Windows 7 Kill Switch For IE Confirmed — For More Apps, Too

CWmike writes "Microsoft has confirmed that users will be able to remove its IE8 browser, as well as several other integrated applications, from Windows 7. Jack Mayo, a group program manager on the Windows team, listed in a blog post the applications that can be switched off. They include Internet Explorer 8, Fax and Scan, handwriting recognition, Windows DVD Maker, Windows Gadget Platform, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, Windows Search, and XPS Viewer and Services. He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not actually deleted from the hard drive. The public beta of Windows 7 does not include the ability to 'kill' said apps. But a pirated copy of Windows 7 Build 7048 includes the new removal options, and has been leaked on the Internet." (We mentioned the reported ability to turn off IE8 yesterday as well.)

Comments

Why not?

[John Hasler]

> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.

Why not?

Re:Why not?

[Jurily]

Other stuff depends on them.

Re:Why not?

[qoncept]

The article also mentions they can be reinstalled/reenabled without the installation disk. My guess is that genuinely is the reason. I remember Windows 95 randomly asking me to insert the installation disc when I was updating drivers or installing non-MS software, which was ridiculous.

Of course, its also possible the libraries are still being used (and loaded, and still eating up resources) for other things.

Re:Why not?

[davidphogan74]

One of the articles mentions Windows Update, which requires IE's API's to work properly. I'm sure other cases would come up as well.

Re:Why not?

[castorvx]

Removing the dependencies would break a massive number of applications.

Re:Why not?

[ikirudennis]

Does that mean that flaws in IE8 still leave a computer vulnerable if it's been "uninstalled?"

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use software that embeds an IE component, such as Winamp, then yes.

Re:Why not?

[yenne]

I always figured it was because so many features of the system libraries were wired into IE. The help system, the active desktop, file thumbnail previews, any HTML display object created by application code -- seems like all of these would be wired into the same dynamic library for optimal support and space/memory efficiency.

Given that the user might still expect all that other stuff to work after "removing" IE, what are you really removing? A windowed presentation with some bookmark functionality?

Perhaps someone else can comment on how close Windows is to allowing some other browser vendor to be a plug-in replacement for all that other functionality.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the nightmare called windows side by side install.

So you uncheck the box it is 'uninstalled'.
Later on you decide 'wait a second I did want that' and check it back.

Now instead of popping the disk back in. It is magically there again.

Any application can take advantage/disadvantage of this. Basically you install it into the winsxs dir and it pretty much stays forever.

The only resource that will be consumed is disk space.

For example in vista telnet is not 'on the box by default' you go check the box and it installs it into the system32 dir. Where did it get that? The network was off, and i put no disk in. It did a hard link to the real file that lives in the winsxs dir. You can get this same sort of thing in linux using the ln. In windows not so easy but it can be done.

Re:Why not?

[meist3r]

> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not > actually deleted from the hard drive.

Why not?

So people who feel bullied in actually buying a license don't have to wait until they can re-install their shame.

Re:Why not?

[digitalunity]

Explorer, MMC, Control Panel, just to name a few all use mshtml.dll. In addition, any .NET application that utilizes the WebBroswer class or MFC application that uses the CHtmlView class will need mshtml.dll to be available.

The only alternative here is for Mozilla or another OS browser to reimplement mshtml.dll from scratch - a daunting task of questionable logic.

Re:Why not?

[Tubal-Cain]

You can get this same sort of thing in linux using the ln.

For Debian-based systems, just drop the relevant .deb in /var/cache/apt/archives/

Re:Why not?

[nobodyman]

From the article:

If a feature is deselected, it is not available for use. This means the files (binaries and data) are not loaded by the operating system (for security-conscious customers) and not available to users on the computer. These same files are staged so that the features can easily be added back to the running OS without additional media. This staging is important feedback we have received from customers who definitely do not like to dig up the installation DVD.

Best of both worlds in my opinion. I also like that there is one unified interface for managing features. This is just one example, but in vista you could use 'add/remove components' for IIS, but if you wanted to disable Media Center, you had to do it from the group policy editor. Extremely frustrating.

Re:Why not?

[Captain Spam]

The only alternative here is for Mozilla or another OS browser to reimplement mshtml.dll from scratch - a daunting task of questionable logic.

"Daunting" puts it lightly, apparently. WINE, for instance, attempts to reimplement mshtml.dll via the Gecko engine for all the things that use it for HTML rendering. Like, say, Steam. To date, I still don't think it's possible to complete a purchase or demo download from start to finish entirely within the Steam client under WINE/Crossover. You still need to start the purchase externally, enter Steam, and finish it there because they haven't fully reimplemented all the calls properly.

So, yes, it has been tried, and it isn't quite perfect yet.

Re:Why not?

[Mofassa]

This is stated clearly in the blog post:

These same files are staged so that the features can easily be added back to the running OS without additional media. This staging is important feedback we have received from customers who definitely do not like to dig up the installation DVD.

and

A second decision is that we also continue to support the APIs available for features where these APIs are necessary to the functionality of Windows or where there are APIs that are used by developers that can be viewed as independent of the component. As many of you know these are often referred to as âoedependenciesâ and with Windows the dependencies can run both internal to Windows and external for ISVs.

Re:Why not?

[Ethanol-fueled]

I don't see why not.

Remember XP, where you could "remove" IE in the "add/remove Windows components" menu? Then you click "My computer" and type in a web address in the address bar and BAM! It's launched in IE!

switched off" != uninstalled.

Re:Why not?

[thsths]

> Windows Update, which requires IE's API's to work properly.

Which must be one of the worst software decisions ever. Active X is an incredibly stupid design, and the root cause for many Windows security problems. With Windows Update Microsoft is cementing it in by making it system critical.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive me but from your example this is also true: "switched off != switched off".

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If other stuff is using it, in what sense has it been disabled?

Re:Why not?

[ikirudennis]

I know what you're you're all saying, I've seen these problems too. The question is: did they realize the problem and fix it?

Re:Why not?

[sexconker]

So you can't delete all your browsers and then complain.

You can reinstall IE8 at anytime.

Re:Why not?

[thetoadwarrior]

Why would they need the installation disk? No disk was required to install IE7 on XP. You won't need a disk for IE9. So there is no reason a disk should be required for IE8.

It's a free program and they already do checks to see if you have a valid installation so why leave it on the system when it can be downloaded? In fact this would be better.

When someone wants to re-enabled IE again they're taken off to the IE site where they have to download the installer and get the latest version rather than some outdated version that's been sitting hidden away on their system.

Re:Why not?

[Chyeld]

Yes, they renamed the 'uninstall' process to 'kill switch' and repeated the same old tired BS about how this one really does turn it off. Really. Trust us.

Be nice if instead, they actually wrote a real API for these items so you could just drop in your replacement DLLs for the programs you actually wanted to drive the show and let people do things like 'integrate' Gecko into the shell.

Re:Why not?

[jaavaaguru]

[Citation needed]

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Vista, Windows Update has been its own program and not a web site, which is much nicer and saner.

Re:Why not?

[PJ1216]

That only takes care of one of a bunch of applications. Sometimes its just easier to have everything all the same way as opposed to having one being treated differently then the others. Please keep in mind, more than just IE is being discussed here.

Re:Why not?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Be nice if instead, they...let people do things like 'integrate' Gecko into the shell.

Integration of a browser into their shell is what caused this problem in the first place. I don't understand why that's necessary outside of thin-client and kiosk applications.

Re:Why not?

[Chyeld]

It's not necessary, but since they've already gone through the work of illegally tying their other products into Windows, what would be nice is if they actually stopped trying to force their own engines on everyone and let the user decide which to use.

Re:Why not?

[nabsltd]

It's a free program and they already do checks to see if you have a valid installation so why leave it on the system when it can be downloaded?

