Slashdot Mirror
EC Considering Removing Internet Explorer From Windows
Itsabouttime writes "In a preliminary ruling, the European Commission told Microsoft that linking Internet Explorer to its dominant Windows operating system violates EC rules. The EC's ruling was triggered by a complaint from IE rival Opera. Microsoft could seek to offer a Windows version without IE, as it did in the EC's 2004 ruling on Windows Media Player."
Let's look at the facts:
the EC said tying Internet Explorer with Windows provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage
That's stating the obvious.
Now check out the timeline on this procedure. Microsoft was accused of tying Windows Media Player to Windows in 2004. That's what the current case is based on.
According to a Microsoft spokesperson:
Under EU procedure, the European Commission will not make a final determination until after it receives and assesses Microsoftâ(TM)s response
In other words, expect this to last another few years before anything happens. By then, Internet Explorer will have been renamed Windows 8 and Microsoft will argue that the lawsuit is moot. Do consumers win? Lawyers do, that's for sure. Slow justice is no justice.
Expect Microsoft to offer to ship a version of Windows without any web browser. So you won't be able to download firefox either!
--
FairSoftware.net -- where geeks are their own boss
Last time they did this over the "media player", after months of laywers and stuff, Microsoft finally agreed to come out with a version of the OS which lacked the Media player.
And the verdict?
Nobody wanted it.
If you don't want IE, do what I do. Just don't run it.
How am I supposed to download Firefox then?!!? FTP? c'mon!
how long until
Windows can load whatever it wants on to their Operating Systems. What right does anyone else have to tell them what they can and cannot load? If someone else want's to use Opera, have them download it. It's not like Microsoft is stopping you from doing it.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
and while we're at it, fuck EC too.
I would be very interested to see how Microsoft would go about even trying to remove IE. At best I would think they could extract the GUI wrapper for the engine that most people call "IE"... but the core rendering engine is required for many other components such as the help system for example. Being forced to remove the rendering engine from Windows would be like taking out the bottom brick in Jenga.
Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
Then how would I download firefox?
Does that violate EC rules too?
WTF good is an OS that comes without some way to get things from the net. Can't even grab a new browser easily from a clean install. Not everyone has 10 copies of firefox laying around.
Damm. its not like you have to use IE more than once. WTF is the problem EU...
It's strangely comforting that humans in Europe can be just as clueless as the inbreds here in North America..
But this is seriously a little ridiculous. And really, what will this accomplish? The OEM's would just put Internet Explorer on anyway since that's what most people are going to be expecting.
IE was a massive money pit for Microsoft, and its only purpose was to protect Windows as the dominant application platform. It worked.
But with the rise of Web 2.0 and hand helds like Blackberry and iPhone, Windows is no longer the dominant application platform -- no one is actually building applications for Windows anymore, as far as startups are concerned, it's a "dead" platform.
Therefore whether Windows ships with IE or not is now moot. No one (with the exception of Opera) is trying to make money that way anymore. That ship has sailed.
The immediate problem there: how on earth is one supposed to acquire another browser without a browser? The browser is a major component of all desktop OS distributions today, so I don't see why it should be unbundled from Windows. True, it may be crap, but at least I can use it to download and alternative.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, not by a longshot, but the EU is just being stupid.
If the EU goes after Microsoft for including a browser, then they must go after Apple for bundling Safari with OS X, KDE for bundling Konqueror, and so forth.
*Any* operating system needs a browser to run. The internet is an indispensable part of any computing experience.
Microsoft is losing its monopoly on consumer operating systems, and has already lost its monopoly on browsers.
This space left intentionally blank.
It'd be a a lot simplier and more effective, rigth?
Next we'll have the makers of FTP programs whining to the courts for MS to remove all FTP capabilities from windows.
I am frankly shocked and disgusted that Microsoft wants IE to be shipped with their operating system. They have a huge market advantage, as consumers overwhelmingly choose to buy Microsoft over Linux or anything else for whatever reason.
I demand that defrag, the default media player, debug and administration utilities, calculator, MS Paint, wordpad and notepad, the unzip utility, the cd burning utility, and any and all default drivers be stripped from Windows distributions to create a more even, more egalitarian, more democratic playing field.
Last i heard IE was a core component in the GUI subsystem of windows..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This makes no sense. Even Linux computers file-system browsers (e.g., konqueror) are sometimes browsers. Microsoft has integrated "Explorer" (explorer.exe) to be both a filesystem and web browser. Microsoft has also, by now, made it relatively easy to not use Internet Explorer, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc., at all. It's easy to change the program defaults.
According to wikipedia, IE has about 68% of the browser "market" share (odd to call it a "market" since they are typically free pieces of software). That other 32% is distributed amongst Firefox (large percentage, 20-something %) and Chrome/Safari/Opera/etc.
So what's the deal? So what if people are lazy and don't look for an alternative?
As an aside, I wonder if the EC distinguishes Microsoft's versions of Windows? Or is it that Microsoft itself isn't allowed to provide this or that software with their OS? What about the calculator that comes by default, isn't that an unfair monopoly to CalculatorMakerCompany2000 (TM) who wants to get into the computer based calculator market?
As one poster said... this makes lawyers happy. That's about it. For the rest of us, we already know how to use Firefox instead of IE.
Without IE on the CD, how will I download my alternative browser of choice? 99% of the times I install Windows, the first thing I do (after patching) is hit getfirefox.com.
Or are they planning on forcing MS to package installers for Opera, Safari, Firefox, Flock, etc. on the CD? Couldn't this backfire on the alternatives since they're updated a lot more frequently than MS prints new OEM/Retail versions of Windows? Or will Billy Bob even notice that his version of Firefox is over a year out-of-date when he gets his shiny copy of Windows 7?
