Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Lets You Uninstall IE8
CWmike writes "A just-leaked build of Windows 7 lets users remove Internet Explorer, the first time that Microsoft has offered the option since it integrated the browser with Windows in 1997, two bloggers reported today. The move might have been prompted by recent charges by the European Union that Microsoft has stifled browser competition by bundling IE with its operating system, the bloggers speculated. One solution under consideration by the EU would require Microsoft to disable IE if the user decided to install a different browser, such as Mozilla's Firefox or Google's Chrome. Microsoft had no comment when asked to confirm whether Windows 7 will let users dump IE8 or whether the option was in reaction to the EU charges."
A compelling feature to drag people away from XP.
Now only if it included a utility to uninstall Windows...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
... for some definitions of "remove". I seriously doubt that Microsoft has decoupled the "internet explorer" feature set from the operating system, and would be surprised if "removal" meant any more than it already does ... hiding an icon.
RFC2119
...you can't separate Internet Explorer and Windows defense.
Too late to go after them for perjury on it?
Man who remove Internet Explorer but not Windows is a little like Lance Armstrong: still one Ballmer remaining.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
If IE8 is removed, will there we a way for the user to get and select/deselect updates? [Where "updates" are frequently new programs/libraries.etc. that I might not want to install]
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And who has money on the OS not working right afterwards?
Seriously? That's absolute crap. Me installing firefox does NOT mean I want IE disabled. The EU needs to get its head out of its a**. If I want IE disabled, I'll disable it.
Have you ever actually managed to truly "uninstall" something on Windows?
Don't say yes, you'll be lying.
they have removed the browser integration into core places.
Whether or not you use IE, that is a good thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Have you tried DBAN? Works great for me.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I wonder if they will spend the money to make windows updates work with 'other than IE'.
I have: "sudo mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda1"
This is a step in the right direction. Windows 7 should come with all of the bells and whistles we've come to expect, but give us the choice of what we want to install.
Without selecting any options, you just get an OS. I would have a lot more respect for the product.
Now eliminate any DRM nasties and I'll be very happy.
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
Why remove the core libraries? We develop several applications which rely on it, and users will blame us if app doesn't work out of the box. FWIW, I don't care what browser comes with Windows as long as it comes with one.
I will believe it when I see it though. It seems like IE has been so tightly integrated with the system that a number of applications rely on it. For example, a lot of the Office help files look to IE to render their HTML content. Under XP, even having Firefox installed as the default browser causes problems sometimes. I would really like to see IE decoupled from the OS though. It will be interesting to see what the security implications of removing it are. I figure that they will be pretty minimal since the browser itself is fairly well locked down at this point. Most of the exploits seem to be coming through Flash and other plugins.
Looks like the newest prank to play on someone's computer will include uninstalling all of their browsers.
-- lol pwned
How do you uninstall a program and all the dependencies it installs in Linux?
Not being an ass - i'm just genuinely curious. I've never found a way easier than windows.
Aw, come on, this only removes the IEXPLORE.EXE loader stub.
Still, this is start. And about damn time.
I'd like to see them fully drop all dependencies on IE from the desktop shell next. The help system would be the biggest problem though, but perhaps they can slowly move towards a version of windows that is not entirely dependent on IE again... but perhaps I am just still dreaming.
Happily posted from my Windows 95 machine with SeaMonkey 1.1.14... and NO STILL IE AT ALL!
It seems the astroturfers are going crazy trying to confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with end users. The important thing the EU is trying to get is for OEM's to have the ability to replace IE with (or add to IE) Firefox or some other browser.
Let's repeat this carefully:
1. An OEM (like Dell) must be able to load the computer with arbitrary programs, some of which compete with Microsoft's world domination plans, without Microsoft being able to punish them by changing the terms of their OEM contract.