In the case of IE, it would largely be because many users could not figure out how to download something without using IE in the first place.

Although most people would not disable IE unless they had another browser, it could be done in error.

I do think that disabling IE should be something that raises red flags (like UAC), since malware could disable IE and replace it with a thin executable that used mshtml.dll to render pages. It would be the ultimate in malicious Browser Helper Objects.

Re:Why not?

[Sancho]

Internet Explorer is a web browser. Trident is the layout engine. Other programs can make use of Trident to, in effect, allow for web browsing. Microsoft can use Trident in places other than IE where it makes sense to have a layout engine. Removing IE will not remove Trident.

It's really not that hard, people.

Re:Why not?

[mikedizzle]

Still, I'm beginning to like Windows 7 more and more and more. It's definitely a step up in regards to security. Sure, not all vulnerabilities will be addressed, but it's a heck of a lot better than keeping IE hardwired into the operating system. I'm really looking forward to when it finally becomes released. win7

Re:Why not?

[shutdown -p now]

Given that the user might still expect all that other stuff to work after "removing" IE, what are you really removing? A windowed presentation with some bookmark functionality?

Well, yes, that, and an address bar. That's also what most people call a "browser". The thing that renders the pages is "rendering engine". IE is the browser, MSHTML/Trident is the rendering engine.

Perhaps someone else can comment on how close Windows is to allowing some other browser vendor to be a plug-in replacement for all that other functionality.

MSHTML is embeddable into applications as an ActiveX control. ActiveX is COM-based, and COM is all about programming against interfaces. In case of MSHTML, that's the IWebBrowser2 interface, and everything that it references. Due to the nature of COM, it is, of course, entirely possible to provide your own implementation of all of these. At some point, the application also has to instantiate a specific COM component implementing that interface - that's identified by a GUID in the registry. Again, it is quite possible to rewrite that registry key so that it points to your implementations instead of MSHTML.

Of course, this is still a very non-trivial task, because there are many subtleties. Applications that host MSHTML can rely on many of its features (custom HTML elements and CSS properties, VML, JavaScript extensions or VBScript, ability to host .NET and ActiveX controls, etc). Those are all documented, but the sheer amount of things that must be handled is staggering.

Re:Why not?

[sortius_nod]

Well, it wasn't called Critical Update Notification Tool at first for nothing.

Re:Why not?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Hanlon's razor.

Microsoft can't uninstall the browser because the shell is the browser. It treats all URLs the same, whether local or internet. It looks prettier than the default explorer browser but they are both the same plate of spaghetti. Now that's code reuse!

And if you've ever tried to "lock down" a Windows system...well, let me give you an example. A co-worker's box was banned from the internet because he looked at too many bullshit sites. IE and firefox(transferred from another box) wouldn't connect because "it's been disabled. See your admininstrator." Whaddya know, he eventually found a way to launch arbitrary websites...through Windows Media Player!

Re:Why not?

[eltaco]

apparently not.

Re:Why not?

[sam0737]

Plus, it will break million of existing apps if the Internet Explorer Web browser control is removed from the system.

Re:Why not?

[mrbene]

Sounds like the network admin should have banned his MAC from external access. Easy, OS and client independent implementation.

Re:Why not?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Not when the "implementation" depends on hubris and checkboxes.

Re:Why not?

[mrbene]

So that they can be re-installed without requiring the re-insertion of the DVD.

If they're using the same functionality as "Windows Features" in Vista, then when the feature is disabled, it's uninstalled and it cannot be executed. Imagine having the Windows ISO copied to the HDD and not having it mounted. If you want to install a component (like IIS), you don't go digging for the install disk - just check a checkbox and wait 10+ minutes.

And when it's uninstalled, the files remain on the HDD in the ISO equivalent, but do not remain in the 'accessible' folder structure, and are therefore no executable.

I'd expect that you'd be hard pressed to find iExplore.exe after unchecking the "IE8" checkbox in Win7.

Re:Why not?

[Chyeld]

My, how wonderfully condescending and rude of you. I'm sure, if I wasn't already a Linux supporter, I'd just jump right out and try it after reading that particularly rancid piece of your mind.

Hint: I didn't say shit about anyone forcing me to use Windows. I said Microsoft was forcing me to use their products in Windows. Two entirely different things, and surprisingly, your self-righteous suggestion doesn't address the one I actually commented on.

I'd say, "Try again" but then I read your comment history and decided once was enough for me.

Re:Why not?

[Chyeld]

Incorrect. Microsoft can't uninstall the RENDERING engine because they've done their damnest to hook it into everything in the system while obscuring how it's done to ensure no one can come along and rip it out and replace it.

My suggestion was, given they weren't suppose to do that and even got spanked for doing it, maybe they should stop trying to pull this crap and simply publish the API's that their rendering engine implements. And by publish, I don't mean the typical Microsoft BS of dumping out a specification that even they can't implement, but an actual honest to goodness "this does that, that does this" document.

If they did that, then regardless of the 'advisability' of the integration in the first place, you'd at least have the opportunity to replace the rendering engine with your own.

Re:Why not?

[icannotthinkofaname]

Hanlon's razor.

So...Microsoft isn't evil, just unreasonably retarded? Seems like that would explain a lot of their decisions at least since when Ballmer took over. Maybe through the company's whole life, though I don't know much about the time when Gates actually ran the show.

Re:Why not?

[mahadiga]

Please do not buy software from Closed source software vendors.
Because you don't OWN a product unless you can MODIFY it.

Re:Why not?

[Kalriath]

Because Windows 7 (like Vista before it) maintains a copy of the install image on the disk. They don't mean the files are left in place, they mean the install image on the disk still contains the files, and they're removed from Program Files (or wherever).

Re:Why not?

[Kalriath]

Tried it. No it doesn't, it boots up Firefox like I expected.

Re:Why not?

[Kalriath]

There is a real API. All you need to do is properly implement the IWebBrowser interface. No one does though. But then again, why should they make it so you can replace Trident? No one is claiming that Apple should let you replace WebKit or that the KDE project should let you replace KHTML.

Re:Why not?

[Kalriath]

The IWebBrowser interface, it's documented in MSDN. All a library has to do is expose that to replace Trident. But like I said before, it's a little unfair to expect that when Apple is perfectly OK to tie WebKit into anything that moves and KDE uses KHTML for a bunch of stuff too. You can't remove (or replace) the rendering engines on those. Well, maybe you can on KDE.

Re:Why not?

[wmac]

You can use linux or Mac if you don't like it.

Re:Why not?

[wmac]

Illegally? Which law you mean?

Re:Why not?

[wmac]

My suggestion to you is to completely forget Windows and chose another OS which matches what you want or your ideals.

Re:Why not?

[CrossChris]

Does that mean that flaws in IE8 still leave a computer vulnerable if it's been "uninstalled?"

Of course it does. Windoze 7 is just as vulnerable to abuse as every earlier version. MS will tell you again that they've "fixed the vulnerabilities" - just like they did with Win 2000, XP, Vista and every other version.....

Re:Why not?

[cyber-vandal]

When Apple and KDE are found guilty of anti-trust violations which particularly involve manipulating the browser market to protect their OS monopoly in two very large jurisdictions then no doubt they will be. Perhaps one day this non-argument that surfaces every time Microsoft are expected to comply with court judgements will go away. But I doubt it.

Re:Why not?

[xOneca]

Does any software depend on the Pinball that's included in Windows 2000 Server?

Re:Why not?

[Chyeld]

The one regarding settlements and consent decrees.

In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics allege that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system. In a consent decree issued on July 15, 1994, Microsoft agreed to a deal under which, among other things, the company would not make the sale of its operating systems conditional on the purchase of any other Microsoft product. A Microsoft purchase of Intuit was also scuttled in 1994 due to antitrust concerns that Microsoft would be purchasing a major competitor.