This would also put additional strain on OEM call centers when their users can't figure out how to work a non-IE browser. More training for staff = bigger operating budget. Sad but true.
Insert Sig Here
They must be! They just don't like us PCs!
Without a media player and IE, how the hell do you listen to music or surf the net?!
Someone tell EC to stfu already. o3o
If I were Microsoft I would simply stop licensing Windows for any computer sold in Europe. Why screw around anymore - if people are not smart enough to go out and download a browser of their choice why should the company go through any more time or hassle. This should bring computer sales to a screeching halt until software companies can manage to offer anywhere close to the depth of software that is available for Windows. I figure two or three years anyway. The really interesting part is that this is based on Opera whining. Opera is what? Number 4 in the browser market? Next up they will be whining that Google has to be shut down so they can try to out do Chrome.
Apple bundles iTunes, Safari, Mac Mail, iChat and Quicktime with OS X.
But nobody complains.
If Microsoft can't bundle those apps, nobody else should be able to either.
I'll take these kind of actions seriously when: .doc format anymore (although with OO this is less of a problem)
- I don't need the Media Player for listening to state sponsored radio programs or television shows.
- Local governments don't rely on the
- All government sites run fine in standard compliant browsers
- Applications (like tax applications) are available for a freely available operating system at the same time as Windows
- Schools are pushed to learn people IT skills, not Microsoft skills
- Government and semi-government rely less on Microsoft only products and stops buying billions worth of licensing from Microsoft
Currently it feels like they are slapping Microsoft with one hand while feeding it with another. OK, since the slapping probably also means that Microsoft has to give some money back, it makes a slight bit of sense. But currently it is not a nice situation at all.
At least my bank and the public transport sector are platform independent, so we're getting to our money and somewhere.
Technical impossibility is a non-argument. Strip out perhaps only the most visible things (like the executable). Make it a free, largely advertised download. Just as Opera/Firefox/Chrome. It *does* matter a lot because OEM/developpers/whoever will *not* assume that IE exists by default. However easy it is for it to be installed back. The whole point is that the *user* has to *explicitely choose* MSIE over the competition. That makes a whole lot of difference. Obviously you should not let OEM choose - MS has too much leverage there, as the WMP fiasco has proven.
what i dont understand is why Windows Update requires activeX & Internet Explorer, it should be just a dialog box that only connects to Windows Update independent of any browser, i have not used ms-windows in a long long time but i assume Windows Update works the same (through IE) maybe microsoft's way of making sure IE a necessary & integral part of the OS...
i thank the GNU/gods that Linux rescued me from such a kludge of an OS (windows) many years ago...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It is is nearly all Microsoft applications such as Outlook and MS Word. Many developers outside of Microsoft also depend on MSIE for rendering functions. It's a difficult problem to resolve I should think.
I mean, since a free product stops people from looking for alternatives, everyone will switch to Linux, right?
they want their antitrust claim back.
Seriously, Firefox is up to more than 20% marketshare. IE doesn't have a monopoly.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
You've got mail!
What's a Sig?
The European Commission told Microsoft that linking Internet Explorer to its dominant Windows operating system violates EC rules...Microsoft could seek to offer a Windows version without IE
I think people are taking this the wrong way. They shouldn't provide a version of windows without IE, a browser is a necessary part of any operating system and they have the right to plug their own choice first. What they don't have the right to do is link it so closely to the system that you cannot remove it, no matter how hard you try.
You can remove the links, and try to make every application use another browser, but it always finds a way to popup. In true slashdot style I haven't RTFA.
Who need's speling and grammar?
To get Opera (or Firefox) you will first have to use windows update to download Internet Explorer. Doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose.
Yes, it is. This is precisely why we want it unbundled. So, that Microsoft must open up its "non standards-compliant" APIs so that other browsers can have the same website experience across the board,
I mean, since a free product stops people from looking for alternatives, everyone will switch to Linux, right?
For a given value of 'year'
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
They were convicted in the US
This is a lie and it's untrue. Please go educate yourself - Microsoft wasn't "convicted" of anything.
What I don't understand is how the EU is letting Microsoft monopolize the TCP/IP stack. Certainly they've been doing it for some time, but at one point there was healthy competition.
Where is trumpet/netmanage/intercon/novell today? Gone! (well, largely). If we don't protect 3rd party tcp/ip stacks... oh, wait, nevermind.
First IE, then explorer.exe (including explorer.exe is killing the market for 3r party shells...)
[yeah, microsoft certainly acts like dickwads, but the solutions offered don't seem all that appealing]
seriously, what next? any application that does more than one thing can be said to be bundling and anticompetitive? is wordpad, ms paint, and and ms calculator anti competitive? mac widgets and much of the software that comes with mac is anticompetitive? including things like cd players in cars instead of letting consumers add their own later is anti competitive? this is ridiculous. unless microsoft prevents you from installing a replacement then giving the consumer bundled features is not something you should fine a company for, it is patently absurd. it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of tech, and is frankly patronizing attitude to users. you might as well claim that bundling a gui is anti competitive if you want to get silly about this.
I'm European but I say enough with this crap. I have used FireFox as my primary browser ever since the very first stable version came out and like me many others. I'm sure most of you use FF or Opera. An OS needs to have a browser... imagine buy a new PC with Windows and not having a browser? How are you going to download FF or any other browser? Go out and buy a disk? Impractical. Have one already? Maybe, but not necessarily so. Frankly it doesn't bother me that Microsoft provides a browser with its O.S. This is not 1998, this is 2009 and in 2009 most everyone needs a browser right away. Those who don't like IE can use a different browser and many do. Why is the E.U. not attacking Apple? I don't think MacOS comes with IE or FF or Opera. It would maybe be smarter on the E.U. to say: "Ok, you need to provide at least another browser with your OS" but then we would see a war among those companies who want their browser to be represented, and why should the E.U. decide what goes into MY O.S. ?
