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!
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.
...you don't use the browser for updates anymore. You haven't since XP.
Have you ever actually managed to truly "uninstall" something on Windows?
Don't say yes, you'll be lying.
But, Windows Update, along with all those warm fuzzy programs written in Microsoft languages, use Microsoft DLL's to do things. They'll leave behind all the DLL's, or everything will break, so all that's missing may (may) be only the iexplore.exe
Yippie skippie.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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'.
Wrong. Server Core has no IE, and it isn't just "iexplorer.exe" that's not there.
At least be informed in your trolling.
For a while now, the browser dlls which are needed for rendering are decoupled from the browser itself. For instance, Windows Help and Visual Studio use an embedded browser control which is in essence really IE.
I really doubt that they will give you the option of changing the HTML renderer for Help and other things which use the embedded control. I think the real news here is that other options may exist for not just a default web browser, but to remove the option of IE altogether. It would be more of an IT support boon than a power user boon, because users can't use IE as a crutch if you wanted to make them use only Mozilla or Chrome, etc...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Safari comes with OSX.
Please come back with an educated opinion once you know what MS's crime is. There is no law against bundling a Web browser with an OS. There is a law against undermining a market by tying a monopolized market with an un-monopolized market.
This is a big stink about nothing.
How would you know? You admit you don't understand what MS is doing that is illegal. So how would you know they aren't guilty or that the law is not a just and important one?
(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.
I know exactly what the issue is. Dont talk down to me to justify your bent. THERE IS NO "monopolized" browser market.
You just demonstrated you don't know what the issue is, since MS has not been accused of having a monopoly on the browser market. You're just embarrassing yourself. How many times are you going to assert your uneducated opinions before actually bothering to read enough to understand the topic?
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
Oh, it's definitely not important. In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing more than power politics.
Most people want a default browser.
Most people just want to go to the corner store and buy their lotto tickets. Tell me again how that is a reasonable argument to not throw the clerk in prison after he is arrested for burglary because he'd have to close said shop and it would inconvenience those customers.
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.
Likewise vendors may include crappy graphics cards, overpriced monitors, unreliable hard drives, and lackluster support services. Luckily there is no monopoly on desktop computer systems or laptops so the free market rewards vendors who provide the best options to consumers. If some vendor bundles a crappy browser you can just buy from a different vendor.
When OEMs buy an OS to preinstall on the systems they are selling, however, they pretty much don't have any viable choices other than Windows... which is why the law protects them from the company with all that influence pushing other products on them as well.
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).
First, they don't have any real way to keep me from changing the browser. Second, if they're trying that hard to do so, I'd buy from another vendor. There are a lot of them out there.
know I'm supposed to hate Microsoft and I don't like a lot of the things they do.
No, you're not "supposed" to hate them. You should, however, recognize things they do which are illegal and detrimental to the industry and individuals. If you don't understand what they're doing that is illegal and why it is illegal, there is no reason for said action to upset you. The question is, do you find out what they're doing and why it is illegal before or after you form your opinion.
. But when I get something for free (included in the price) and I can change it for free, it's hard to bitch.
Not when you understand that pretty much every time a trust is leveraged into another market, innovation in that market slows or stops. Not when, in light of that economic principal, you look at how slowly Web technologies have advanced since 1995.
The only people who are hurt by the inclusion of IE are market losers...
Market losers is an interesting description. I note you didn't say "companies offering inferior products" or "free market losers". I have no problem with either of those losing out. The problem is, because the free market is undermined, we have no way of telling what the best offering is... but it's pretty bloody unlikely it is IE.
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.
Server core still has IE libraries - for instance, WinInet which basically is a standard internet connectivity library is there. Hell, even Hyper-V server (the OS that is free and can only run Hyper-V) will actually get offered some IE updates - because some IE components are still part of the OS. Iexplore.exe isn't there, but other chunks are there because substantial parts of the OS (and even third-party applications) use them.
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?
I'm not sure that you want to open the 'lets go by the book' can of worms.
..then it is quite clear what is happening. Repeated abuse of judicial power for the power to decide the fate of billions of dollars.
For there to be a real anti-trust case against Microsoft, there needs to be a real market that is being undermind.
That is not the case, yet the E.U. is going after Microsoft anyways.
You would think that they had something better to do with their time, but they don't.
If this court is going to (again) leverage against this company, for billions of dollars, with the power to distribute vested to this same body, and do so when there is no market being protected by their ruling...
Who the heck doesnt want to decide the fate of billions of dollars? Where do I sign up?
"His name was James Damore."
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.
Server core still has IE libraries - for instance, WinInet which basically is a standard internet connectivity library is there.