After bundling the Internet Explorer web browser into its Windows operating system in the late 1990s (without requiring a separate purchase) and acquiring a dominant share in the web browser market, the antitrust case United States v. Microsoft was brought against the company. In a series of rulings by judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the company was found to have violated its earlier consent decree and abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market.

Re:Why not?

[Tubal-Cain]

Would someone care to explain the Troll mod?
Preferably the mod himself...

Re:Why not?

[RedK]

Apple and KDE aren't convicted of having used their OS monopoly to dominate the Browser market. Microsoft is.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone wants to re-enabled IE again they're taken off to the IE site...

They're "taken off" in what? Their web browser? But that's what they're trying to re-enable. How do they get taken to a website in their web browser to download a web browser?

Sure, they could have Firefox or something else installed, but what if they don't? Now it's a requirement to have Firefox in order to install IE?

Re:Why not?

[Horse Rotorvator JAD]

Hurricane78, it is people like you that make people loathe Linux geeks.

Re:Why not?

[Horse Rotorvator JAD]

Most people don't care about crap like that. They want to be able to use email, surf the web and play games. Having the source code is something that 99.9% of users couldn't care less about.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Re:Why not?

[CAIMLAS]

My guess is that 10 years of integration efforts have resulted in a system which can not be easily de-associated without causing problems - whether it's for their own products or other vendors' products.

Consider that there are a lot of 3rd party applications which use an embedded web browser - IE. You can't remove IE without breaking said applications.

Re:Why not?

[Cyberax]

Wrong. There's Mozilla ActiveX component - http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm (which is used in Wine for IE emulation, BTW).

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm

Gecko, implemented as IWebBrowser

Re:Why not?

[WNight]

it's a heck of a lot better than keeping IE hardwired into the operating system.

Errr, that's exactly what it is. They offer to remove the desktop shortcut and such, but all the files remain in place, just as executable and exploitable as before.

Re:Why not?

[Thing 1]

It really was, and Microsoft still has text describing it in TechNet.

Re:Why not?

[Thing 1]

When someone wants to re-enabled IE again they're taken off to the IE site where they have to download the installer and get the latest version rather than some outdated version that's been sitting hidden away on their system.

And if they've removed it (deleting the files) and don't have a second browser?

Reminds me somewhat of "And tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?"

Not removing the files makes perfect sense from an "easy reinstall" scenario.

Re:Why not?

[LiveChatWithCredible]

Because you don't OWN a product unless you can MODIFY it.

Excellent.

Re:Why not?

[denis-The-menace]

http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm2500

A single step toward modularity

[qoncept]

The killer is that these are all just specialized applications that should be easily installed and uninstalled, just like any other application. It blows my mind that they could be so entrenched that just removing them, or not having them installed to begin with, isn't trivial.

Re:A single step toward modularity

[fl1ckmasterflex]

They started the OS layering task long ago. MinWin was just one demonstration of that. (40 meg core - no dependencies) Watch out for the Microsoft-Windows-System-*-L1-1-0.dll files in Win7 . ;)

Re:A single step toward modularity

[Bert64]

Not only that, but having 2 apps to do the same thing is ridiculously wasteful and inefficient.... They are hoping that people will assume there's no point having 2 apps installed for the same purpose, and since one can't be removed they may as well keep it rather than having 2.

Re:A single step toward modularity

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but having 2 apps to do the same thing is ridiculously wasteful and inefficient.

I know. Why only have 2 apps to do the same thing when you can have 5, 6, hell maybe an even dozen?! Go Linux.

Re:A single step toward modularity

[Anonymous Coward]

It blows my mind that they could be so entrenched that just removing them, or not having them installed to begin with, isn't trivial.

Software engineering 101: what part of the word "dependency" blows your mind? What platform lets you snap out the provided rich text rendering engine for something else? Practically every application on the platform uses it in some way! And why do you trust Joe Sixpack to do this? What will he do when it renders things oh-so-slightly differently? He won't put together that it is because he changed out the HTML renderer.

Everyone here continues to bellyache about things without offering up solutions that actually work outside of their parents basement. This is not a new problem, dependency management sucks, and will always suck because third party apps are built to certain implementations of things and become reliant on undocumented behavior without even realizing it.

Re:A single step toward modularity

[BlackSnake112]

I know. Why only have 2 apps to do the same thing when you can have 5, 6, hell maybe an even dozen?! Go Linux.

aaaa the orgy approach...

Re:A single step toward modularity

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing the /choice/ of 5, 6, or a dozen, with the inability to have less than two.

Re:A single step toward modularity

[saiha]

You stated it yourself, things (and by things I mean built-in windows apps) are built on undocumented behavior making it almost impossible to replicate.

The dependency on a specific library isn't the problem here, its the dependency on apps/libraries that are developed with way too much intimate knowledge of the OS.

Re:A single step toward modularity

[Bert64]

Yes, and on Linux i have a *CHOICE* of a dozen or more, i choose one and remove everything else because they're unnecessary and easily removed.

On windows i get the choice of having third party app(s) installed in additional to the ms ones, or just having the ms ones, i can't have third party apps instead of the ms ones.

Re:A single step toward modularity

[drsmithy]

The killer is that these are all just specialized applications that should be easily installed and uninstalled, just like any other application. It blows my mind that they could be so entrenched that just removing them, or not having them installed to begin with, isn't trivial.

Does it blow your mind that other major platforms - OS X, GNOME, KDE, etc - are the same ?

They're not just applications is the fundamental point so many seem unable to grasp. They're shared components that other applications - either "bundled" or third party - can leverage.

People don't seem to have trouble understanding that stuff depends on, say, glibc. Why is it they have so much trouble with the concept of other system libraries being similarly important ?

Re:A single step toward modularity

[Anonymous Coward]

And all the platform-specific quirks of POSIX calls are somehow OK because they're called out in the manual pages? Or do you selectively overlook that?

Re:A single step toward modularity

[philipgar]

honestly, how many complex libraries are there that have multiple implementations that could work as a drop in replacement for the other? In general this would be considered a waste. Why reinvent the wheel? Most applications today build across countless platforms and frameworks that they're going to require to run. It makes development far cheaper if you use modular reusable code. If Microsoft didn't use trident for rendering help documents, and everything else, people would be pointing out how Microsoft only hires incompetent programmers who can't reuse any code. They should really know better and build modular applications like the smart people developing cool open source project XYZ. The other blast people make is how other applications now rely on MS' trident library to run and how horrible it is.

You do realize that MS was being good to their development community by allowing access to trident and their other interfaces. It's just part of how good software development works. Large complex dependencies end up existing, but you have complex applications that can be written in much fewer lines of code. You know, MS has also integrated their widget set into their apis.... this forces people to use MS widgets by default and it isn't easy to replace those with another set that behave differently. Maybe if MS only allowed developers to have access to a raw window that the programmers completely control you'd be happy. Hell, it would spell the end of MS dominance of the SW industry overnight. MS Windows is so successful because of their many partnerships with developers more than anything. Without applications that can run under windows, they have nothing.

Phil

now this switch should be on by default

[jacquesm]

and after installation you should be able to selectively enable those bits and pieces that you actually want.

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[qoncept]

I don't know that that's fair. When I came back to my computer after installing Ubuntu for the first time, I found a whole lot of garbage I didn't and would never want installed, and much of it I wasn't able to uninstall after the fact. But people want to be able to use their computer out of the box and not have to install anything. "People" being most people, not you.

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[TheCycoONE]

I switched to Gentoo a couple years ago, but I'm pretty sure when I was using Ubuntu I could remove just about anything.