Windows needs a package manager that works. An installation system that is secure and works. I could go on and on.
Furthermore, old programs that called upon IE's engine (Quicken, McAfee to name a few) need to run in a special mode that is secured from the rest of the OS. HTAs and anything else directly reliant upon IE or the engine need to do the same. IE and Windows Explorer are tightly linked (contrary to popular belief). Remove one and you may have functionality but not full functionality.
The biggest reason why Windows sucks when it comes to security and stability: backward compatibility. This is a major reason why Microsoft (and probably many of its customers) would like to see IE stay included. I, too, like being able to run Windows 3.1 games on XP or Vista. But the size of the WinSxS (the folder with multiple versions of each DLL which all happen to have the same name stupidly) is huge, and for security reasons this is NOT worth it. This also could have been prevented. Make the number on the DLL file longer and change it with every major revision. This is exactly what happens with .so files on *nix.
The other problem is the great number of sites made for IE. Active sites like this need to be updated or be rejected by their users. Inactive sites are handled decently with WebKit or Gecko but they still exist and should be viewed correctly WITHOUT the need for IE.
By eliminating the most egregious and dangerous part of the Windows Operating System, you will probably get them EVEN MORE market share. I'm not really sure this is a good or a bad thing.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I use TinyXP all the time (it's a pirate version of Windows, eliminates a lot of the stupid bloat), and it comes without IE, there's an option to install it or not. I always opt for NOT. Firefox baby!!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
What is to stop other companies from claiming Microsoft has too much market share in:
- Text file editing programs
- Disk defraging utilities
- Solitaire card games
If I develop one of these kinds of programs, I am at an obvious disadvantage to Microsoft. They have unfairly bundled these programs with the OS.
Anti-trust laws are in place to keep corporations from screwing the consumer by keeping prices and such down when there's no competition. That's why mergers are looked at so closely and why the Sirius-XM merger was almost cockblocked. They were afraid that the prices would go through the roof because they were the only two satellite radio companies and their merger would end all competition.
Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows is not an anti-trust matter. Where is the harm to the consumer? I don't see any. In fact, removing Internet Explorer from Windows would be a burden to the consumer. Even though I'm an experienced Windows user, I didn't even know it came with built-in FTP support, let alone would I know how to use it. What the fuck is Opera trying to pull here? Anybody who uses Internet Explorer anyway would just get it from Microsoft's site. Does Opera think they will gain more market share? NOBODY HAS EVEN HEARD OF OPERA. To be honest, Opera is just alienating their potential users by coming up with this retarded lawsuit which will harm consumers more than it helps their market share.
Wrong. Because most people assume windows is free since it came with their computer.
From my experience, the only people who actually "purchase" Windows off a shelf are businesses and people who build custom gaming rigs.
In my opinion there is a high degree of rediculousness behind this whole story.
Where is the border between something being a part of an OS and things that aren't? Next thing will be for them to want Microsoft to remove the Text editor, the file manager, the GUI and the Image Viewer from Windows, leaving you with a command prompt when you install it.
I mean, as much as I dislike using Windows, putting myself in the position of a "I don't know anything about computers and don't really care to learn, I just want them to work." type person, I'd feel really pissed off about not having a browser installed on my system when I buy it. I, as a Linux user, like to choose what is on my system though. =)
Anyway, I think what the EC should do instead of making Microsoft remove IE from its OS is to start a campaign to advertise alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome...etc). Has there been a similar suit against Macintosh?
Assuming that IE will be removed, will it be little more than :
del "%Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe"
in Windows........
Would you basement dwellers get a real job so you have enough money to Pay Attention.
It is not about BUNDLING - placing IE icon on the desktop. Never has been.
It is about CO-MINGLING the code such that only IE is the "brower".
Removing the icon is not removing the code.
If you want a lawyers point of view got read http://www.lamlaw.com/
He explains it very pointedly.
They could offer Windows with no browser at all--just an icon labeled "Internet" that brings up a list of browser download buttons with all major browsers there, including Opera, and Opera is still going to tank.
You can see this just by considering their share on other platforms, where they have not had to put up with IE coming with the OS.
Indeed, they were convicted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Without a web browser, it seems like it'd be a lot more difficult to install other browsers.
1. Running web version of Windows Update.
2. Obtaining a replacement browser such as Firefox or Opera. (IE has more security holes than Swiss Cheese)
3. Accessing parts of Microsoft's web site that don't work in Firefox or Opera (I wonder why)
Did you bother to read what you blindly linked? Microsoft wasn't convicted of anything, and you assholes keep repeating the same nonsense and using the even more laughable phrase "convicted monopolist".
It doesn't matter. Most of the APIs and structures are pretty much documented already (you can read the documentation from an implementor's perspective), but we aren't talking about some small utility here, we are talking about something so large and complex that there is no realistic chance of anyone else bothering to implement it.
The underlying IE framework that so many third party applications use (and it's not just for displaying HTML) is going to have to remain in Windows (or be offered as an optional download through Windows Update), there is no way around it.
No PC retailer would dream of selling a PC without a browser. PC retailers are quite capable of choosing appropriate browsers and installing them without microsoft's help.
Let's look at this logically. You buy a laptop from Dell or HP or Asus, and it comes preinstalled with Windows. Dell or HP or Asus have seen fit to include Firefox, Opera, Chrome or even Internet Explorer (as an add-on) so you can get onto the internet right away.
