MS isn't admitting that it's a violation of the consent decree they signed to get the DoJ to drop the anti-trust suit against them, but threats to take them to court over it are what prompted the move."

So, ........without turning this whole thing into an anti-Microsoft rant, (I fear this will happen) we hear this kind of thing again and again from Microsoft. Microsoft violates (again) the terms of the anti-trust trial and says "ooops, my mistake." and agrees to change its behavior (barely). How do they keep getting away with it? I don't really have an answer for it but, they appear to have a somewhat schizophrenic relationship with their potential markets.

The issue here is manifold: 1) Microsoft is a monopoly (not necessarily bad), 2) Microsoft leverages that monopoly against other markets (bad). The problem is that they really can't help themselves because their shareholders (disclaimer: I own some Microsoft stock) demand greater returns on their investment and they really don't know how to do anything differently. Microsoft is maturing and recently has paid out dividends (about time), but they seem to be continuously stumbling over their own feet in various markets. Microsoft has some smart folks there (including a few friends of mine), but as a whole the company has the appearance of a bunch of malicious geeks who are smart, but are not very creative, resulting in a desperate desire to be cool and seen as cool. This could be a result of marketing management keeping the programmers etc... under control, but Microsoft as a whole lacks that essence of coolness that gives them an edge. Therefore the predatory nature of the monopoly as they gobble up every concept that could be seen as giving Microsoft some degree of edge. It also might be that they are so big, they really don't have the ability to move very quickly or be objective in their analysis of markets. I would bet that if they broke themselves into a number of different companies (that even had the possibility of competing with each other), they would be much more competitive and would prove a much better return on investment.

Come on Bill, how would you like to be the principal of five or six big companies? One company can only get you so far you know.....? :-)

Re:Coolness factor....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's even worse. Microsoft's response isn't "ooops, my mistake" it's "well, if you insist". They don't admit that they've done -anything- that violates the anti-trust settlement!!

Re:Coolness factor....

[fleeb_fantastique]

Big business isn't into cool. They can't afford it. It's one of the signals that indicate when your business has shifted from being a small company to a large company.

It's pretty simple, really.

A new, small company comes up with a really cool product that nobody ever thought of, or at least never bothered to try to sell. The company is innovative, smart, hip, and all those happy adjectives.

They continue improving their spiffy product, making it easier to use, better, stronger, faster, able to brush your teeth, or whatever. They don't generally branch too far into other directions, unless they're forced to by some competing company who is doing a better job... but even then, they'll still be innovative.

Eventually, if the company is smart, has the right people in it, and manages to play its cards right, it might set the standard for the kind of product it provides. Everyone else is expected to live up to them as a standard. When this happens, you start to see the suck happen.

The company will continue to try to improve their products, but they won't generally stray too far away from their core product, because they often have too many investors who expect that core to provide them with a return for their investment. Plus, they've spent so much time and effort grasping that domain, they can't easily or quickly move the company in another direction. You kind of wind up seeing everything from the perspective of that product, which limits your ability to be creative.

As the company gets bigger, the problem continues. In time, the only thing that can cause the huge company to shift direction is a significant threat to their core product by a competing technology.. something that makes your technology obsolete, but works in a completely different fashion.

The biggest threat to Microsoft will not be an operating system. Not directly. It will be a shift in thinking. One possible threat is the open-source phemonemon, with its variety of operating systems (to include the current darling, Linux) and applications and such.

Another possible threat might be very small computers.. pocket-sized or so.. that distributes our current workloads to even more granular levels, which seems to be what has a number of companies excited right now (except nobody has managed to pull this off properly yet).

Your cellphone holds your telephone numbers, and maybe communicates with a series of servers to acquire other phone numbers as needed, eliminating the need for phone books. Then, while you're talking to your friend, the two of you decide to meet at a favorite restaurant on Saturday around noon, so you forward the appointment to your clock at home, which will cause your phone to ring (or send e-mail, or whatever mode it becomes set for as you go about your day) about fifteen minutes prior to your appointment with a text message telling you where you need to be. Meanwhile, you've been taking some notes concerning the conversation on your tablet, and after some thought, you realize that you need some comments from another friend, but know that he's busy with something. So you send the notes on your tablet to your friend via e-mail (or whatever technology is most appropriate), which automatically finds its way to your friend in some appropriate way (maybe he's really quirky, and has set up a tablet in his bathroom so when he's on the john, he can review such notes).