2. This has NOTHING to do with what users do with their machine after they get it home. Astroturfers are trying to say this has something to do with installing alternative browsers, or some kind of installation switch to allow the users to choose, or other bullshit. That is just to make it sound like the EU is forcing the machines to be "hard to use". In fact it is making the machine easier to use because it allows end users to not have to do the "hard" installation step, this difficulty is in fact a major part of Microsoft's lock-in.
3. Yes the IE libraries are not going away. They cannot, as other programs use them and expect them. This is not relevant as the browser that people are using to talk to the outside world is not calling these libraries.
4. It does sound like the truth is that IE is somewhat more "integrated" than just the existence of libraries, and thus Microsoft had to do some work so that everything works if the ie.exe file is missing (such as apparently removing the ability to choose it as the default browser if it is missing). Good for them, they are obeying the rules.
From what I have seen, what Microsoft have implemented is "turning off" Internet Explorer. "Turning off" has never been equal to "uninstalling."
What is to prevent Microsoft from issuing an update possibly via a third party software vendor which update will "turn on" Internet Explorer once again?
I am not convinced...yet.
Server core already has no IE and works just fine.
How do you uninstall a program and all the dependencies it installs in Linux?
Not being an ass - i'm just genuinely curious. I've never found a way easier than windows.
apt-get purge program
apt-get autoremove
That should work for apt-based distros.
I have.... Many times:
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
In all fairness, I'm not a Mac fan, but Mac wins here. You uninstall an app by deleting the folder. End of story. It's gone.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
XP already supposedly had this ability, it just didn't work.
I built a new rig and installed Windows 7 and openSUSE 11.1. I don't have XP x64 installed currently, though I may move to it. So far, many of my games just won't work properly. UAC is not magically better now, though you are harassed less.
I was copying files from my old computer. I created a samba share to copy files from. I create a new folder in my Windows 7 machine that I have access to write to. I start copying a couple thousand songs, and it stops partially though saying I have no rights on the folder. I check, and I do. The songs I'm copying aren't read only, and I have rights to read from the samba share. Some files will copy, some won't. Same with my video files and e-books.
I switch over to my old box, and it will copy all the files to my Windows 7 machine just fine, but in Windows 7, I can't copy files.
Explorer not only crashes at least once a day, but it is also fairly slow and locks up for no apparent reason that I can tell. I'm running a Phenom II X4 940 and 8 gigs of ram, and the OS is far from snappy, but every blogger on the planet is telling me how fast Windows 7 is.
I like a few small things, such as the toolbar thumbnail shows all the windows, and I can hover over individual ones, which hide all my active windows, and just show that one. But overall, most of my complaints with Vista (horrid UI, three-step tasks and replaced with seven-step tasks) are still there.
And don't get me started on this Homegroup nonsense. Why add useless clutter around a workgroup and Samba?
The best aspect of 7 that no one talks about (and it may be in Vista, which I've used for only a couple of hours) is C:\Users\Public. Brilliant. If I want to share files across multiple user accounts on the same computer (such as mp3s), I now have a good place to put them. Linux should make note with a /home/public standard as well.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
and the application data folder?
what about the localstore?
did it place any files in %windir% or %sysdir%?
did it make any file extension associations?
did it add any environment variables?
etc.
crap cleaner won't clean -all- of that up.
That said, the original poster's comment was bunk; an uninstallation isonly as good as the uninstall routine. If it doesn't delete -all- files / remove -all- registry entries, etc. set upon install, then that's an issue with the uninstaller, not with the host OS.
I'm sure that some of the -package managers- do a great job at tracking this (though they're likely to miss run-time file/store changes just as well), but that says far more about the package manager than it does about the host OS.
Your best bet is going to be to take a snapshot of your system, install, run for a while, do a diff, remove known variables from other use (from earlier diffs, presumably) - i.e. e-mail database, temporary files, etc. - store that and use that to remove files/registry settings/etc. later on.