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[stevied]

Full-blown apps are relatively easy to remove, but some of the "desktop environment" stuff - applets, the various managers (volumes, power), libraries - sit at the centre of a web of dependencies and aren't easy to get rid of. Even things that are only "Recommends:"-ed seem to pop back sometimes when I'm not looking :/

Having said that, disk is insanely cheap these days, so that even I, who's pretty obsessive about avoiding 'bloat', have learnt to live with leaving the packages around. Memory's pretty cheap too, and anyway actually stopping unnecessary components from running is a bit easier.

And, of course, no one distro / desktop environment "fits all." Xubuntu is lighter and more "loosely coupled", and there are other Ubuntu variants that are even more hardcore (I keep meaning to give #! a spin ..) That's really where free software trumps commercial: each subculture that feels the need can roll its own.

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[shadowbearer]

  What "garbage apps" did you want to uninstall?

  Ubuntu has a pretty clean installation, there's not much in there - short of maybe a few games that don't take up much space - that any user won't want.

  Care to name some? Or are you just trolling?

SB
 

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[digitalchinky]

One man's garbage is another's treasure.

If you are in an office environment and you're at all BOFH inclined, then there are a lot of things that are not necessary, clean as their installation may well be. Instant messaging, bittorrent, games.

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[John Hasler]

> Instant messaging, bittorrent, games.

Those can all be removed (or not installed to begin with).

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using Ubuntu 8.10. I wanted to uninstall Firefox last week... it wasn't nearly as easy as it should've been. I apt-get removed it, and it was still there even though apt-get thought it was gone. I had to manually remove it.
Not a big deal, and not very common that someone would want to do that. But my point is, that even the most popular Linux distros have their fair share of this kind of thing.

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[omkhar]

the issue for me has never been disk bloat, but rather the inherent security vulnerabilities of installing more stuff than you actually need. More stuff means more stuff to patch, means more vulnerabilities.

Re:now this switch should be on by default

[British]

Does Ubuntu still come with a Palm sync tool I have zero use for? I remember that came default in I think 8.04.

Shortcuts

[Dan East]

"He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not actually deleted from the hard drive."

Wow, they have a switch to remove shortcuts. Out of sight out of mind?

Re:Shortcuts

[davidphogan74]

It also prevents them from being loaded, as the articles explain. If needed for API's that require them, or if you turn them back on, they're available, but otherwise don't get loaded.

Re:Shortcuts

[Anonymous Coward]

If needed for API's that require them, or if you turn them back on, or if required by DRM, spyware, viruses, or other Windows malware they're available, but otherwise [they usually] don't get loaded.

Re:Shortcuts

[thethibs]

That's a vital point. IE's underlying APIs are published and available to developers. There is no way to know how many applications (in addition to Update) would be broken by completely removing IE.

Re:Shortcuts

[stevied]

Well, disk is incredibly cheap. And it (hopefully) has the advantage of uncluttering the UI. Every time I have to use a Windows box, I'm amazed at the number of options there seem to be for opening image files with, none of which usually does what I want ..

Re:Shortcuts

[noidentity]

If needed for API's that require them, or if you turn them back on, they're available, but otherwise don't get loaded.

That's pretty slick... the computer doesn't load them unless they're needed. I just have this odd feeling I encountered this on some system a while back...

Re:Shortcuts

[Jared555]

The parent post has a reasonable comment, don't see why it was marked troll. Is there anything to stop malware, etc. from abusing the 'disabled' files? Also, what happens when someone looks at windows update and thinks there is no point in these internet explorer updates because it is 'disabled'

Re:Shortcuts

[GrumblyStuff]

IE's underlying APIs are published and available to developers.

Malware developers?

Re:Shortcuts

[wampus]

Nothing. What would stop the same malware from abusing any other part of any other standard API? Also, the average user leaves updates to their default value of "install when its available" so they won't think to install or not install anything.

Deleted or Deactivated?

[oahazmatt]

Which is it? One sentence says that the program can be "removed" and then it's explained that the program can be "turned off" but the files aren't deleted. That's hardly removing the product. It's equivelent to not using it.

Re:Deleted or Deactivated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure it's Deactivated because this has been possible in XP also. Basically it's the same old.

Re:Deleted or Deactivated?

[xigxag]

In Windows, certain programs are by default associated with particular file types. For example, by default mp3s are associated with WMP. This turnoff switch will likely do more than simply remove the shortcut, it will also remove the default associations.

Subsequently, if you want to actually reclaim the one-half of one percent of your hard drive being taken up by the unneeded applications, you can just go ahead and delete the files manually. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it, since other programs (even third party apps) may be expecting certain files to be present by default in Windows installations, and once you delete the file, you'll have to go fishing for your installation disk in order to restore the functionality. Except increasingly OEM computers DON'T COME WITH INSTALLATION DISKS, and if you forgot to make a restore disk, you'll be very sad.

But I partially agree with some of the comments here: It would make more sense (IMO) for Windows to greet you with the following choice upon initial configuration:

1) Enable All Default MS Windows Helper Applications
2) Do not install Default MS Windows Helper Applications. Just install the basic MS Windows operating system. (note, may affect some functionality of 3rd party applications)
3) Expert: Selectively install/enable/uninstall/disable MS Windows Helper Applications

Couple that with by default requesting the user to insert a blank DVDR or USB stick to create a restore "disk" as the final step in setting up the operating system.

This would help resolve their ongoing "bundling" debacle.

Re:Deleted or Deactivated?

[pnewhook]

But I partially agree with some of the comments here: It would make more sense (IMO) for Windows to greet you with the following choice upon initial configuration:

That would make Windows have the same installation choices that OS/2 had 15 years ago! What progress!

Re:Deleted or Deactivated?

[eleuthero]

I will not be buying a computer that doesn't come with some way of getting an install disk--at least not as long as I use windows. I greatly appreciate Dell allowing me to still get it (though I don't much like paying 10 bucks for the under $1 disc)

Re:Deleted or Deactivated?

[jaavaaguru]

the one-half of one percent of your hard drive being taken up by the unneeded applications

What? there is 5GB of unneeded apps that get installed along with Windows? And I thought Ubuntu was getting bloated.

Re:Deleted or Deactivated?

[drsmithy]

But I partially agree with some of the comments here: It would make more sense (IMO) for Windows to greet you with the following choice upon initial configuration:

No, it would not. The sensible situation would be that you weren't pestered to make a choice, and could instead just get on with using the computer. This is what happens with other platforms, and it would be the same with Windows if it weren't for intrusive and user-hostile legal requirements that they present some sort of "choice".

If you want something other than the default, you know enough to find and use an alternative on your own.

Re:Deleted or Deactivated?

[xigxag]

Fair enough, but when I said it would make more sense, I didn't mean from the end user perspective, but from the perspective of Microsoft Corp. and its torturous efforts to avoid the perils of Scylla and Charybdis, er, the Dept of Justice and the European Commission.

always been able to do this?

[timmarhy]

you've always been able to install/uninstall windows components such as scan and fax.

Re:always been able to do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Microsoft are just saying all this nonsense to try make the EU happy.
"oh hey guys look, we have an interface to delete files, even our own files! Can we be friends again?"

Kinda sad when they could have easily just said that they have been able to do this since XP (earlier?)
Then say it was the OEMs decision to ship the computers with the IE browser enabled.

What happened to you Microsoft? You used to be cool, lying to people left, right and center.
But noooo, they had to screw it up, chairs were flung and people exploded from the rage of Steve Ballmer staring at them too hard.

Kill Switch?

[jacksinn]

This sounds more like trying to bump off your crazy Uncle but keeping him on life support. Just in case... I simply feel that users should be able to get rid of it and if they choose so in the future, they can simply download it again. What is there to gain fro it remaining on the system? He says that deselecting it for use allows users to re-enable it without need for additional media but I don't see the problem considering most adopters of the technology will likely have an always-on internet connection.

Re:Kill Switch?