I think that's the sort of thing that has a great chance to rock Microsoft's world. Get rid of chaining people to desktops, and if you do this quickly and effectively enough, Microsoft will crumble.

Re:Coolness factor....

[dustman]

The company will continue to try to improve their products, but they won't generally stray too far away from their core product, because they often have too many investors who expect that core to provide them with a return for their investment. Plus, they've spent so much time and effort grasping that domain, they can't easily or quickly move the company in another direction.

I think you are wrong here. There are lots of bright people, and lots of bright people running companies, that aren't going to experience this sort of tunnel vision.

I think the problem is that every time you try to come up with something "new and innovative", you are taking large risks. Small companies do it all the time, and the vast majority sink. The ones you here about are the ones that "make it", that actually had a good idea, the right people, and probably a bit of luck.

The ones that fail, the company goes bankrupt and is split up among creditors. In effect, the small companies can take huge risks, because it's not like they're going to really lose millions of dollars anyway. It's all other peoples' money, and lines of credit.

Big companies can't afford to take those huge risks. When there project fails, they can't just say "oops, guess I'm bankrupt". They have eat the costs of the failure.

Outlook does this too

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

If I receive a non-HTML/RTF formatted e-mail that contains a URL, Outlook will convert it to a link and when clicked it launches IE rather than my preferred browser.

Re:Outlook does this too

[gregarican]

You sir shouldn't have the ability to launch URL's out of Outlook at all if you had locked down IE Active Scripting so that it was disabled for all non-Trusted Sites. And also changed your default Outlook mail format set to Plain Text rather than HTML.

All of this means that your system will be wide open for all sorts of cross-site certification and scripting 'sploits. I'd do some research if I were you, since Microsoft left the most recent slew of IE holes unpatched.

Re:Outlook does this too

[JCMay]

Wow, you're using Mozilla 2.5? They just released Mozilla 1.6 yesterday! Glad I didn't waste my time downloading that ancient thing!

That makes sense...

[andih8u]

So the user can install a different browser on their own but have to rely on the "shop for music online" button? I don't know where this "feature" is, but is this something that redirects people to one of Microsoft's sites that's designed to work with IE? If so, I'd hijack the link as well.

Re:That makes sense...

[falxx]

I think the real problem actually relies there, not with the use of IE, but the use of constantly using MS-services, not that anyone really cares about that. Whenever the user will see that there are other and better options (itunes pour example) he/she will consider it, but they never do. When there isn't really options available to the user right there and then, the problem continues...

Poor code quality as an excuse

[salimma]

... I was about to suggest MS would use 'we did not do this intentionally, our code is just of poor quality', but I guess their 'Trusted Computing' initiative kinds of shoots the argument down :)

What's the big deal?

[chefbb]

Maybe I'm being dense, but what's the big deal with Microsoft launching their browser for their music shopping service? If they'd used a browser control on their own app, would anyone have complained? It's not like there aren't 1000 other places online to buy music.

Really, perhaps the issue should be the existance of a "buy music online" selection in XP at all. I hate all those pre-loaded ads that come disguised as usability enhancements.

Whilst they are at it ...

[Mr_Silver]

... maybe they could stop MSN Messenger and Outlook firing up IE (over my default browser) too.

Annoys the hell out of me.

What about Windows Update

[aflat362]

I use XP Pro at home (Your condolences are not necessary) Mozilla Firebird is my default browser. I despise IE. The only time I see IE launch is when I do windows update. I wonder if there's any way microsoft could be convinced to program Windows update in a way that it could be accessed by other (standards compliant) browsers.

Re:What about Windows Update

[SumDog]

Here is a better question: should windows update even be run through a browser? No! Windows Update should be a completely standalone program. It has no business even being done through a web browser.

Let's look at the other operating systems. Redhat uses rpm/yum/up2date which are all command line with a couple of gtk front-ends you don't need to use. Debain used apt. Gentoo uses emerge/portage. Not sure about OSX, but I'm willing to be that it's update tool isn't connected to Safari.

Binding the update tool to the web browser seems to be one of those ploys Microsoft started years back to try to prove IE was essential to their operating system and couldn't be removed. Bad design dictated by bad politics. Here is a better question: should windows update even be run through a browser? No! Windows Update should be a completely standalone program. It has no business even being done through a web browser.