That's been there as long as I can remember. Obviously it won't remove the underlying components but then - I wouldn't expect it to. I also wouldn't expect Windows 7 to do so, since the underlying components server to form the foundation of the windows HTML rendering that many, many third party applications depend on.
it obviously depends on the distribution, but for us gentoo users:
emerge --unmerge program
emerge -pv --depclean
So wait, you want indexable, cross-linked help with the ability to jump from one useful piece of information to another, just like HTML? And you want MS to remove the HTML renderer?
So, what do you want everyone writing Windows Help to do? Learn another language so you can remove a file that already (mostly) works? What about the 20 billion old help files?
"Sorry Betty, the help for Office 2007 won't work on Windows 9 because linebackn wanted the HTML libraries to be removed from Windows."
Note that there's really not a lot of benefit for anyone to write a replacement for the MSHTML library set that "drops in" and uses Gecko or WebKit. You have to implement every single function in each of the libraries - anything public at least.
that's no better than windows, and atleast in windows people don't have to remember commandline options. i think what he is getting at is your at the mercy of packagers uninstall options.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Not quite; a number of apps put stuff outside of the .app wrapper directory. Anything that loads a kernel extension (vmware, for example), as well as other application that put frameworks in /Library and /System/Library. And then there's prefs and cache files left over in your own Library directory.
Still, it's significantly better than it is on windows.
My best effort was to uninstall an application from "Add/Remove Programs" in Control Panel, and then go into C:\Program Files and manually delete the application's corresponding directory.
What more is needed to truly uninstall something in Windows?
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Safari comes with OSX.
I still dont get what the whole fuss is about. Firefox, Opera, Safari, and any other browser, currently RUNS on windows just fine. So where is the problem? Is it more so the problem, that IE comes with the OS? If thats the case, then MS is getting fucked by everyone, and the company will be dead in 5 years due to the unfair bullshit scrutiny placed on Microsoft.
Just why cant MS provide applications with their os, such as a web browser? I dont see anyone bitching about Apple shoving Itunes down its OSX users? How about us windows users, who Apple tries to secretly install Safari on our PC's through an iTunes updater? HOW ABOUT THAT BULLSHIT? Where are you EU?
Fair is fair, but MS is being ass fucked by complainers.
I'm all for making sure MS doesnt run someone out of business... but last I checked, Firefox is MORE desirable than IE, Safari, and Opera.
I dont even USE IE.
Who really cares about this issue? Is IE doing anything that Firefox isnt? Where is the "unfair" advantage?
Does Mozilla want to integrate Firefox into the explorer shell? Not as far as i know.
This is a big stink about nothing.
Get back to fixing the economy and stop bullying the once bully (microsoft) that now has become a handcuffed bitch.
Not exactly. You'll still have references in /LIBRARY/APPLICATION SUPPORT and in /USERS/username/LIBRARY, so you still have to hunt around and delete stuff if you want it all gone.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If it would have been at least 1$ cheaper and/or actually available in stores, it would have been more successful.
At least in my country Romania, where all stores receive free advertising money, billboards, promotional content and get lower prices if they don't sell computers with Linux pre-installed, every store only advertises Home and Premium versions of operating systems. The N versions are never in stock and if you really want to order them, it takes probably two weeks for the store to receive it from the Microsoft importer in the capital of the country.
Well, anyways unless people buy it for a company computer, people get laptops or computers with FreeDOS preinstalled (as there's law in the country saying all pc's must have OS installed) and then they pirate the OS or use Ubuntu or other flavors of Linux.
It's one thing to impose Microsoft the need of offering that N version, if you don't impose them to advertise it in equal amount with the regular version and to actually manufacture the physical discs.
I would personally buy a Windows 7 version without IE but completely without it, not just having iexplore.exe removed.
I would then laugh when I see Yahoo Messenger no longer works, the help system in Windows no longer works, Visual Studio's help no longer works, all the junk internal websites using proprietary IE stuff at my old work place no longer working and so on and so forth.