Right... so your argument is that because libraries that IE uses, that the rest of the system also use, are still around, IE isn't gone?
If we apply that to the linux world I imagine there'd be an awful lot of apps that "stick around" even after being "uninstalled". Since when do dependencies an application make?
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 ;)
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.
Explain the problem then? As far as i can READ... The EU wants to force Microsoft to ship every competing browser with their Windows 7 release. NO ONE IS HELD TO THAT STANDARD... ONLY Microsoft. Why?
What is the problem with MS having IE in windows? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? There is currently NO problem... so what is this magical problem that we dont understand?
I DONT EVEN USE IE... Most of us here dont. Its fucking proof that this is a non issue. What is teh real problem? explain it if you know so much? What does IE being tied to explorer, have ANYTHING to do with hurting ANYTHING that is currently being done in the industry with respect to web browsers?
As far as i can see.. IE has been losing ground for many years now and Firefox is considered the better, and more desirable browser.
IE is a fucking DEAD browser in my eyes. I could careless if MS bundle it, build it into their gui.... etc. IT has absolutely no effect on me and most of us here.
READ: In its current so called "evil" form... IE is having ZERO fucking impact on the competition. IF ANYTHING competing browsers have been GROWING in market share over the past 8 years. Even to the point of making IE undesirable.
I'm more of the thought that MS should be allowed to design their os, their browser etc as they see fit. No one holds Apple to this insane fucking standard that MS is held too. Its just fucking nitpicking shit at this point.
Why the FUCK should the EU be allowed to force MS to ship their OS with multiple browsers from competitors? Thats fucking insane!
If thats the world we want to live in, then Mozilla should be forced offer you to download and install Safari, Chrome, Opera, and IE when you dl their setup.exe Better yet... Firefox's setup should include ALL of those other browsers. Thats fucking insane and you know it
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.
there is, however, a certain monopolized desktop market that MS is using to expose their browser to everyone
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
...you don't use the browser for updates anymore. You haven't since XP.
Most of my Windows machines are still on XP - I have not mucked about with Win7, and only casually used a couple of Vista installs.
One thing I will point out from my XP experience is that I have frequently had to resort to using MSIE to 'revive' automatic updates. Some little patch or quirk in the auto-update software and the machine just stops getting updates. Only a visit to the Windowsupdate website gets the issue resolved.
Another case was XP's SP3 - this was an optional update for months before it was made mandatory. If you checked the website, you found out, and could schedule time to try it.
Going back to the topic that MSIE can be removed, and it may be a sop to the EU antitrust actions, will Microsoft be forced to make access to patches with a non-IE browser easier?
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
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
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
Aw... poor baby, keep with the cheap shots... it will always get mommy's attention.
Hurt your fragile ego huh? Deal with it.
I know exactly what the issue is. Dont talk down to me to justify your bent. THERE IS NO "monopolized" browser market.
You just demonstrated you don't know what the issue is, since MS has not been accused of having a monopoly on the browser market.
You said it was a monopoly dick. I said there IS NO monopoly.
As one can easily see in your quote you asserted there is no monopoly on the "browser market". MS has never been accused of having a monopoly on the browser market. They've been found to have a monopoly on "desktop OS's" which is legal by itself (which you'd already know if you'd bother to learn anything before mouthing off). They're being convicted of leveraging that monopoly into the web browser market.
Now we could get into a discussion of market definitions to determine how the original ruling was made. Or we could discuss why the laws exist in the first place. But I don't really feel like continuing a discussion with someone as rude and willfully ignorant as you. What's the point? You have an opinion which you formed without any knowledge of the subject and you've repeatedly refused to spend a few minutes learning what antitrust abuse is and about this case. You are obviously irrational and not too bright.
Libraries only IE uses.
More accurately libraries created primarily for IE when MS coupled IE into the OS to lie* to the courts.
*retroactively be technically correct**.
**"Technically correct is the best kind of correct***
*** one more footnote and I can qualify to write diskworld novels.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
"You are obviously irrational and not too bright."
Don't assume someone who is irrational isn't bright.
Not that you are doing that, but you seem to imply it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
..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.
That's like saying libc is a library only libc uses. The IE libraries provide HTML rendering to applications, so many different applications use them.
IE was "coupled" into the OS because any idiot could see the benefit of providing a common API to embed a browser into an application. This API is used by the OS apps and many other applications, ergo it can't be removed from the OS without breaking stuff.
Are you mistaking now monopoly and dominant position?
Nope. Usually at around 70% market share and when the courts decide a company has enough influence, that company can be declared a monopoly. It is a legal term, distinct from a dominant player in a market.