Re:What about Windows Update

[andih8u]

doesn't that annoying little windows update tool that lives in the systray and pester the crap out of you work outside of the browser? How windows update is accessed is a moot point anyway given that your average user never uses it.

Re:What about Windows Update

[NineNine]

I wonder if there's any way microsoft could be convinced to program Windows update in a way that it could be accessed by other (standards compliant) browsers.


I'm sure they would, as soon as other browsers supported Active X.

Re:What about Windows Update

[ad0gg]

Umm IE engine is essential to windows, do you not notice that explorer windows in XP are HTML pages with some extensions? You can customize it however you want if you know html. If you don't like it, don't use MS products. People complain so much Microsoft, here's a big hint, Don't support them with your money. I use Macs, and everything that I need is on the mac. My parents use macs, and I recently just setup my uncle and aunt on a cheap eMac. My college used Linux.

Litigous Society

[IamGarageGuy 2]

Is software at the point in it's evolution that any major changes only happen when there is a lawsuit involved? This is not only a microsoft phenomenon but I am starting to see it in all new software. WHEN DID THE DAMN LAWYERS START DICTATING WHAT THE SOFTWARE SHOULD DO ???? If GNU was not around to prove that software does not have to be created by committee this world would be a lot worse place than it is now. IMHO the open source community is becoming more than just about software and more about what is wrong with society as a whole.

There really isn't much to say here...

[Darken_Everseek]

I think the only real surprise to me here is that someone bothered to call MS on the rule-breaking.
That's good to see.

I wonder how many people will bother to download the patch though; I doubt many people keep up to date on that sort of thing. Sneaky on the part of MS, really. By the time someone noticed that they were breaking the rules, it was too late for the vast majority of Windows users.

WMP shopping

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, the purchase music stuff is a button in Windows Media Player. If you use Windows Media Player to purchase music, don't you expect that it will send you to whomever Microsoft wants you to purchase music from?

Seriously, this complaint is equivalent to asking Apple to send you to Napster when you shop for music with iTunes. It's utterly stupid, and the only reason Microsoft has to worry about it is that they are very unpopular with some government agencies right now.

Another turn of events

[Sklein382]

In another suprising turn of events, terrorists have also agreed to stop hijacking airplanes.

Doesn't anyone think

[tr0llb4rt0]

it's a bit odd that they have a specific button in XP that says *Shop Online for Music*?

Granted they've now allowed folks to browse their music retailing partners web site in a different browser.

But I wonder what business deal has been done with the music retailer(s) so they can have a ready made market of Windows XP users sent direct to their door(s).

They better fix it

[emilng]

Considering...

"Windows is about choice, you can mix and match all of this stuff," David Fester, general manager of Microsoft's Windows digital media division, told the New York Times. "We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services."

Using another browser from outlook...

[Phil John]

What version of Outlook are you using? Mine fires up Moz Firebird no problems, here's a link on how to do it.

Re:start run http://www.google.com

[srinivas_rc]

I dont see this happening in Windows XP. It launches my mozilla.

What's good for the goose...

[Slightly Askew]

Microsoft software (XP) has an option to buy music from a Microsoft Site, and it uses a Microsoft product (IE) to connect to that site...this is bad, evil, monopolistic.

Apple software (iTunes) has an option to buy music from an Apple site ("Music Store"), and it uses an Apple software (iTunes) to connect, and not my default browser (IE)

This is different how?

Re:What's good for the goose...

[The One KEA]

The difference is that iTunes doesn't use the system's default browser to accomplish its goal, whereas Microsoft is not ging to let another browser anywhere near its own music app. The issue at hand is that third-party apps like MusicMatch, Kazaa and others were forced to use IE, despite any default browser setting otherwise. It is this that Microsoft has so kindly decided to remove.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[irix]

This is different how?

Apple is not a convicted monopolist.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[Verminator]

This is different because under Mac OS X, you can use any browser to purchase music from any site at any time. You're not compelled into using the iTMS (iTunes Music Store).

If you point IE for Mac (or Opera, OmniWeb, Safari, whatever) to Napster with the intent to purchase music, the Mac OS doesn't launch iTunes and stuff you back to the iTMS.