Synaptic, Gnome's Add/Remove, Adept, etc are are all gui clients for Apt. Nobody needs to remember commandline options.
I normally use Firefox, but there are still a lot of web sites out there with JavaScript that only works properly under IE, so I keep IE handy to access those sites. I don't uninstall Safari just 'cause I use Firefox on my Mac, why should I uninstall IE just 'cause I use Firefox on my PC?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
registry hacking
Or you use Synaptic, right click the package, and click the option saying remove the program entirely including configuration files.
Most people want a default browser. They just want to surf the Internet and their last computer had IE. They don't want to learn another user interface. IE may have its issues, but it's not that bad and you can easily replace it for free with the world class browser of your choice. Even an inept user will be offered Google Chrome whenever they go to www.google.com. Firefox has an OK share of the market. And there are a lot of people who've downloaded Firefox and decided to keep using IE.
It's likely that PC vendors will be paid money to include a company's browser with the system. As part of the agreement, it may even lockout other browsers. So you could be stuck with a worthless browser because a few dollars were passed the vendor's way.
Imagine a scenario in which Opera wants to charge users for their browser. So the PC vendor offers you two options: $30 for an Opera browser (the only one they offer and it's locked in, so you can't change it) or a free ad supported version of the Opera browser (again you can't change it).
I know I'm supposed to hate Microsoft and I don't like a lot of the things they do. But when I get something for free (included in the price) and I can change it for free, it's hard to bitch. The only people who are hurt by the inclusion of IE are market losers trying to screw consumers out of money and anti-Microsoft ideologues.
I can enjoy Flight Simulator X on 7. IE8 messes up the kneeboard, and while you don't need the kneeboard, it's a huge PITA to not be able to use it.
Maybe I shouldn't rely on any sort of Library? Bundle my own browser, GUI toolkit, Shell? audio/video codecs? Hell, how about my own HAL?
Do you know a how long it takes to get permission to use or even link users to download a piece of software? So many potential liability issues that a multibillion dollar product has to deal with?
Idealist heaven for you as it might be, it's pure hell for the developers.
What about Windows Updates? You can only get the critical ones via the auto-update. You've got to go online to get any other ones.
(No such problem on Linux, of course; rm -rf / will happily wipe your entire fs, including the rm binary and the /bin directory.)
This is a "bug". Under recent POSIX revisions this is now considered incorrect behaviour (something about trying to follow "/." and "/.."):
http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck/entry/rm_rf_protection
Supposedly Debian (from Sid onwards) also does not allow 'rm -rf /'.
Depends on the application/installer... but you should also check:
?:\Documents and Settings\%Username%\*
?:\Documents and Settings\%Username%\Application Data\*
?:\Documents and Settings\%Username%\Local Settings\Application Data\* (Hidden)
?:\Documents and Settings\%Username%\Local Settings\Temp\* (Hidden)
?:\Documents and Settings\%Username%\SendTo\* (Hidden)
?:\Documents and Settings\%Username%\Templates\* (Hidden)
Sometimes:
?:\Documents and Settings\All Users\
As well as:
?:\Program Files\Common Files\*
?:\Program Files\InstallShield Installation Information\* (Hidden)
?:\WINDOWS\Downloaded Installations\*
?:\WINDOWS\Inf\* (Hidden)
?:\WINDOWS\Installer\* (Hidden)
?:\WINDOWS\System32\*
?:\WINDOWS\Temp\*
?:\WINDOWS\dllcache\* (Hidden)
?:\WINDOWS\Drivers\*
And the registry:
HKCR\Software\%Document Types%
HKCU\Software\CLSD\*
HKCU\Software\%App/DevName%
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MenuOrder\*
HKLM\Software\%App/DevName%
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MenuOrder\*
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Installer\*
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\SharedDlls\*
And quite a few others, I generally just search for DeveloperName, delete (most) matches, then search for ApplicationName, delete matches, ExecutableName, delete matches...