However, when you buy an OEM (with hard disk or motherboard) or retail copy (at Best Buy or so) of Windows, you get just Windows under this new ruling. How do you get out to the internet to download a new web browser like Opera, Firefox or Chrome?
Removing Windows Media Player is fair enough; you can live without a media player built in to the OS. You can go and download any one you choose online, because the OS came with a web browser. Removing tools like email clients, messenger clients etc. is fair enough, because you can go get them with a web browser.
But removing the web browser? It's impractical and requires end users to go through cruel and unusual steps (like finding another PC to download Firefox on, or ordering a copy of Firefox on CD (which you need an internet connection and web browser to do) or going all the way to a PC store to get a copy if they so do them..
Probably what Microsoft will end up doing is bundling OEM/Retail Windows copies with an Internet Explorer CD, or putting it in the "addons" directory of the DVD or something, which kind of defeats the object of the ruling at all, since you're required to install it to get any other web browser anyway..
people will buy this - just like they bought the windows version without mediaplayer...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
REDMOND, WASH: The public beta of Windows 9 isn't garnering good reviews.
Windows 8's removal of key services due to antitrust legislation infuriated longtime users. A rumored FTP application was announced scrapped, but that wasn't the least of it: on release, Wordpad, Notepad, Calculator, Minesweeper, Media Player, Paint, Sound Recorder, and virtually all Windows applications were removed due to antitrust issues brought up by several software companies.
Now, many users are running into issues. Steve Ballmer addressed them in a interview last week, saying that "bundling display drivers with Windows 9 could possibly create a monopoly situation. While we realize that booting into 9 with a black screen makes everyday applications relatively difficult, who is going to download the official drivers if the ones we give you work fine? Therefore, users will have to manually write their own drivers onto the hard disk. We have attempted to bundle a small magnet with each beta copy, but we quickly realized that would create an unfair situation in the toy magnet sector." The Windows 9 beta is therefore hard to recommend.
Ballmer noted in a follow up that "the existence of Windows itself" might possibly be infringing. This is dire news, as some software makers have ironically attempted to thwart antitrust rules by forming large monopolies then proceeding to buy national governments. The next version of America General Software Co's Generic Software Suite of Freedom goes on sale Tuesday.
IE and Windows Explorer are tightly linked (contrary to popular belief). Remove one and you may have functionality but not full functionality.
Yes. This is what happens when you componentise large pieces of software and try to re-use code where possible. Try deleting a few random files out of /lib and /usr/lib on a Linux machine one day and see what stops working.
The biggest reason why Windows sucks when it comes to security and stability: backward compatibility.
No. The biggest reasons it "sucks" with regards to "security" are the user demographic and prevalence. The biggest reason it "sucks" with regards to stability is poor hardware and worse drivers.
But the size of the WinSxS (the folder with multiple versions of each DLL which all happen to have the same name stupidly) is huge [...]
Most of the files in the winsxs directory are hard links to the "real" files in other parts of the filesystem. It might look "huge", but it's actual footprint is much smaller.
I have a great idea. Make it LAW throughout the EU that ALL computers, regardless of OS, must ship WITHOUT a browser, with an instruction sheet in bold letters that you find as soon as you open the box, like the warranty one that says, "Stop, do not return this to the point of sale if you have a problem," that reads, "Pursuant to EU law, this computer ships with no Internet browser. We recommend downloading the browser of your choice. Doing this when you don't already have a browser with which to do it is clearly obvious and left as an exercise for the reader. At [insert computer builder name here], your satisfaction is important to us."
I'm no fan of Microsoft's business practices, but this is a really stupid decision.
How much functionality are you going to require that they take out of their operating system? Next, will they have to strip out Notepad in order to make room for competing programs? Paint? Defrag? The clock?
You shouldn't punish a company for adding features to their software. Let other programs compete on merit - Firefox is doing just fine as it is.
if successful, this action will only complicate matters for end users. a manual windows update requires internet explorer. many web sites are still compatible with ie only. bottom line, users will have to install ie themselves. all this just so a e.u. company can make an extra buck.
Without IE, how are you going to download Opera/Firefox/Safari, or even IE it's self?
the issue is not the web browsing feature budled in windows. the issue is microsoft's setting the internet standards on their own and making sure everyone can follow with minimal effort, of being forced to follow those standards or risk being unable to market your products on the web. the issue is having to play (and pay) by ms rules to stay in business.
If a fresh Windows install didn't have IE, what would you use to download Firefox? You'd end up having to use another computer to download the browser. Hope you've got a USB mass storage device with some free space on it!
Don't get me wrong, I think Microsoft has in the past done some improper things with IE, e.g., integrating it with the file manager, making it preload when the OS started, making Windows Update only work with IE, that sort of thing. I'd be glad to see regulatory bodies tell them they can't pull those sorts of schenanighans.
But I think the era when an operating system that does not include a web browser out of the box is a good idea is pretty well gone. The web browser is the primary tool that you use to retrieve and install software, including third party software. So there really needs to be one included out of the box, so that you can do that. Otherwise you've got a chicken-and-egg problem.
Why do you think CPAN.pm is included with the standard Perl distribution, even though there are various alternatives, some of which are widely considered better? I mean, do I really need CPAN.pm if I want to use CPANPLUS instead? Oh, wait, I actually kind of do, because I would use CPAN.pm to retrieve and install CPANPLUS initially.
(Yes, I know, you could theoretically order Firefox on a CD or, if you know what you're doing, use the extremely limited command-line ftp client that, last I checked, still comes with Windows. But these are not the usual approach. The usual approach is to use the bundled web browser, until you download a different one.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
...because it competes with Linux.