It's about leaving the decision up to the user. It's about not using the OS to redirect choice.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[AceCaseOR]

IIRC, the whole anti-trust suit against Microsoft thing got started during the Clinton Administration, when the DoJ was run by Reno, not Ashcroft.

Re:start run http://www.google.com

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a differerence between "default browser" and what is associated with *.htm* files.

That is EXACTALLY what your problem is.

IRC, torrents...

[Nadsat]

Who wants to shop for music anyway?

Re:is this anything new?

[Orion442]

For the 2 months I used XP, I got around that "problem" simply by deleting MSN Messenger's .exe file...it can't start what isn't there...

MS Coders Must be Dufuses

[moehoward]

The funny thing is that is not the only MS software that forces IE on you. There are others (especially in VS .NET).

And while I'm on the topic of IE being foisted upon me...

The only Web site that I have problems browsing is microsoft.com. Well, that and MSNBC.com. So much relies on IE. Why are MS coders in such a manic rush to make themselves look so stupid? "Uh, we only know how to write code for IE." I can view multimedia content at every news site except MSNBC, which requires IE and related crap.

OK. Yes. I know why they do it. But, my god. Pick some other way to annoy people in to using your products. That, or actually release a browser that is as good as Firebird. Firebird is in freaking Alpha and it's better than a 10 year old IE. Innovation my ass.

Re:Cry me a tune...

[Jake73]

Actually, in a sense I am being forced to. You see, the software I use is only available under Windows (a lot of CAD software and what not). Microsoft's monopoly position has driven the market into a situation where software vendors much support Windows in order to get users and users must use Wnidows in order to get software. Now, all of -my company's- software is written cross platform with wxWindows because it is a no-brainer -- MFC? wxWindows?

But the simple fact is, if I want to make a living, I have to use and support Windows. You could argue that well, just have an unsuccessful business and live poor. You'd be right. I could just live poor.

Re: "Microsoft agrees to stop hijacking music"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dump their DMA riddles..

i8237: Before I'll transfer data for thee, answer me these riddles three.

i8237: What is the bus cycle time of an i8080 in minimum mode?

User: What? I don't know that! Just transfer my damn data!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Does media understand?

[gr8_phk]

Do the RIAA and MPAA understand that MS wants to become the middle-man? Whoever controls the keys to DRM would effectively be the funnel through which all protected content must flow. Witness XBox and other consoles business models. I suspect these two organizations are aware of this, but haven't got the technical ability to produce an alternative. At least they're running with Apple on the music side - probably find them less threatening than MS. I suppose this is slightly off-topic :-)

IE defaults

[sasca]

I'm actually suprised by this - M$ has a long history of choosing defaults for me that I don't want.

Now if only they could ship Windows with the "Launch every application in an Internet Explorer Window" turned off by default. I just _love_ having an excel spreadsheet open up in explorer instead of Excel.

btw, you can turn this off for any file type, see http://ask-leo.com/archives/000041.html for instructions.

Why should MS have to change?

[mj2k]

First of all I don't like MS's approach to software development (particularly the activation garbage you have to go through now) but I don't see that anyone has a right to force MS to stop using IE (yeah they technically weren't forced but the lawsuit threat initiated their response). Take Apple for example - practically everthing on a Mac is proprietary Apple software and you don't see the Mac people going ballistic over it. Forcing MS to make changes to their OS for anything other than privacy violations/blatant security holes isn't right. To illustrate the absurdity of the DOJ policy consider this: I do some scientific programming myself and I usually use the excel plugins for C to generate tables/graphs - if MS is forced to change their OS why shouldn't someone be able to force me to write a program in such away as to force me to generate charts using openoffice/staroffice or even Corel's wordperfect suite? If people don't like MS's software change to linux/freeBSD/MacOS where you can do whatever you want - it just isn't equitable to MS to force them to change stuff in their OS just because a group of people dislike IE (for gosh sakes if you didn't like MS why would you spend the $100+ to use their software?).

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[hoggoth]

> practically everthing on a Mac is proprietary Apple software

> why shouldn't someone be able to force me to write a program in such away

Because neither Apple nor YOU are monopolies.