From what I understand ("Everything You Know About CSS is Wrong"), IE8 should cure several MS/IE-induced problems. So Microsoft is having second thought about _not_ being a perpetual pain in the ass?
Typical, I guess.
Ever since Windows 98, Internet Explorer has been integrated into Windows Explorer. If you delete all the files from stand alone Internet Explorer, then enter a URL into Windows Explorer, Windows Explorer will still magically turn into Internet Explorer.
Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (WinFLP) also has an option to not install Internet Explorer. If you choose to exclude it, Windows Explorer will still turn into Internet Explorer whenever you enter a URL.
Seems like the only way to really remove Internet Explorer is to use the shell from Windows 95.
I'd like to see Microsoft stop selling its product to the EU as well - then Linux will gain more support. :)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
There's often a ton of registry keys left behind, and on pre-Vista OS's quite often DLL's under the Windows/winnt folder.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This is a "bug". Under recent POSIX revisions this is now considered incorrect behaviour (something about trying to follow "/." and "/.."):
http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck/entry/rm_rf_protection
I didn't realize that had been changed recently. How sad. Another bit of Unix lore that only us old-timers will get to experience.
By their argument, `cd /; rm -rf .' still ought to work. Sigh. That lacks the drama, the feeling, the intensity of slamming down the return key knowing you're about to delete every file on the system. :-)
Supposedly Debian (from Sid onwards) also does not allow 'rm -rf /'.
Pathetic. But at least you get the source to rm(1) so you can fix that bug - or write your own, it's not that hard.
Now, get off my lawn.
Yes. You can't possibly have tested every single application out there, so if you say that I haven't been able to do this then you are lying.
Seems to me that this is a pretty easy "feature" for MS to add now that IE is so entrenched. How much of the software that runs business doesn't run so well on FireFox or Chrome (at least per the requirements)? How many IT organizations have made IE their business standard for all managed corporate desktops?
MS can offer this now when it is politically (or legally) expedient and their shareholders won't suffer. If it was about consumers they never would have appealed the antitrust case that they lost in 2000.
They've also stifled text editor innovation by bundling notepad.exe. They haven't even had the good graces to update it since the NT version. A classic example of MS sitting on its laurels.
A computer science expert from Princeton University says he has done what the Microsoft Corporation insists is impossible
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Windows should come with NO browser installed, they should let you choose what browser you want to install. Once you get your system, you just go to your browser of choice's website and download... oh, right.
Windows 7 is in much much better shape than IE8. It would be an improvement if we were allowed to uninstall IE8 and install IE7. Even the IE7 compatibility mode has issues :(
The End of Days admits his posting via diff. multiple registered account names (each is he), to mod himself up no doubt, to make it appear others supported him as well as using ac posts done by 'The End of Days' to do the latter also here today -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793 That was laughable and low, as well as stupid in being caught doing that.
IE is the only browser I know of which interfaces with ActiveX. It might be interesting in a multiuser browsing situation to remove IE in order to close off that avenue of infection.
Not using IE would protect you from other IE-only attacks, not just ActiveX.
As always, it's a tradeoff between functionality and security. Everyone has to make their own decision if it is worthwhile.
all you have to do was delete iexplore.exe ;)
The End of Days admits his posting via diff. multiple registered account names (each is he), to mod himself up no doubt, to make it appear others supported him as well as using ac posts done by 'The End of Days' to do the latter also here yesterday -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793 That was laughable and low, as well as stupid in being caught doing that.
IE is the only browser I know of which interfaces with ActiveX.
True, but those other browsers interface with NPAPI. NPAPI has the same security issues since, just like ActiveX, it is native code running with the same privileges as the browser.
What an amazing level of control you can have with winblows7.....
Safari comes with OSX.
And you can drag and drop it into the trash can if you like. No joking: drag and drop an application icon to the trash can is the normal way to de-install software on Mac OS.