[Icegryphon]

Well hard-drive space is hardly a premium anymore, but if they did allow for removal it would allow for building embedded systems if they could get the install footprint down. I mean XP embedded is amazing, just look. It would also help out with netbook installs.

Stupid...

[Bert64]

> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.

That is stupid... The idea of removing something, is to reduce clutter on your system and reduce the support burden... If something is installed but not being used it still needs security patches. If it's removed, you no longer have to worry about it at all.

Re:Stupid...

[QuantumRiff]

Could you imagine the outcry from the zombie writing community if they utilized their monopoly power to destroy their business model?

Re:Stupid...

[Phroggy]

> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.

That is stupid... The idea of removing something, is to reduce clutter on your system and reduce the support burden... If something is installed but not being used it still needs security patches. If it's removed, you no longer have to worry about it at all.

Well, in the case of IE8, they can't remove the Trident rendering engine (MSHTML.DLL) without breaking gazillions of apps that rely on that library (much like several Mac OS X apps rely on WebKit), but security updates for Trident should be kept separate from security updates for the Internet Explorer application (just like security updates for WebKit are separate from security updates for Safari - at least most of the time). If you disable Internet Explorer, you will still need security updates for Trident/MSHTML, but you will NOT need security updates for the Internet Explorer application, because it will be inaccessible until it is re-enabled.

Unfortunately they probably won't require a check for security updates before reinstalling these apps; the check will come after the apps have been reinstalled, which will leave users vulnerable. Still, this is obviously a step in the right direction.

Re:Stupid...

[shadowbearer]

  Exactly, that's the whole point. If I want to build a custom system with only the apps and support libraries on it that I need - like in mobile applications - I can with one flavor or another of linux.

  With Windows you have to tear stuff out to get there, or buy a custom built proprietary solution. With linux you can build it from the ground up and include what you want to or in-house customize the rest.

  That's going to ultimately be the thing that kills Windows - that it can't be customized from ground zero for your application without at a minimum extra licensing, more likely expensive proprietary customization, if that's even possible.

  With the varied types of hardware coming out that's damned important.

SB

Re:Stupid...

[mgblst]

What is they are on your harddrive, but never run? Do they still need updates?

No. Of course the best thing to do would be to remove them all together. Must have been to hard for Microsoft to actually do that (or too difficult, I am now convinced that Microsoft is run by a bunch of incompetents).

Re:Stupid...

[FlyingBishop]

Not precisely. I remember a story about some malware for Firefox that worked by managing to launch IE. This 'off switch,' while it leaves most of the binaries intact, does prevent you (or a malware author) from launching IE, which is really the important thing. The libraries take effectively no space.

Re:Stupid...

[Kalriath]

It does remove them, but it doesn't nuke them from the installation image. Basically, (bear in mind that "disk is cheap") when you install Windows Vista or later, it dumps a copy of the installation media on your hard drive so that you don't need the DVD to install or remove stuff. When you remove a component, the installed version is deleted and the copy of it in the image is left alone so that you can easily put it back. Think of it as apt-get with a local repository if it helps any. I can't speak for whether it keeps the install image security-updated though - that I don't know.

Re:Stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

IE is just a frontend, and many applications including Steam use the rendering engine. I don't know why you're so concerned about a couple of megabytes of disk space.

Two revisions too late?

[hwyhobo]

Having installed IE8 just recently, I find it vastly improved (particularly in speed) compared to IE6 and 7. It is slightly amusing that Microsoft gives us the option to remove it now.

Re:Two revisions too late?

[mgblst]

Fuck you for only comparing about the speed of your browser, never mind all the incompatibilities IE has introduced that make it hell to do Web Development.

Re:Two revisions too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft did not give you the option, it was forced to do so by the EU comission.

Poor Timothy

[Aziabel]

/. must have you working overtime, blurring the days together. "(We mentioned the reported ability to turn off IE8 yesterday as well.)" However, today is Friday and the "yesterday" in question was Wednesday. It's okay, my friend, the days are often meaningless to me, too - I work the administrative side of IT.

A contradiction? You tell me.

[bogaboga]

"Microsoft has confirmed that users will be able to remove its IE8 browser, as well as several other integrated applications, from Windows 7...

Then later in the introduction...the applications can be switched off instead.

Jack Mayo, a group program manager on the Windows team, listed in a blog post the applications that can be switched off. They include Internet Explorer 8, Fax and Scan, handwriting recognition, Windows DVD Maker, Windows Gadget Platform, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, Windows Search, and XPS Viewer and Services.

Ohh wait...

...He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not actually deleted from the hard drive...

Now though I can remove IE8, I cannot delete *all* files associated with IE8! Does Mocrosoft think they can fool us or what?

Re:A contradiction? You tell me.

[Em Emalb]

Dude, it's a step in the right direction and you're irritated at them for it?

People have been screaming about this for literally YEARS and when something positive is initiated, they still get blasted for it.

Re:A contradiction? You tell me.

[KTheorem]

The rendering engine for IE is used other places in Windows (like the help system IIRC). The same goes for others like WMP. The libraries are needed for other applications and the executable is so small in comparison that removing it rather than just disabling it makes some sense.

Re:A contradiction? You tell me.

[saiha]

Appeasement is not positive.

Re:A contradiction? You tell me.

[saiha]

As long as the rendering engine is seperate from anything related to the network, saving/loading files/etc it is fine. However I have a hunch that the browser and the engine are tightly coupled.

Re:A contradiction? You tell me.

[RightSaidFred99]

The issue is that the original requirement is stunningly stupid and retarded on every level. In the fact of such idiocy, appeasement is the only option. Wanting them to remove IE from Windows is just dipped in shit stupid.

IMCO

[Anonymous Coward]

IMCO (in my correct opinion) you should be able to optionally remove ALL programs until you're left with only the most minimal environment that boots up to an empty desktop and an empty Start menu save for the ability to bring up a command window.

Nothing new

[Todd Knarr]

This sounds like the ability to "remove" IE from Windows XP: it removes the desktop icon and sets the preferred-application setting to not default to IE, but IE remains completely installed, active and used by certain system components.

Re:Nothing new

[Leafheart]

According to TFA, when you deactivate it you can't launch the browser. The files are there because their API is used by other essencial parts of the browser or other third part programs.

To delete mshtml.dll would mean that a huge part of windows (and third-party programs) would simply stop working. Think about it as deleting any critical linux file, example, let's delete man, suddenly a lot of things will stop working. In the case of windows it is more critical because the OS will stop working.

But, what do I know, a software company reusing functions and functionality instead of copy-and-paste reimplementing it, that is wrong, right? Right?

Re:Nothing new

[spitzak]

man is probably a poor example.

A much better equivalent would be to replace the Qt libraries with a version where the HTML renderer has been edited out. A lot of programs are not going to run as they use that to draw a lot of stuff.

I believe a lot of bitching is from astroturfers here. They get off on confusing the issue.

What I want to know: is an OEM allowed to sell a Windows machine with Firefox installed and still get normal OEM discounts on the price of Windows? Obfuscating this question with stuff about users installing/uninstalling is just a way of hiding the real question.

Re:Nothing new

[man_ls]

What I want to know: is an OEM allowed to sell a Windows machine with Firefox installed and still get normal OEM discounts on the price of Windows? Obfuscating this question with stuff about users installing/uninstalling is just a way of hiding the real question.

Well, that depends on the OEM and their individual contract they have with Microsoft. I'd hazard a guess that some can, some can't, but almost all don't because they don't want to offend anyone.

Re:Nothing new

[poopdeville]

Until Mozilla implements the MS Internet Explorer API, Microsoft is kind of stuck with IE as a subsystem. Or do you want them to stop using HTML for rendering operating system components? Why should they?

Re:Nothing new

[Todd Knarr]

I believe Mozilla already implements the IBrowser interface. That's the same API that IE was touted as using back when MS introduced the whole idea of a browser component. All Microsoft has to do is follow their own recommended practices for creating and using IBrowser objects to render HTML pages.