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[Maarek_1]

First off, Apple does not hold over 90% of the desktop market. If it wants to be propriatary it isn't killing competition. When MS does it however, they manage to lock out other companies from the 90+% of the market that they are targeting. The fact of the matter is this, if MS continues to use no-complient HTML in their browser and also continues to forces the use their IE browser in windows, then people can't choose to use linux/free BSD/Mac OS unless they use a MS based browser (which they don't always keep updated). "Why?", you ask, because if 90% of the people use one OS with one browser, then many sites will be written to comply to that non-complient code and you get the errors that we see today: "This Page Requires I.E. 6.0 to view." Then you no longer base your choice on preference, but on the ability of the other browsers to function (since the DMCA causes problems with trying to emulate functionality).

And that is why it is bad for MS to be allowed to force their Browser upon their Windows XP.

I could be wrong however.

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[nolife]

why shouldn't someone be able to force me to write a program in such away as to force me to generate charts

The rules are different when a court determines your business is a monopoly. This change would not have happened if that was not the case.

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[calyphus]

practically everthing on a Mac is proprietary Apple software and you don't see the Mac people going ballistic over it

Mac users have options, and unlike IE, Mac browsers actually follow standards.

Your plugins for Excel example is off the point. When it comes to MS forcing its browser on users, the problem is that they are trying to defeat and close open standards. The WWW was never supposed to require any platform. It is supposed to be an Open Standard. Everytime some lazy coder caters to the anti-standard functions of MS tech, the universality of the web shrinks. If MS actually followed web standards, browser detection could be a thing of the past. They continue to require developers to cater to their crap. Through their quirks they've usurped the universal, open nature of the web and mad significant portions of it closed to anyone not choosing their crap platform.

MS should have to change to adapt to the world, not the world adapt to MS. Picture a four-lane highway. Some Canyonero driver is straddling the line, forcing traffic to stay behind it. The road was built for two lanes of traffic going in each direction. A standard was established, but one driver, just because he can, keeps it from working as designed. Shouldn't the cops get that driver off the road?

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their is legally nothing wrong with having a monopoly in any given segment of the market. It is however illegal to use such a monopoly to prevent others from competing in the same market segment (contractual limits, threats, etc.).

Apple has never been found to be guilt of being monopolistic however MS has.

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[nolife]

I have a Sprint cell phone and If I want to use it, I must subscribe to Sprint cellular service, that does not imply Sprint has a monopoly on cell phones and cell service.

Apple does not have anything close to a monopoly with online music sales. Popularity is not directly related to monopoly. You are free to use any online music store you want and nothing currently prevents that. If Apple had exclusive rights with the RIAA and was the only provider of online music I might agree with you.

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[Transcendent]

The fact of the matter is this, if MS continues to use no-complient HTML in their browser and also continues to forces the use their IE browser in windows, then people can't choose to use linux/free BSD/Mac OS unless they use a MS based browser (which they don't always keep updated).

I'm sorry, but IE does use "complient HTML", it just adds some special features to certian things (mainly CSS). All browers have their own DDT built into them for HTML... this allows them to recognise the tags that people throw at it. If your browser doesn't have a current DDT, or can't recognise when someone declares a different, publicly available DDT (read up on XML), then it's the browsers fault for not being compliant.

Just because a lot of people chose to use these special little features that MS has graciously given to the web community (frankly, I like most of the things they've proposed to the w3c) doesn't mean you should burn MS. Just blame the people who wrote the damn website.

Not to worry, though. XML *should* solve this problem. So next time you come across a website that says "blah blah 6.0 required", just think to yourself "Well... why the hell aren't they using xhtml 1.0?"

Re:Why should MS have to change?

[rjshields]

Mac users have options, and unlike IE, Mac browsers actually follow standards.

That's not true. IE fully supports XHTML 1.0 in its various guises, CSS1 and DOM level 1. Every browser vendor without exception introduce their own enhancements to the W3C peanut gallery recommendations. If you want to blame someone, blame the web developers who know no better than use IE's proprietory APIs and extensions.

Change which browser you use...

[Otto]

Or at least which browser you claim to use.

Just add this to your user.js file (create the file in the same dir as prefs.js if it doesn't exist yet):

user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)");

That'll fake it so the site thinks you're using IE 6 on an XP box. Usually, unless the site has something really extraordinary on it, it'll work reasonably okay anyway.

Re:Change which browser you use...