Martin
PS: I always have laugh when MS-Windows tells me that dragging an application into the trash can won't de-install. It is such a natural way of interacting with the computer that Microsoft has to warn user that they are not that user friendly.
Does this mean that when I click my mail Icon in MSN ... erm, Windows Live Messenger... that it would pop up with Firefox instead of Internet Exploited?
Finally...
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
THERE IS NO "monopolized" browser market
Microsoft is accused of trying "monopolized" browser market. You don't have to be successful to be a criminal. If you try to rob a bank and fail you are still a bank robber and will be changed as such.
the first time that Microsoft has offered the option since it integrated the browser with Windows in 1997
Wrong. In add/remove windows components IE can be removed and that feature's been there since it's inception to Windows 98.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
.. which will be fixed come shipping time.
we must look outside of America to see the rights of anyone other than huge corporations being protected.
This should have been done back in 2002, but the newly-installed Bush administration's corporate lapdog DoJ folded the royal flush it had against Microsoft. Further proof that America is a country that has run off the rails in each and every conceivable way.
Then again, what did you expect from a country where:
-- 30 per cent of the population thinks the planet is 6,000 years old and that humans lived side by side with dinosaurs?
-- A Vietnam war burnout and his bubble-headed, ultra-Fundamentalist imbecile of a running mate lost the Presidency - and with it the right to authorize the launch of "nukular" weapons against "the evildoers" - by a mere six percentage points?
-- See above, amidst an economy in a nosedive and the largest bank failures in U.S. history?
I could go on . . . and on . . . and on . . .
Mod me to hell, I still have karma to burn.
"No astroturf here..." ;-)
... what browser comes with windows, or the ability to uninstall it. I actually find some sites still require IE, and it is useful then. Oh, and off course on a fresh install, how else will I ever download firefox? :)
IE8 Lets You Uninstall Windows 7!
I'd like to see Microsoft stop selling its product to the EU as well - then Linux will gain more support. :)
Because Linux netbooks are doing so well in the EU aren't they? Oh wait, they're being returned 4 times as much as XP. But then again, when you've got someone like Gerry Carr, Canonicals marketing manager saying that it's understandable as Windows XP is a technology that's been around 20 years, then it's no surprise really.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Mozilla HTML renderer renders HTML. So why would Steam break if its HTML was rendered with WebKit instead of MSHTML?
By using non-standard requests? Well, that's how LOCK-IN occurs. Make it so people do have to use your product, patent the bit that people have to use so nobody else can make a work-a-like (which is why software patents are bogus: you can make a trap for mice and not break someone else's moustrap patent, but the same doesn't hold true for software) and then don't make your product available on anything other than your OS.
Then everyone must use your OS because it's the only one with the feature you must have.
MS used their OS monopoly to get people to write IE only sites. Then because IE was one browser with 95% marketshare, you could cut costs but leave your customer base practically untouched by supporting IE alone.
Then MS wants you to use IE only pages. Which can only be viewed in IE and that requires an OS to run on. The only OS it runs on is MS's.
So you have a reinforcing feedback loop.
Use the commercial SSL products. Use any COMPATIBLE product that allows SSL. Write your own.
MS used to allow you to write to a plug-in API to get any other rendering engine in to the system to be used for help, etc. That disappeared when IE killed off Netscape.
But if IExplore DLL's use IE only tags, then it isn't using IExplore DLLs for HTML rendering, is it.
And what about "help" DEMANDS an IE only tag???
I Don't understand the wow for this,just ain't such a big deal. IMHO any os should always come with a web browser,removing it won't make any big difference also the fact IE comes hardned inside windows makes it faster so those you actually like ie will have a better experience.
You don't need a browser to get a browser on your computer.
Microsoft can simply design a small "Welcome to Windows" wizard, which connects to a MS FTP server and downloads a XML file (for example something like ftp.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/browserlist.xml) with a list of browsers.
User can then browse the list, select one and the wizard will simply download the setup from the location specified in the XML file and start the setup.