Of course, MS is never going to do that because it'd enable exactly what they touted the IBrowser interface as being good for: letting people transparently replace one Web browser with another.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not asking to "replace a web browser". You are asking to replace an HTML renderer. Those are different things, even if a web browser relies on an HTML renderer. Microsoft has done the former. If IE is "removed", the user will no longer see Internet Explorer, a Microsoft-branded product. Microsoft can use HTML and the IE subsystem all they want, as long as it has no effect on how true, real-life remote web pages render in the user's choice of web browser.

Until you understand the distinction, you're going to have trouble understanding why your complaint is not Microsoft's problem, regardless of their own advice. Microsoft is not in the business of providing third party libraries for services they have already written. Nor are they in the business of letting core components run through untested third-party libraries. If you thought IE (the browser) was bad now, imagine how obnoxious it would be if a third-party replaced its rendering engine with a Folding@HOME version -- Let's fold a protein every time the user loads a page! -- or even with something more insidious, like transparent account-number-stealing spyware.

What you're suggesting -- letting the IBrowser implementing class vary at run-time, so that the user can change it -- is a security nightmare for such a low level service. Especially since few will purposefully take advantage of it. That is, there is little gain, in exchange for a large hole and obvious security hole.

Finally, my Googling did not confirm your "beliefs" regarding Mozilla and IBrowser.

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[MBGMorden]

I plan to buy a new LCD and I will choose something with DVI instead of HDMI just because DRM. As I don't have HDMI capable hardware I would like to kill DRM on my machine (don't watch TV so I don't have an HD TV either), If Win7 allow me that and after all the kids in their basements test the OS for hidden nasties and middle fingers from MS, I'll switch for Win7. I need 64bit addressable memory.

Besides some extra pins for audio, HDMI and DVI differ only in pinout. Electrically they're the same, and you can go from one to the other with just a simple converter. A monitor and computer with plain DVI can still use DRM if both support HDCP (and in the same light, HDMI can be transmitted unencrypted just like DVI is).

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I plan to buy a new LCD and I will choose something with DVI instead of HDMI just because DRM.

You can implement HDCP (DRM used with HDMI) on DVI, and most new monitors with DVI do implement HDCP.

It's also possible to implement HDMI without HDCP, but it's exceedingly rare.

FYI, the DRM features of Vista/7 only seem to come into play when:
- Playing back DVDs with a "legit" DVD player (e.g. PowerDVD). VLC doesn't care about the DRM.
- Playing back Blu-ray discs (without a program such as AnyDVD HD)
- Playing back DRM-enabled Windows Media or Zune files

Basically, Vista DRM allows programs to query the audio/video devices and determine whether or not HDCP is enabled and whether or not unsigned drivers are being used. One easy way to "disable" the DRM features in Vista is to simply enable test mode (which allows unsigned drivers to be loaded). This, of course, will prevent WM-DRM, Blu-ray, and DVD playback - unless you use measures (such as VLC or AnyDVD) to circumvent the DRM.

Eu will save Windows

[Krneki]

I was ready to give up on Windows, but since gaming is part of my life and Windows 7 won't have all the bloatware M$ wants to put in, maybe just maybe, it might be faster then XP for future games.

Re:Eu will save Windows

[Stolovaya]

I'm sure it'll sell just as well as the EU version of Win XP that didn't include WMP...

What is the same thing?

[tepples]

Not only that, but having 2 apps to do the same thing is ridiculously wasteful and inefficient

Tell that to anybody who plays two MMORPGs, or anybody who uses two file sharing networks, or anybody who has Nano, vi, Emacs, and gedit all installed, anybody who has both Emacs and Lockjaw installed (they both include a Tetris clone), or anybody who actually puts effort into her MySpace profile (need to test on webkit, gecko, and trident). "The same thing" isn't always as easy to define as you might think.

Re:What is the same thing?

[geobeck]

Tell that to anybody who plays two MMORPGs, or anybody who uses two file sharing networks, or anybody who has Nano, vi, Emacs, and gedit all installed, anybody who has both Emacs and Lockjaw installed (they both include a Tetris clone), or anybody who actually puts effort into her MySpace profile (need to test on webkit, gecko, and trident). "The same thing" isn't always as easy to define as you might think.

To the vast majority of Windows users, most or all of the terms I've emphasized above don't apply. To them, proposing a second web browser would elicit a reply like "Why would I need Firefox? I've already got the Internet on my computer!" or similarly, "OpenOffice? I can already open Office. Why would I need to open it through that other picture?" or "I can get geckos and tridents on my MySpace from the picture thingy, but what's a webkit?"...

Re:What is the same thing?

[tepples]

To the vast majority of Windows users, "Nano, vi, Emacs, and gedit all installed" don't apply.

Notepad and WordPad then. Or WordPad, Microsoft Word, and the word processor in Microsoft Works Suite.

"OpenOffice? I can already open Office. Why would I need to open it through that other picture?"

Because you don't already have the other picture installed, and it costs money to install.

"I can get geckos and tridents on my MySpace from the picture thingy, but what's a webkit?"

Then perhaps I phrased it wrong. Instead of saying "webkit", call Safari "like a Mac emulator, so that you can see how your page would look on an iMac". Then point Safari at this web site and call it "an iPhone emulator".

Another example: those who play both Mario and Sonic.

Re:What is the same thing?

[geobeck]

Another example: those who play both Mario and Sonic.

There's an example the average user will get! On the other hand, extending this example to computers would make the average clueless user think they need another computer to install the alternative programs. ;)

Re:What is the same thing?

[ConceptJunkie]

Wait... you can install software that isn't from Microsoft? Is that even legal?

Time zones

[tepples]

today is Friday and the "yesterday" in question was Wednesday.

In what country?

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[spire3661]

Dell monitors (Model 1907 and up) have HDCP over DVI, just FYI. This is a personal anecdote in response to your statement.

Files not deleted

[FadedTimes]

I am fine with this. If I decide I do need the app, it is nice to not have to find the install media or do a download. I am glad they have the ability to some what 'kill' the app. When I go to Windows 7, I will kill everything but IE (I have websites that require it that I need). This is at least a step in the right direction. They also are not installing some applications by default anymore in Windows 7, and you have to get them if you want to from the download site.

Re:Files not deleted

[Phroggy]

If you use Firefox, you can probably use the IETab extension to load specific web sites using Internet Explorer's rendering engine (which will NOT be removed when you disable IE), integrated with Firefox's tab management. You can maintain a list of sites that should be loaded with IE's engine, so it's automatic and you don't have to switch browsers.

Re:Files not deleted

[db32]

Of course this is after activation and validation and all of the other silly bullshit that no other major OS seems to do. Solaris, BSD, OSX, Linux, no key, no activation, no silly bullshit. The only systems I have to fight stupid f'ing licensing and activation crap with are all the Win machines. Try to convert a critical XP system that was installed on an OEM box into a VM. Sometimes it works, sometimes the OEM piece goes berzerk and refuses to let you do shit and it boots in an already expired activation. What fun, what joy. Screw them and their silly key/activation garbage.

Re:Files not deleted

[mgblst]

You should install every application ever invented then, becuase if, you know, if you need to install it, you don't want to have to find the media.

I hope you have a big harddrive.

A call for programmers

[meist3r]

Could whoever is writing the Conficker++ 2.0 right now please include an auto-deactivate all important MS apps please? Thanks.

I'm really looking forward to what that would do to economies and submarines.

Re:A call for programmers

[Dotren]

Could whoever is writing the Conficker++ 2.0 right now please include an auto-deactivate all important MS apps please? Thanks. I'm really looking forward to what that would do to economies and submarines.