[anti-trojan]

Exactly. And an even better solution is to use PrefBar. It is small, not intrusive (Press F8 to show or hide it) and very convenient.

You can change the user-agent, remove flash animations, turn on/off images etc. Give it a try...

Re:Change which browser you use...

[Otto]

This doesn't "fake" anything. It changes the actual value within mozilla which is obviously used for other things. Who knows what all will break when you do this. I know for a fact that plugins will break and the "help->about" page breaks. You don't want to change this value just to trick a site because you will end up having to reinstall. And no, removing the file does not make things go back to like they were before. There is no feature to "fake" the user-agent request header within mozilla.

Why would it be used for other things? It's the USER-AGENT string. All it does is get sent out on every HTTP request as part of the header. It has no other real function.

And it works perfectly fine for me. Several Mozilla based browsers even expose "general.useragent.override" in their preferences dialog, allowing you to change it to whatever you please without having to edit a text file directly. It's a widely known and used modification for Mozilla.

And yes, removing it makes things go exactly back where they were before. I've done it on mine, I've removed it, it simply works. You really haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about, do you? If you broke your installation, then you did it some other way, that's for sure.

Re:Cry me a tune...

[SpaceRook]

If you don't like MS's products DON'T USE THEM. No one is forcing you.

If you had RTFA, you would have noticed that yes, Microsoft is indeed forcing you to use their software when you use the Shop For Music feature (whatever the fook "Shop For Music" is...I'll be damned if I ever click on "Shop For X" links that come preinstalled in my web browsers or Microsoft OS'es).

Don't be a prat - or a troll

[aug24]

All non-niche desktop software companies (which is 99% of them) need to offer their products on MS OSs or they will fail. That's cos MS has, what, 90% market share on desktops.

The deal with forcing them to allow OEMs to install software that they believe users want (like Moz with popup killing before the recent SP) is because they were using that market share to squeeze out competition - this is called 'ABUSE OF A MONOPOLY' and so they lost the case.

If you want to stop a monopoly abuser, you simply can't do it by persuading people to shop elsewhere: that's why there are laws for this.

You're just naive and I'm tired of hearing this shit.

Justin.

And CD burning software?

[Ubi_NL]

How about this:

Drag a link of EasyCDcreator to the SENDTO folder.
Now use the SendTo link to Burn some files.
Watch MS-CDburner fire up

Maybe I'm changing.....

[preclose]

I used to look at this sort of thing and be glad MS was changing or doing something right for a change. But lately I can't help but but enjoy when Microsoft screws people. The reason is that there are so many people I know of who claim MS sucks and whatnot. Yet these same people are unwilling to try the alternatives. I hope there are more worms that attack windows. I hope people have to call Microsoft and wait on hold for 2 hours to activate a product they purchased legally. I'm glad MS removed support for win 98. The only way to get through to people is to hit them. So rather than try to stop MS from doing it I'll stand in the corner and laugh. I guess I'm beginning to believe that legal intervention won't change things. The only way for things to change is to let people get screwed by MS enough times (30-40 roughly) then they may begin to start to see some of the problems so many /.ers have with MS. Then they'll either try a new OS or they'll keep bitching and just keep on taking it. (In my experience people tend to do the later) People will get what they deserve.....maybe that's a bad way to look at it but oh well....I'm tired of waiting on hold to explain why I have to reinstall my wintendo again.

Its not -just- coolness, though ...

[torpor]

... I mean, a lot of the computer scientists who work for Microsoft very definitely have an agenda and if its not so much of a social agenda, I don't know what it is.

It is naive to think that computing sciences is stagnant or not going anywhere, because it is: in big ways, and small ways, and all kinds of ways. Moores law, and the fundamental principles of computer science, all lead to a heck of a lot more advances in very short periods of time, in ways which fundamentally change our culture. Look at the cultural/technological shift from 1994 to 2004, 10 short years of Internet acceptance in modern society, for example.

Microsoft know this - the core 'knowledge pool' of the company know this. Heck, grand new order thinking, such as PDA-style computing, has been in design and a tangible target in many corporations strategic agenda's for years; the ideal of ubiquitous computers is at least 50 years old.

Microsoft are playing big games. They want to be the ones who turn on the worlds largest computing system, defining the standards for such a beast, and it is this factor that drives the company's strategies of acquisition in technologically compelling competitors ...