Alternatively, you could just go to an IT store and get a free Firefox CD or go to a friend and copy the setup application on a memory stick.
That is no longer the case as of IE7
That is the best explanation of why the registry is crap.
Any application should be completly self contained in it's directory tree.
The only thing that should be in the registry is information that needs to be shared with other applications.
This data should be refreshed every time the app starts, and if it isn't accessed for more then a year automatically be removed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And you can drag and drop it into the trash can if you like. No joking: drag and drop an application icon to the trash can is the normal way to de-install software on Mac OS.
You can drag iexplore.exe to the Recycling Bin as well, if you want to.
You should read up on mac os x bundles.
The Safari Application Icon I am talking about and the user sees on the destkop is realy a directory called Safari.app containing about 800 files.
A great conzept:
Don't need the application - thow it into the trashcan.
Main harddrive full - grap some apps and move the over to your 2nd hardrive.
Don't have admin right - Install the file application in your home directory.
Installing works by drag an drop as well: Drag the app off the installation media and drop where you want to have it.
Martin
"I know exactly what the issue is."
No, you don't.
First, yes MS has a monopoly on browsers becasue it comes with their OS which is installed on around 90% of all PCs.
Second, being a monopoly doesn't mean your the onlt one in the market, just that you have enough of the market to control it.
Third, Monopolies aren't illegal. I assume you know this but added it for clarity. Also, this is about anti-trust, mot a monopoly per se.
Forth, MS abused the market with their monopoly when they switched from charging for IE to giving it away to destroy Netscape. They are being punished for that behavior.(Anti trust)
Fifth, MS has a history of doing whatever they can to control the market. Imposing this rule on them is their own doing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
start > control panel > add/remove programs > add/remove windows components > uncheck IE
That's pretty much as good as uninstalling...
..but you can kiss your windows updates goodbye MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
True, but in order to interface with NPAPI, plugin software has to be downloaded and installed. Software that you download and install has the same security issues since, just like browser plugins, it is native code running with the same privileges as the retard I'm respondin
"Developers are there to provide things users need. Users are NOT there to facilitate things the developers need."
Sure, that's why IE should stay in Windows and web developers should just suck it up and make their sites work with it.
True, but in order to interface with NPAPI, plugin software has to be downloaded and installed. Software that you download and install has the same security issues since, just like browser plugins, it is native code running with the same privileges.
It's not really the registry's fault, but the (various) applications and installers faults.
Personally, I don't really care how much stuff it wants to put into the registry, as long as it's used, and not just dead-weight, my problem is that I have seen very few un/installers that actually keeps track of everything it installs, and removes them when you tell it to uninstall, which goes for both files, and the registry.
I like the idea of the registry, the problem is it hasn't really been updated since Win95, it's (the actual reg.exe is) almost useless really, you have to get a third-party application to really make use of it. Add to that the various opinions/practices of developers and how they think it should work, tossing keys all over the place, and it's no wonder why it becomes a mess.
I don't know if this was said already, but this may in fact make windows more secure from Malware. It seems common that malware will install itself as a process AND an activeX control used by IE. Since IE is integrated into windows itself, those activeX controls are always running even when you don't want them too. Therefore, when you try to kill the malware's process, the activeX control restores it. Try and stop the activeX control and the process restores that. Now remove IE's activeX out of the picture and you no longer have to deal with that dreaded "lock in". MUCH better.
True, but in order to interface with NPAPI, plugin software has to be downloaded and installed.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. ActiveX also has to be downloaded and installed, it can't execute on the server.
Software that you download and install has the same security issues since, just like browser plugins, it is native code running with the same privileges.
Not all software you download and install runs natively. ActiveX and NPAPI does though.