I think you'd see the full force of Microsoft put to squashing the vulnerability all of the sudden.

Let's say though that they didn't.. let's say the bug is not fixable in a reasonable time frame (reasonable being according to the average consumer.... probably less than a week).

I predict the following would occur, in this order:
1) The year of Linux on the Desktop would finally be realized
2) Linux gurus would become Gods among men for a day
3) The following day, "Computer Support" jobs would replace dentists as the occupation with the highest suicide rate as the flood of ex-windows end-users start calling for tech support

Re:A call for programmers

[meist3r]

All I wanted was the Windows fanboys to spare me with their online praise for one day :/

Eu says no.

[unity100]

and you will have to stick by it. what you are doing now is like injecting a person with a heroine syringe, then saying that they can turn it off if they want. not that any of your apps are heroine grade addictive, but you get the idea.

push your product through monopoly position first, then give the 'option' to switch them off (no way in hell remove). that's not enough. sell your o/s separately like every other business does in their fields.

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[AndrewNeo]

And really, the only "DRM" people think they're complaining about with Vista/7 is PVP (Protected Video Path) involving HD content (like Blu-ray) that needs to be played over HDCP. I don't think DVD decryption or WMA/WMV/etc. DRM are built into the OS, just Windows Media Player and the like.

W00T!

[Anonymous Coward]

Frist post!!!

Re:W00T!

[Anonymous Coward]

EPIC FAIL

Microsoft picking its battles

[thethibs]

It sounds like Microsoft has decided to go along with the gag. The EU regulators, not one of which can do arithmetic with their hands in their pockets, seem to believe that there can be only one browser, one media player, etc. in Windows, and that having these installed prevents the user from installing anything else and making it the default.

The EU is threatening, as a last resort, to force Microsoft to make it possible for users to uninstall IE so that they can install something else and Microsoft's response is "No problem, it's done". This leaves the EU with its big threat defused.

Of course no one is going to bother uninstalling Microsoft applications--they'll just install competitive apps and click "Yes" when they are asked whether they should be the default--which is what they can do now.

If they do uninstall IE, a lot of people will be in for a bit of a shock when they click Help on one of the many applications that loads IE to present HTML help files.

Re:Microsoft picking its battles

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstood just about EVERYTHING there.

First, the HTML rendering components and libraries will of course still be available. DUH.

And second, do you honestly think that the EU is only trying to stick it to Microsoft? Certainly not - they just want to make sure that OEMs will be able to CHOOSE to install other browsers by default. Y'know, keep Microsoft from abusing their monopoly.

If Microsoft is actually doing what it's asked to do now, they'll be happy.

Re:Microsoft picking its battles

[magamiako1]

how many OEMS are going to go out of their way to load Firefox or an alternative browser as the default?

Just like the amazing uptake of Windows N, right?

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[Jamie's Nightmare]

There is no need to kill DRM. Just don't purchase DRM protected content and you are good to go. You are looking at DRM as some kind of boogy man. Irrational fear should have no place in computing.

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[vux984]

I plan to buy a new LCD and I will choose something with DVI instead of HDMI just because DRM.

Do you know what you are talking about?

The DRM is HDCP, not HDMI. DVI is compatible with HDCP, and most new DVI panels support HDCP over DVI.

If you go out of your way to find one that doesn't, you are just being a twit. Not having HDCP support just means you can't play HDCP content; it doesn't strip HDCP protection from a signal or anything like that.

If you don't play and don't intend to ever play HDCP content, then it doesn't matter in the least whether or not your panel supports it or not, because its not going to affect you in the slightest. Having HDCP support doesn't automatically encrypt not HDCP content.

I'm curious what monitors are currently on your short list of possible buys?

The only monitors at newegg that I can find that don't support HDCP are the lowest end consumer junk TN panels that only have 1 VGA input. And no digital inputs at all.

The year of ubuntu on the designer workstation?? *ubuntu 9.04 beta 4 64bit It's pretty pretty fast and stable.

Your going to look pretty silling sitting there with your no-name brand 17" VGA monitor with a cheap 6-bit TN panel trying to convince people you are a "professional graphics designer".

Re:Why not?(

[Malc]

Why would you want to have all of IE's files removed? That would break so many applications. Many many applications rely on the IE ActiveX controls, so it would be stupid to remove them. Microsoft could make it easier to plug in different rendering engines, but I wonder if Safari/Mozilla/Opera/etc would be interested in implementing all of the interfaces and objects (you know, like IWebBrowser2).

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

the OS part is more policy-related; signed drivers that can have features disabled by software, etc

Microsoft picking its battles

[thethibs]

Keeping that thought going...in France, when the PC boots up in Windows 7, the first thing the user will do is uninstall the hated IE. Then, to get Firefox, he'll just browse over to ....

Well...

[Superdarion]

I don't see the average user uninstalling IE8 just because there's an option to do it.

It's an option that most people won't use, so Microsoft is giving in on something that really doesn't do them any harm.

The smart part is that now that there's an option to uninstall IE8, it's harder to complain about it since the fact that it's still in any given computer is not Microsoft's doing, but the user's lack of desire to uninstall it, so IE8 must be working well enough for the average user. At least that's what MS will say.

Re:Well...

[ieatcookies]

I was under the impression the pressure for this decision was due to the EU mandate, which was addressing the OEM issue and not the average user. Now vendors can provide alternatives with their hardware.

Re:Well...

[spitzak]

Yes, the EU decision is so that OEM's can include Firefox (or maybe another browser) without Microsoft punishing them by changing the terms of their OEM contact for copies of Windows.

Most will probably leave IE on there as well, I think. This whole thing is just a Microsoft attempt to confuse and distract the issue. It is nice that an OEM can completely remove IE, but no big deal.

I would like to see proof that OEM's are now allowed to sell a machine where Firefox is the default browser.

Re:Well...

[mgblst]

It is more for the retailers to do, they get paid for this.

But...

[mangusman]

How sad that the ability to remove an application from Windows is generating worldwide news.

nLite/vLite

[ubercam]

You guys want to remove IE *COMPLETELY* from the system? Use nlite/vlite and rip it out before it's even installed. Problem solved. Good luck with Windows Updates or anything that needs IE libraries to display any content though (Windows Help CHM files for instance).

Re:nLite/vLite

[SuperAndy]

I myself have used vlite to rip out things I considered useless in Vista, including IE. This caused me an entire world of pain, however. As the parent said, Help CHM files rely on IE libraries, and so does anything else, even steam if I remember correctly. The truth is, that IE is so hopelessly embedded into Windows, it will probably take a lot of work to extract it, and even more to convince 3rd party vendors to not rely on its presence.

Re:nLite/vLite

[Kalriath]

No, TRIDENT is. You can remove Internet Explorer all you like.

And before you whine that you should be able to remove Trident, try remove KHTML from KDE (without apt-get offering to remove the K Desktop Environment because KHTML is a dependency) or WebKit from OS X.

VLite does it wrong, and so does NLite.

Windows search?

[redcaboodle]

Finally - everytime I want to view a video on my Vista Laptop I have to spend 5 minutes first killing stupid windows services that keep my drive at 100% activity - even though they are already turned of in the service list.

1GB mem user just for the OS...yikes.

Too bad I can't get the sound to work under Linux - everything else did straight out of the box and the video runs without hitches, too. Under Vista it drops frames or sound all the time unless I can get Windows to leave my disk in peace.

Re:Windows search?

[im_thatoneguy]

Yikes. Your operating system is using $10 worth of RAM!? How greedy can M$ be? Hogging all that RAM.

Windows 7 Kill Switch

[steelcaress]

The only way Windows will ever truly be customizable is to have the Windows installer ask what functions the user will need, then install the necessary services. You can have a basic, intermediate, and advanced version of the installer, keyed to each user's computer literacy.