Breaks for IE standards adopters?

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

The only Web site that I have problems browsing is microsoft.com. Well, that and MSNBC.com. So much relies on IE. Why are MS coders in such a manic rush to make themselves look so stupid? "Uh, we only know how to write code for IE." I can view multimedia content at every news site except MSNBC, which requires IE and related crap.

I use Mozilla most of the time, but some sites that I need only use IE (like banking, etc.),i.e. I must use IE frequently, which really sucks.

Makes me wonder if M$ has deals with certain large companies to code for IE on purpose, for instance 10% off on XP purchases if your websites rely on IE, etc.

Re:What about windows media player ?

[queen of everything]

Don't use windows media player? There were lots of other choices out there, last time I checked.

Re:Cry me a tune...

[Zathrus]

No one is forcing you.

Actually, yes they are. Numerous companies require the use of Windows. Many companies have legacy programs that run on x86 under Windows (or DOS) which are not easily or affordably moved to other platforms.

If your product is viable it will sell just as well on Apple...or...*gasp* an open source platform.

Read as -- if you have a monopoly on your market and can force your customers to bend to your whim then you can do whatever the hell you want. Otherwise you're going to kiss your ass goodbye if you move off of the platform that >90% of the world uses.

What's next? Coke is going to sue Pepsi for not allowing them to store their beverages in Pepsi equipment? GM is going to sue ford for not having standard brakes?

Neither Pepsi nor Ford have a monopoly in their markets. Microsoft does.

For some reason in the realm of software both consumers and developers think they are entitled to whatever they want.

Yeah, I never would've thought that changing my default web browser might actually mean that. How foolish of me! I mean, I actually dared to use a product that competes with Microsoft -- clearly Microsoft shouldn't allow me to do that. I'm surprised they haven't had my systems format themselves too.

No other market works that way.

Damn right. I mean, it's absurd to think that you can buy your own phone and use it. Simply rent this nice rotary dial phone from AT&T for a mere $6/mo. If you use another phone, we won't guarantee that you'll be able to place all of your calls, or that it'll work all the time. After all, it's our network and you'll just have to do things our way. If you don't like that, feel free to use something other than the telephone system. The US Postal Service is happy to deliver.

By refusing to stop using Microsoft products and just suing them...they prolong microsoft.

And some people find that they just happen to like using MS OS's because they just happen to like the software available on them. That doesn't mean they like everything else MS produces. Why does using one mean you have to use the other? Particularly when there are alleged interfaces for not doing so?

It's called playing fair. MS hasn't been doing it for well over a decade, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying to make them do so.

Just once...

[phillymjs]

..I'd like Microsoft to have to admit to wrongdoing when they stop doing something wrong.

This "We didn't do it, and we promise to never do it again" shit is getting old.

~Philly

worse overall impact

[mattdm]

If you do this, *please* make sure to e-mail the maintainers of the website. Tell them you use Mozilla, and what you had to do -- and whether or not their site actually *does* work with standards.

Otherwise, the fake user agent string just continues to tell them "everyone uses IE anyway, so we're doing the right thing by ignoring those losers".

Re:start run http://www.google.com

[nickyj]

Now only if I can get Outlook to open links with mozilla.

I hate cutting and pasting, or heaven's forebid that I click on it and launch IE!

Same for Images

[wyluli]

If you install a image viewer like ACDSee all your images are still opened with Windows Image Viewer, EVEN THOUGH if you go into properties of the image it shows, Opens with: ACDSee Click Change, Click ACDSee again and it will then open that type of file format with ACDSee and not Windows Image Viewer. Very Very Annoying

Do you really think they would admit guilt?

[MadAnthony02]

Why would they admit doing something illegal if they don't have to? Why would a company risk getting sued or fined for doing something if they don't have to?

This is the way the legal system, plea bargins, ect work. Both sides end up getting something that's better than the alternative if the other side wins - the DOJ gets what they want, and MS doesn't lose a bunch of money. Both sides would rather have the certainty of that outcome than a partial chance of total victory.

What OS feature?

[87C751]

A quick look at my XP testing box shows no such "Shop For Music Online" feature anywhere, even in folders with music files. This is a Windows Media Player-installed shell extension, isn't it?