The problem becomes, when microsoft remove IE and leave it up to the Manufacturers, the browser of choice goes to the highest bidder, which if you've bought a new computer at anytime, is AOL x.y;
If it comes with out IE, how will you find the FTP server to download it from?
Honestly, it's much easier to just never use IE again after Opera is downloaded.
Not to mention that IE can't be removed because explorer and IE are like the same thing, or at least in XP.
Though if Opera is doing this as a way of getting IE to become standards compliant, it's great. Actually, come to think of it, IE8 is Acid2 compliant (somtimes).
I can see it now... *EC Considering Removing Notepad from Windows Based on Monopoly Claims*
What a pointless move. Internet Explorer is not much more than a thin interface between the user and the system libraries that render HTML and would need to remain in place for the system to function properly (note: a number of menus and dialogs, as well as folder views and some other bits of the Windows UI are actually rendered fragments of HTML). This means that any attempt to remove IE from the system will result in the iexplore binary not being installed with a system (currently the Add/Remove features only removes shortcuts to it). I'm all for seeing IE being able to be completely removed from a computer, but by default it should install so you can download software on your new system. But the point is moot anyway, because the lock-in caused by proprietary extensions and non-standard rendering models already exists, and there are a lot of applications out there that target that and will simply choose to make IE a prerequisite anyway. The more Microsoft does to adhere to standards (read: IE8) will help going forwards, but until they do and enough time has passed - nothing is really going to change.
oh wait...
Do you expect them to be punished once BO takes over? Considering the sweetheart deal they got for streaming the Inauguration, I rather doubt it.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
They should also take notice that XP N (XP with no media player) had next to zero sales. Part of the reason is that apps wouldn't work without it. Why? Goes like this:
So media player, and IE as well, are actually split in two. There's the actual app you run. That doesn't really do much. It's just a user interface. You can get different ones. Media Player Classic would be a media player example. The actual work is then done by a separate set of DLLs that anything can call. So the media player stuff is the system media playback interface. It is similar to what Quicktime is on a Mac (but not on Windows).
When MS first took media player out, they just removed the executable. However the EU didn't like that, said it all had to go. They complied. However this means whenever something used media player to play back it's stuff, it broke. Make games were like that. Some included their own stuff, many just used the included Windows stuff. Quicktime and Realplayer didn't help. They aren't full out media layers, they are just players for their formats.
Well, it's the same for IE. Some programs rely on it. Stardock's Impulse would be an example. It's nearly all HTML and uses the IE DLLs to render it. So if you remove those, programs like Impulse break. Firefox is not a drop in replacement, it doesn't provide the same services in the same way. Now if they don't do that and just remove the EXE, well then that's no different than now, where access to it can be disabled.
Modern desktop OSes do a whole lot more than just provide access to a disk. They provide rich sets of services that many apps make use of. To remove those is to break the apps that need them. Microsoft isn't the only company that does this. Take a look at OS-X. There are many features built in to the OS. They could technically be removed, but that'd break any app that uses them.
Hello Computer People. I need some help. I had the Ubuntu installed on my computer. To get to the internets, I have to click a fox icon. I don't like foxes but I have no choice since this is what the Ubuntu installed on my computer. Since there are intelligent computer people here, please tell me how I can cope with this. I have written to my government people and I hope they can force the Ubuntu to remove the fox icon from my computer. I want to use something else but I cannot until the fox is gone - correct? The fox and Oprah cannot co-exist on the same computer (Oprah doesn't like foxes either - she said it on her show). Thank you in advance for your help.
Browsers are for wimps. Real Men (tm) use wget.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Has the web ever been standards-compliant?
The standards compliant browser simply shifts focus to where the real action is - the videos on YouTube, the avatars of My Space.
The entrepreneur moves at light speed when he sees an opportunity to make money.
He won't wait on a committee to deliver in five years what Flash can give him today.
Seriously.. WTF.. Hasn't EC have better things to do than worry about IE?? How do you start to browse to anything??? bunch of retards.. GG Opera stick mobile devices.. Firefox and Chrome are all over the PC world.. Anyways maybe EC should go work out how the banking world has imploded upon itself than worry about this..
They have to be one of the whiniest companys around.
I don't like their browser much either. It's about my 4th choice. if i HAD to use it.
Look opera. Fuck off. If people WANT to install opera after they get windows up and running. They will. Theres nothing at all stopping that from happening. Except people don't like your product.
The current system sure seems to work for firefox. And i don't hear those guys bitching at all.
More than likely they dont want to remove ie. They want to include opera in the windows cd. Well fuck that. the install is already bloated beyond belief with crap i dont want. I'm well able to go download the browser of my choice after installing windows. Its not my fault firefox is that choice.
I guess if you cant make a product people want.
You can force them to take it?
Hey. if i get forced to accept yet another program on the windows cd. I'd much rather that be firefox. Opera is a waste of space and is just yet another thing i would have to remove.
There's already an "N" version of Windows available in the EU that comes without Media Player for some reason (notwithstanding the fact that Windows has had a media player since 1992, long before Real and the other moaners came along!)
Now, I've yet to see a copy of this "N" version for sale anywhere. OEM copies of Windows are invariably the normal version, as are the retail copies you see in retailers etc. Evem the customised pre-installed versions of Windows on say HP PCs are the normal version too. In short, nobody actually wants a deliberately-crippled version of Windows.
I bet the same would happen with an IE-less version of Windows. As long as a normal version is available then people will buy that by default. I've got a horrible mental image of loads of setup EXEs being bundled with Windows regardless, much like the junk installers for Compuserve and AOL that came with Windows 98 (or was it 95 OSR2?)