What's the betting that Microsoft will yet again abuse their updates system and install IE8 to the PC's who have chosen not to have it as a "critical update", with an added bonus "no uninstall" option to punish those consumers who dare to decide for themselves they don't want IE. It's not the first time they abuse the updates system for their own ends, WGA? .NET Firefox addon? I wouldn't put it past them to try it, just as I would NEVER select automatic updates; I know only too well how Microsoft operate.
This was debunked a while back, they are being returned at around the same rate. The major reason for the Linux returns is the retailers specifically not telling people they are getting Linux netbooks, so they get something other than what they expect when they open the box. It's also largely down to the distros some netbooks come with and the support given by those retailers.
People who know they are getting Linux netbooks tend not to return them unless they are faulty. On the other hand, people who pay extra to get a cut down 8 yr old OS pre-loaded with shareware tend to be pleased because they at least know all their viruses will be compatible, but tend to be less than impressed with the fact that the netbook runs like a wheezy old chain smoking dog on acid.
Some people also have the wrong impression of what a netbook is, or what it's for. It's NOT a cheap replacement for a laptop or desktop PC, it's not meant to be. Regardless of OS, if they expect to be rendering videos etc on it they will be disappointed. Bad marketing is at fault here for selling the netbook as something other than it is. Retailers who just want the money without any regard to the customers need will sell them anything they can too.
Retailers are paid by Microsoft to shovel their shit onto customers plates, it tends to be the default option the customer sees because of this. If you get a Linux PC of any variety generally you have to ask for it, or specifically choose it; if that's the case then you will know the difference and benefits of your choice....and will be less likely to return it. If you don't specify an OS or don't know what an OS is, let alone why one is better than another; you're gonna be virus compatible by the time you get home with your new bot.
But as I understand it (TBH I don't often use IE, my Windows setups are all VMs) ActiveX controls are presented more like Java applets: at most you're asked whether you're sure you want to display it/grant it privileges/etc., which wouldn't be well understood by many, that they're actually downloading and executing native code that could do what it likes.
Of course it's possible, but there just doesn't seem to be the same widespread problem with plugins as with ActiveX.
Using http://trainhorns.net/sound/ as a benchmark IE8 and Firefox 3 behaves almost the same. A yellow bar on top + that Firefox has a helpful "click to download plugin" button while IE8 has a red X.
The obvious reason to make it removable to me is to reduce the resource any target will need. IE must be just about the biggest none essential part of Windows if you were attempting to produce a smaller core that could be used more widely?
How many users will bother to uninstall IE? Microsoft will safely keep its corporate monopoly by having IE show up automatically on new systems. Corporate IT policies will do the rest. It's just easier to keep what's already there -- and safer to standardize and not let anyone install anything else on their own. MS need only sweeten its deals with Dell, etc. -- or end up with an IE-less system that's even less reliable than Windows is already.
-- John S. James www.RepliCounts.org
now let us all pray it provides a method to remove DRM from the kernel :/
IE is still needed. At least on XP, and the same seems still to be the case with Vista SP1:
There are some updates that do not get installed unless you fire up IE and go to windows update site.
Plus, there must be a way for someone installing Windows to download a browser, and for most people the command-line ftp that's the only out-of the box alternative to a browser for that purpose (where would Joe Sixpack point the ftp? - of course, he shouldn't be installing OS on a computer in the first place).
Of course, Microsoft could be forced to do with browsers what they do with search engines for IE (namely, you can add others to IE search box and make some other than Live Search the default). You could have, say, an Internet connection wizard that would ask you which browser you'd like to download - or whatever. But it would have to be a step of the installation process.
But that's a problem that is not for me to solve.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
Thank God! Now I also want to uninstall (please?) : Windows Defender,Sidebar,Windows Firewall,DVD Maker,Windows Mail,Windows Calendar,Windows Journal,Windows Movie Maker,Windows Meeting Space,Windows Photo Gallery,Windows Media Player,Windows Contacts and Bitlocker. And have an minimalistic version of MY windows with the programs I want. Oh.. and, if possible, i would also like to clean my winsxs folder