"You won't know where applications end and the operating system begins." Ick!

The reality ...

[jotaeleemeese]

... is that what you think about MS behaviour is irrelevant. MS was convicted for abusing its monopoly and that is the end of it.

If your building was the only one in town and you smashed down the rest of them with threats until the only building standing was yours, somebody would have to make sure you are punished as appropriate. A punishment in which you have to change the doors, the chairs or whateve would be just an slap on the wrist since actually you get to keep the building.

You surely would get mad, but the purpose of the legal system is not to please companies that have broken the law.

Breaking the law

[RahoulB]

It's not the fact that they're a monopoly - it's a remedy for them previously ABUSING their monopoly position. Apple doesn't have a monopoly position to abuse.

It's like ruling that a burglar is not allowed to carry a crowbar in the street and the burglar's riposte being "I should be allowed to carry whatever I want". Well, ordinarily you can, but you broke the law and this is the remedy to prevent you doing it again.

MS programs well; they lack a cultural insight

[mactari]

For all you that think MS coders are idiots, no, they're not. Look, from a programming standpoint, wouldn't you rather be calling an API from a controller environment that you *know* works that hoping a third-party library works the way it's "supposed to"? You'd better. One might nearly rightly complain I'm showing some of the "ferocious Not Invented Here complex", but there's some reasoning behind the madness. If you want your program to work right, you use what is, in your opinion, the most reliable means to make that happen.

But before you rightfully flame me out of existence, what MS has to understand is that they're not in a position to "do things right" here. There are cultural reasons -- not programming/techincal ones -- that they have to keep in mind. They've been, with reason, found to have leveraged their vast dominance over the desktop OS market into the Internet browser market as well. That's unfair. MS *has* to open up their apps to allow a user's choice or they're, once again, arguably illegally abusing monopoly status.

The lesson here, and it's what most everyone not calling MS hackers a bunch of idiots (which they obviously aren't. I've never seen a better set of ideas come from one company -- at least before they're run though the MS Profit Maximization Machine, (c) 198x) is arguing, whether they know it or not: These cultural lessons aren't being taught to their programmers. Here, MS is culpable, and the people responsible should be held accountable.

How about a RECALL of all Windows XP systems?

[Locutus]

Even though XP is not flying off the shelves, alot of damage is already done. Notice this is an optional download and not a required patch/fix. No fines or penalties were brought against them, just a "you have to stop that from now on". They can probably bury the patch and obfuscate the name so nobody ever installs it. This is the same practice that killed of the browser competition. Too little, too late...

IMHO, they should be required to recall all XP boxes and pay for a qualified technician to install the patch. If anything breaks, Microsoft again pays the bill of fixing it.

Microsoft was found guilty of a federal crime and agreed to abid by the terms of a settlement. This shows that they can break the terms of the settlement and just get a verbal scolding. Exactly the reason why they needed to get busted into tiny pieces. IMHO.

BTW, don't you just love that stuff Microsoft is spewing about how Apple is limiting choice in online music? And how Microsoft is all about choice. These guys lyed on the stand and they have no problem lying to the public, press, investors, etc.

LoB

OH MY GOD!

[inteller]

People are making a big deal over THIS!?!?!?!?! If you are so stupid that the only way to find music for sale online is by following this link then you need to be banned for computers. I had to hunt high and low before I found this very obscure link. If you are so fucking upset that your preferred browser doesnt load this stupid link, you need to step away from the computer and get a life. Is this the best FUD you can come up with against Microsoft these days? this isn't a flame....this is the motherfucking truth.

Whats wrong with IE?

[SnprBoB86]

Am I the only one who has never had a single problem with IE?

It has a decent feature set, it renders fairly complex sites very quickly and it supports the largest range of web pages.

My only major greivence with it is the ease at which you can mistakenly install an Active X control (which is being addressed with XP service pack 2). Security flaws aren't even a big deal because I do windows updates weekly. Not to mention Microsoft is going to offer automatic windows updates in the near future.

To be quite honest with you, the biggest shortcoming with IE is that it hasn't been fully developed as far as integration with Windows. So much more than the file system and web pages could benifit from the whole browser paradigm (for example, enhanced FTP support), but explorer and IE have a sense of disconnectedness that makes me open a new instance of IE even when I am at a windows explorer window and that bothers me.