I'm more interested in the way it's only ever Microsoft that's targetted too. I wonder if the same will happen with Apple when and if their market share gets to a larger level?
I would like to know by what standard anyone considers Microsoft a monopoly? They don't have 99.9% of the OS market, there are dozens of alternatives (many free ones, that are just as, if not more capable) that can freely be installed by anyone who is inclined to. No government has granted protection to Microsoft by regulating competitors, and Microsoft isn't holding a gun to anyone's head. How is Microsoft considered a monopoly by any other "standard" than being the market leader with would-be competitors whining that Microsoft puts their own interests first?
In other news... Casio, next week, will be issuing their complaint to the EC for Microsoft including a calculator with Windows...
If they remove IE, then what the heck are your average Windows users going to use to download Firefox?
The users will be stuck doing some several hundred MB MS Magic update/download that installs IE for them anyway just so that they can go download Firefox.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
"...Dude, seriously. Don't bother personalizing Internet Explorer. Use it to download Firefox, then set the homepage for Internet Explorer for Netflix, then change all the shortcuts to read "Netflix Instant View". That is all your going to be using it for anyways."
The point is to make IE separately installable and sell and distribute Windows without it
Which will get you what, exactly? Keep in mind that the last time the EU did this, the product was Windows XP N, (a distribution of windows with no media player). Which nobody, it seems, but the EU regulators wanted- maybe 2000 of them were sold, ever. OEMs continued to purchase and sell Windows versions with media player bundled, and they still do.
If Microsoft was smart, they'd go pre-emptive in the same vein and make a SKU of Windows called EU edition, or Antitrust edition- and it'd have the kernel, maybe a shell, and pretty much jack shit apart from that. It would accomplish exactly what XP N did- sell zero units, but satisfy regulators that indeed, the public isn't being denied choices it really wants.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
I want just the kernel! The rest included is so unfair!!!
If there is no browser on a host when it comes out of the box, how does a user visit the download site to get a browser?
One possible answer is to use ftp, of course. I understand how to do that, since I use ftp for other things every week. But I dread having to explain it to an average nontechnical user. Typing ftp commands is a lot like using a shell prompt. There is a conceptual hurdle the average user just cannot or will not get past.
Alternatively, some enterprising person could put a browser installer on a CD and put it in a pretty box. A hard-copy manual could give the box some heft, and give the average user the warm fuzzy feeling that she got something for her $29.
Best of a bad lot. Remove Windoze from IE.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
To make the absurdity clearer, I've replaced IE with Minesweeper.
In a preliminary ruling, the European Commission told Microsoft that linking Minesweeper to its dominant Windows operating system violates EC rules.
The EC's ruling was triggered by a complaint from Minesweeper rival âoeSimon Tathamâ(TM)s Minesâ. Microsoft could seek to offer a Windows version without Minesweeper, as it did in the EC's 2004 ruling on Windows Media Player.
The EC said that tie shields Microsoft from head-to-head competition with rival mine-finding games.
The EU released a statement Friday stating, "Microsoft's tying of Minesweeper to the Windows operating system harms competition between logic puzzles, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."
The commission noted last week that Minesweeper is available on 90 percent of the world's PCs. Citing the evidence it has gathered to date, the EC said tying Minesweeper with Windows "distorts competition on the merits between competing mine-finding games insofar as it provides Minesweeper with an artificial distribution advantage which other mine-finding games are unable to match."
Originally, the point was to allow third parties to install other products. Guess what, ANY third party can now install their own browser and make it default. Even Google. Now if they force MS to remove IE altogether, no one will buy the OS, because in year 2009 an OS without Internet access is utterly worthless. You can't even download Opera or Firefox with it.
Now that Qt is LGPL and includes webkit, the only advantage to using embedded IE is legacy code and its quirks. Hopefully people will catch on, because it seems like an obvious win for everyone.
You dont HAVE to use it. The easiest way to deal with this...dont use IE. Would people be bitching the same tune if they put the MS Office apps in the OS for free too? Bottom line...IE sucks, Opera sucks. For that matter, Safari and Chrome suck too, although both are superior to IE. Install Firefox, case closed.
I see many people claiming "How are we going to download Firefox without a preinstalled browser?".
It is dead simple to create a setup-wizard or icon that uses ftp or bittorrent to download!
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
I am not a MS lover either, more like the opposite, but I have to side with Microsoft here. When you install an operating system on a blank HD from the normal installation CD you should be able to have basic Internet, HTML and media support. We're not living in the bloody nineties anymore. I'm glad that Microsoft was able to dodge the Media Player thing, and I hope they will be able to dodge this one too. The EC essentially tried to force something upon MS that wasn't so much anti-MS as it was decidedly anti-consumer. Also, that case was even more sour than the current one, as it had this feel about it that essentially the EC was fighting Real Media (of all companies!) 's turf war over the consumer's backs.
Also, I think it would set a horrible precedent, possibly stifling innovation, and affecting all players in the market, including Apple, Sun, and yes... GNU systems also. And because of the implications of having all source available on the enforcability of such orders, the fallout could be very nasty... People may go 'Yay MS goes down!' today, but it could, worst-case scenario, be the end of free software as we know it.
But mostly I'm against this because, this being the 21st century, I need to be able to boot, browse the web, play media, edit basic documents, etc. from a standard OS install CD. And everyone who disagrees can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass.
But now it can be Opera and you won't need to update IE exploits if Dell don't include IE.
Now that IE is losing market share, there's a BETTER reason to force this change through: MS before complained that the reason why people used IE was because it was popular.