US vs Microsoft was declared by fact that Microsoft had monopoly _on Intel-based_ computers. Not on all personal computers (PC's and Mac's), because it did not have monopoly on those, but dominant position.
That's not really very relevant. The EU ruled MS has a monopoly on "desktop computer operating systems". Their assessment of Macintosh computers does not count them as having any market share because they don't license their OS to the consumers in question (mostly OEMs but a few site licenses as well). Apple instead bypasses that market and competes only in the desktop computer system market. (boxed sales of OS X being tied to their hardware by licensing and negligible in volume anyway).
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.
For there to be a real anti-trust case against Microsoft, there needs to be a real market that is being undermind[sic]. That is not the case, yet the E.U. is going after Microsoft anyways.
Yeah, but they've already been found guilty of undermining that exact market by several other courts in several other countries.Is it a global conspiracy then? And the fact that every economist and lawyer who assesses the issue says there is a market and they're going to lose this one is also part of said conspiracy? And the textbook authors who describe how markets are determined are in on it to and travelled back in time to write text from a hundred years ago describing them the same? Can you work vampires into it somehow?
Or maybe you're just WRONG about your assertion about the web browser market.
If this court is going to (again) leverage against this company
I don't think that verb means what you think it means.
..then it is quite clear what is happening. Repeated abuse of judicial power...
Evidence?
Who the heck doesnt want to decide the fate of billions of dollars?
EU commissioners who don't get any of it and have no vested interest.
Explain the problem then?
That's a question?
As far as i can READ... The EU wants to force Microsoft to ship every competing browser with their Windows 7 release.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Where did you read that? I'm quite interested in seeing your citation since the EU has not even convicted them, let alone made any statements about punishment and reparations. I'm beginning to doubt you can read since you haven't made a post yet that doesn't fundamentally misunderstand the laws in question.
...so what is this magical problem that we dont understand?
I can see why antitrust law and economics seem like magic to you, since you refuse to learn anything about them.
I'm not even going to bother to address the rest of your nonsense. Please, please, please educate yourself or shut up.
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.
Microsoft forces OEM's to *not* install any browser other than IE.
All this astroturfing about users installing browsers or Microsoft removing IE is just trying to confuse the issue.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Before the ruling: Microsoft could tell the OEM "if you put Firefox on the desktop, you will lose your exclusive contract to get Windows for half price".
After: Microsoft cannot tell the OEM this, they can put Firefox on the desktop (and *keep* IE *or* remove it, whatever they want) and Microsoft cannot punish them by changing their prices for all the rest of Windows.
Now please go back and collect your check from Microsoft, and please make sure you address exactly what I said here rather than any bullshit about users or Microsoft installing/uninstalling anything.
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 :/
If I am wrong, then show me the market.
Where is the money? If anti-trust laws arent about money anymore, then its a sad sad time for us all.
"His name was James Damore."
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
If I am wrong, then show me the market.
Web browsers. Some premium ones are for sale, others are ad supported. Both make money for the developer directly or indirectly. You do know you don't have to pay for something directly for their to be a market in terms of either economics or law right? You do know barter systems are still markets, right?
Where is the money?
The Firefox team is paid by Google mostly to direct people to their search engine so they can make money from Ads. The IE team is paid by MS with money you give them when you buy Windows. They're all moving cash around though.
Where is the money?
They were never just about money. They were about markets and innovation. Do you mean to imply that if a company barters their product for other products instead of selling it for cash, antitrust laws no longer apply? That's nonsense.
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
So you arent going to show me the money?
Lets make this simple.
Internet Explorer 67.44% 100% FREE
Firefox 21.77% 100% FREE
Safari 8.02% 100% FREE
Chrome 1.15% 100% FREE
Thats 98.38%. Lets move on!
Opera 0.71% 100% FREE
Netscape 0.66% 100% FREE
Mozilla 0.07% 100% FREE
Thats 99.82%.
I can continue. You really are letting your bias with a close association cloud your judgement on this. There is obviously no market here that needs protecting. While its all well and good that you really want web standards or whatever bias it is thats influencing you, the fact remains that there is no market here.
The money changing hands are all to do with other markets, and they arent even dominated by microsoft.
"His name was James Damore."
So if I go to the store and and there is a buy one get one free sale going on, I can just take the second one because it is free? Calling something "free" in marketing doesn't make it free. Firefox isn't free, it is ad supported. By default it directs you to Google for searches so you see ads and Google pays them for that privilege. That's the money.
You really are letting your bias with a close association cloud your judgement on this.
You just don't understand economics at all. So answer my question. If a particular business operates by barter do you think that means that economic laws including antitrust laws don't apply to them?