Well it aint so popular now, is it. So why must they have it anyway in addition to their chosen browser?
Why did IE for Mac get dropped? MS said they couldn't compete with a browser built in to the OS.
Like II on windows...
If there is no browser, how will you donwload/install other browsers?
OK, so Microsoft will need to remove IE from Windows - right... But does it also mean they need to remove IE's rendering engine? I am not a Windows software developer, but at least Qt windowing toolkit or Aqua include HTML rendering engine - I guess it's the same situation with Windows. And I guess it's used in many places in Windows apps like Explorer. So, they cannot just remove it - whole system will crash.
"Microsoft recommends using the Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser to enhance your Internet experience. Windows has detected that Internet Explorer is not yet installed. Would you like to download and install Internet Explorer now?"
[ OK ]
How the hell do I get on the web in order to install Firefox if I don't have a webbrowser???
Do they actually think about anything? It's not like Windows comes with wget or lynx..
I always remove IE from my systems, yet if I type RUN: iexplore, IE comes up all the time.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
As much as I dislike MS, Windows and IE, this would be a ridiciolous decision. Forcing a company to ship an OS without a browser? What's next, Linux distro's also being prohibited to ship with a browser? An OS needs to have some apps by default with it. Same for a media player, a decompress tool, a DVD burning tool, etc... Maybe there should come Windows "distros" instead, where you have the windows core, with, depending on the distro, some apps (IE in one distro, FF in another, ...).
individuals and businesses lost billions of dollars in total due to the absurd insistence of ms with subtly linking internet explorer and windows explorer and one being able to intrude the other's duties. a lot of viruses spread around exploting this forced integration of the browser with the operating system. EVEN if you install other browsers, you cant still let go of internet explorer, because its entrenched in your system. and all these leaving aside being a monopolistic/explotiative tool to corner the market.
Read radical news here
Since I have a bookmarks-organizing plug-in/add-on for Firefox, Firefox should not have a built-in bookmarks manager. It is the violation of law. Would this stand? IMHO, it is the manufacturer's choice to include what. If Opera (or anyone) is so bent on having browser free OS, I don't think anyone is going to stop them creating a new OS and beat M$.
No? then there's no problem.
If MS don't like restrictions on what applications they can include, why not split into OS and applications?
Look, this can take years and years of litigation and cost a lot of money.
So, how about this?
Just kill IE 6. Either by a forced upgrade from a software update, backdoor worm, I don't care. Just get rid of IE 6.
Reasoning:
1. If you've ever done any AJAX, you're not even reading this far. You know why IE 6 must die.
2. IE 7 and 8 are far more standards compliant. MS's inability/unwillingness to heed standards for IE 6 won't pervert the web to the trash that 6 could take.
3. Then, browsers can compete on features.
Yes, MS will still have a distribution advantage with IE. I guess we'll also have to let hardware vendors include other browsers if they want instead of IE. But, now the real software development advantage of the monopoly power of IE is severely reduced -- writing a renderer to two standards: the w3 spec and the crack-induced thinking of the IE team.
Also, you need something to download a good web browser, and curl/wget's a pain.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Now, can you please point me to where in the law it says I cannot pirate "Die Hard 4"?
and as a result eu has taken over u.s. both in life standards of its citizens, and the power of its economy. while u.s. is practically bankrupt, and printing money to pay debts.
so what was your point ? just trying to sell old mccarthian shit ?
Read radical news here
This was done intentionally by Microsoft, even going so far as making important components like Explorer depend on it. This isn't really the case any more for most of Windows, but the third party programs still need it, so removing it would break a lot of programs people use.
that should have NEVER happened in any case. that's the reason why we have so big botnets. because internet explorer is an easy gateway to taking over a computer through the internet.
Read radical news here
by a monopoly.
And MS were convicted of doing so.
PS are you going to be posting 200x on any RIAA thread about how there IS NO CRIME because it's a civil infraction? You haven't before, but maybe now you will...
In which planet do you inhabit?
The EU authorities are telling MS they broke the law, yet again, and here you are, calling that company competent.
Unless the field of expertise is toughery, I fail to see in which way a company behaving like that could possibly be described as competent.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Making MS unbundle IE is not going to do any good, you will end up with another -N version which costs the same as the regular version and doesn't even get advertised, meaning noone will buy it.
A few years ago, when the trial in the US happened, there was talk of splitting MS into 2 companies... This is a much better idea.. Have an OS company that distributes a basic OS, and then other companies step up to produce bundles consisting of OS, Applications, Hardware etc... Like OEMs currently do when they bundle all kinds of extra stuff, only give them more freedom.
This is how Linux is distributed too, Linus maintains a kernel, and then third parties distribute it together with a set of applications...
And hardware is also distributed much the same, companies like Dell choose parts from hundreds of possible suppliers, before assembling them together into a final product to be sold to an end user.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Sorry for the profanity, but honestly.
To many people here it would take 5 minutes to write a script that would allow a user to ftp the browser of their choice.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There is a little text file listing all the browsers they want to make available to the user.
Or the user modifies the file if he is "advanced".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In Linux one can develop a browser that is just a browser, or a browser that is a kitchen sink also.
In Windows MS has made sure you get the damned kitchen sink, and it has so many bolts and screws that it is nigh impossible to replace the full damn thing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Computing was not invented yesterday: somebody writes a script that allows users to select the browser of their choice, which is promptly downloaded using any of a myriad of methods available to you (ftp, http, ssh, you name it).
Or the OEM simply decides to install a given browser (they already install all kind of crap in Windows machines, why should the browser be any different?)
As for using different software increasing support costs, really, what are you smoking? The MS support monkey will just point people in the direction of the company or organization responsible for the support of the relevant piece of software, as they do with every single piece of software produced by a third party.
If it is supported by the OEM then they have to weigh costs and come to the decision that is best for them, but as things stand they have abrogated that decision since MS has them all by the proverbial hairy ones. MS has being taking decisions that should be OEM's for ages, thanks to the abuse of their monopoly, so I suspect that OEMs will not necessarily be terribley unhappy with such a development.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... you aren't in any position to dictate their direction.
Such a move would be irresponsible and suicidal when it comes to share price and reputation (not to mention lost sales and the possibility of litigation).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For bunnies sakes, why to comment if you don't even understand the issue at hand...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No way you want to slice it: a computer can operate without a browser.
It is horrifying to see such monumental ignorance in a website where people are supposed to have a bit of a clue.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All the rest are user space applications.
A browser is not part of the OS. It may be part of the suite of applications that you expect to see in a modern desktop environment, but allow me to assure you that browsing functionality is not essential for a computer to do useful work.
As a matter of fact one of the first things to go in server installations should be a browser (I have seen specialized appliances based on Windows - really - where there was no access to the browser).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What they need to remove is access to the layer that deals with the http protocol and presents it to end users in desktop machines.
MS decided to embed that deeply into other user space applications in order to claim it was an integral part of the Windows Operating System.
First of all http rendering has never been part of the tasks an operating system has to do ( I have seen machines that licensed Windows kernels for other purposes and there was no browser available), so the hazy engineering has all happened in userland, where MS has been fighting for the eyeballs of desktop users.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Try it, I am sure you are creative, the sky is the limit.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
One that presents buttons, a little pull down menu, you know those things that every desktop computer do nowadays, and then issues the ftp command in the background.
Linux can do it, I am sure it is not beyond the capabilities of DELL, HP, Asus, Sony or TOshiba to do such a thing.
I don't know if some of you are just having a bad day or if people here are really this unimaginative.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Isn't Opera bundled with OSX? That's kind of ironic, I think. But I don't see how either of these "bundling" practices is a problem. No one charges any money for a browser these days anyway, so who cares? If you don't like the one your OS comes with, download another one!
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the OS market. That's the whole point of anti-trust - it's stopping companies that have a monopoly in one area from gaining leverage in another market. Microsoft stops OEMs from bundling other software and IE is near impossible to remove without 3rd party tools. It's unfair. Apple's strategy isn't, because they compete on a level playing field.
Back in 1995, this was very important to getting the Internet to the users and people seem to forget that
Microsoft's decision to 'extend' HTML and embed Internet Explorer in the OS had nothing to do with 'getting the Internet to the users' and everything to do with sabataging third party applications, and is the root cause of the current malware infestation. If Microsoft was in the vanguard of 'getting the Internet to the users', then why did they attempt to buyout Netscape?
davecb5620@gmail.com
Expect Microsoft to offer to ship a version of Windows without any web browser. So you won't be able to download firefox either!
I seem to recall getting all excited at what a huge improvement ncftp was over standard unix ftp... I won't say things haven't improved, but all this talk about needing a browser to download a browser is making me think of chickens. And eggs.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Why not force them to include a "web browser provider" like the one in w7 for AV product or the one in vista for desktop search engine ?
Having no web browser in an OS makes no sense in 2009 and they will force user to have a web browser on hand when installation/receiving their pc...
why not force apple to allow 3rd party app that enters in competition of their own product on the iphone instead?
"Wrong. Because most people assume windows is free since it came with their computer."
RMS had that problem too. He thought since the mainframe was bundled with source code, that the software was zero cost.
jenga tends to be stable for longer periods of time...
But the size of the WinSxS (the folder with multiple versions of each DLL which all happen to have the same name stupidly) is huge
You call 43.7MB huge? Well, it may be if I wanted to write it to floppies, but compared to the size of the whole Windows directory (4.14GB) this is small (about 1%). (on other thought, why is my Windows directory so big? Oh yeah, because c:\windows\installer takes a whole 1GB...)
Proprietary Hardware/Software is what led 90% us away from Apple once upon a time. I hear all this screaming, Oh noes, but its Micro$oft. Apples greed and plan of action resulted directly in Microsoft's market share. Point in fact, when it limits our actions then we truly care. But what everyone seems to be missing is my iPhone is stuck with the most craptastic browser ever invented, its called "Safari" I have no option of un-installing it, I have no option to install something else, all apps must be approved by Apple, and Apple "Will not approve an application for iPhone/Touch that competes with an already existing application" One look around the app store and can you find 300 versions of the same fitness software some free and some paid, 900 different flashlight apps, yet nothing that competes with an "APPLE" App which is what the disclaimer should read, not to mention that nasty little virus named Apple Update, which has forced mandatory installs of Safari on Millions of computer. Yes a few million complaints later you can un-check that box, EVERY SINGLE TIME... Most Linux distros behave the same way, whoever they are backing gets installed, and like the rest of us, you use it once, to download Firefox (or whatever flavor you like) I 100% Agree The web should use Agreed Standards, but there always has to be room for improvement. Gamer First, PC User Second, "Just remember Photoshop is not a game!"
Microsoft should be forced to remove DirectX from windows, as that is one of the pillars of the vendor lock-in going on. If Microsoft isn't allowed to deliver DirectX with any version of windows and even forced to ask money for it on the consumer and developer levels, different toolkits stand a chance.
I agree that in this age selling an OS without browsing capabilities is just DUMB and I even drew a nice cartoon about it. take a look: http://tinyurl.com/IEfree-dumb
Soluto - Mapping PC Frustrations one machine and one user at a time.