That way, if all you want to do is browse the internet, and check email and do some word processing, you have a lean, mean machine. If you need to do more, there are additional services for that you can install. Of course these services should be able to be installed/uninstalled after initial installation as well.

I know you can type "services.msc" and disable from there as well, but I shouldn't even have to have them on the system. :(

Kill v. Hide

[secretplans]

So it's not a "kill" switch but a "hide" switch?

Hollow Victory

[CopaceticOpus]

Several third party Windows applications make use of common Microsoft APIs to display HTML content. Therefore, the HTML/Javascript/ActiveX/etc. code will always be on the system, along with the associated security problems.

The most that would ever be removed is the IE application, which just wraps a front end over the Windows libraries which do the heavy lifting. What is even gained by allowing this to be removed? Even those people who use other browsers exclusively will probably keep IE installed, just in case they need to use a site that is broken in their browser of choice.

I No Longer Care

[Anonymous Coward]

I never made the jump to XP. I certainly didn't bother with Vista, and something tells me I'm going to be able to pass on Windows 7 as well both at home and the office. The marketing and finance departments are still semi-crippled, but the call center and IT has moved on from Windows at my 150-employee company.

or you could, oh I don't know...

[v1]

1. Drag to Trash
2. Empty Trash

Why does MS have to make everything more complicated than it should be?

an even dozen?

[commodoresloat]

Why do you hate bakers?!

Same old...

[jonnyt886]

So, summary of article:

"We can uninstall the applications, but they will not actually be uninstalled, it'll just look like that. So, this new switch just adds/removes shortcuts to IE/WMP/etc."

Tell me, isn't this precisely what we already have in Windows XP? I've never used Vista but in XP you could "uninstall" IE, Windows Messenger and Windows Media Player from the Windows Setup part of the Add/Remove programs control panel applet. When you did uninstall them, it would simply remove Start Menu/Desktop/Quick Launch shortcuts (it even tells you that this is all it does in the description).

If it doesn't remove the HTML control...

[argent]

If it doesn't remove the HTML control with its inherently insecure and unfixable API then it doesn't matter what UI changes it makes.

The anti-competitive arguments about IE are important, no doubt, but the security nightmare that Microsoft created in 1997 with "Active Desktop" is what the government should be looking at. Criminal negligence is not to strong a term for it.

Nope, perfect timing.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Windows users were given the ability to uninstall v6 when it was current, IE would have lost a lot of browser "market" share.

MS is counting on IE8 being good enough to deter general users from uninstalling it and/or upgrading to any of the much better browsers.

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[indi0144]

Well maybe I'll give HDMI a try, I don't plan to use any DRM media. And yes I used to think about DRM as a boogy man that some day, in the heavenly realms of Windows randomness, will go ape shit and mess everything for a day or two.

Your going to look pretty silling sitting there with your no-name brand 17" VGA monitor with a cheap 6-bit TN panel trying to convince people you are a "professional graphics designer"

Yeah I know those designers, personally I still use a Dell P1230 21" CTR with trinitron tube and glorious 2 VGA inputs because I trust more CRT's for desktop publishing. But since we're moving to Web Design I think, "well, most of the people use LCD's now to view the stuff I do" I'll give it a try as a main monitor. But whats your point anyway since there are other designers that look very cool even using something very poor for their jobs

Still the P1230 will go nowhere since I like to see the faces of customers when they can't believe theres such a big monitor, still working and with a so delightful image quality.

Working on a CRT this big it's tiresome and a waste of electricity, thats my other motivation to go after LCD.

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[drsmithy]

FYI, the DRM features of Vista/7 only seem to come into play when:

The _only_ time DRM in Windows "comes into play" is when:

* You have DRM-encumbered media (so not regular DVDs)
* You are using a DRM-capable player (so not VLC, etc)

Neither Vista, nor Windows 7, sit there looking for "HD video" or "mp3s", or anything else. They simple activate the Protected Path when an application asks for it, which should only happen if that application is playing back DRM-encumbered media.

huh?

[wasabii]

I don't get it. Can't you do this with Vista? And XP? Wasn't that the point of the Windows Components option in Add/Remove? I know each of these components on XP can be disabled with an autoanswer file during install... so I only assumed it was some package-like thing.

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

No offence, but you're a fucking idiot!

Two points

[shutdown -p now]

Just to set it straight as early as possible, a brief summary of criticism of IE bundling from what I've seen on /. so far. In practice, there are two distinct angles: legal, and technical.

1. Technical. "Windows depends on IE, and that sucks because it should be more modular".

This isn't entirely factually correct, as Windows does not depend on IE - it depends on Trident, the rendering engine that IE uses. This isn't without precedent, too - modern OS X versions similarly depend on WebKit (so you can remove Safari, but not WebKit). This actually makes sense depending on your definition of OS - if you consider that to include stuff such as shell and help browser, then of course it makes sense for those to reuse the HTML rendering component that you already have. Apart from OS X, another desktop environment that does that is KDE (with KHTML) - and, from the point of view of a casual Linux user, "the OS" is his entire Linux distro, including KDE.

Another complaint is that, while the dependency is okay, the problem with it is that the concrete implementation should be switchable in a proper modular design. IMO, this doesn't make much sense. On one hand, you can actually do that if you really, really want to, by registering your own IWebBrowser2 implementation instead of Trident in the registry. At the same time, I don't think this holds for e.g. KHTML in KDE - and, indeed, is there any OS/DE out there that provides a universal abstract layer for an HTML renderer, with possibility for alternative implementations, in such a way that desktop apps can be coded against that layer and be renderer-agnostic? I'm not aware of any such, and, if so, why should Windows be any different? In fact, the bigger question is, what does it even buy you, even if it were there? Are you going to insist that even desktop applications, whenever they use HTML rendering internally for any reason (e.g. to draw a welcome screen), should only deal with standard-compliant HTML/CSS/JS? As a developer, I would certainly prefer to stick to a specific engine, and be in full control of how I use it - e.g. if I go with Qt, then I would naturally use their WebKit implementation, and why should I limit myself to avoid some of the more tasty unique features that they offer, such as QtScript?

2. Legal. "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and uses its monopoly to push IE over other browsers".

This makes sense, and it seems that this is precisely what TFA is all about; the ability to remove IE-the-browser should be quite enough to satisfy this complaint. Even if it doesn't remove the files, and just moves it elsewhere, so what? So long as the user cannot launch the browser via normal means - shortcuts, file associations, command line on standard paths - IE is as good as gone for him, and doesn't "compete" with other browsers for the place on the desktop. The fact that the rendering engine remains is irrelevant, as that on its own does not unfairly compete against Gecko, or WebKit, or Presto.

Mods

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that mgblst is a known anti-ms troll. Thank you.

Re:Mods

[mgblst]

Sort of. I am very bitter at having to get an application working on Vista, over the last few weeks. I hate Microsoft for that.

What I said may have been harsh, but is in no way trollish. Just ask anyone who has had to do cross-browser web development. I make no apologies for that.

I understand most people have better things to do than worry about which browser they are using, but damn it makes my life a lot harder.

Re:Mods

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude its OK. Programming is not for everyone. I can understand why its so confusing for you.

If working around Firefox, Opera, IE and Safari quirks is "hell" I suggest trying something more fitting to your IQ. I hear flipping burgers nets you some decent dough.

Its not all bad though. If you wont do the work, it means more work for me. Yay !

Re:Mods

[mgblst]

Congratulations coward, you must be very proud, all up to talking yourself up, but not even willing to identify yourself. Yes, you must clearly be a superior programmer, hiding behind your veil of secrecy.

Microsoft is shit, anyone who disagrees hides behinds cowards, such as yourself. You know it is true, or you would come out into the open. Off you go little boy, I will keep raking in the money, advising my clients, those few who are still in business and think Microsoft is the shit, that they are rather the shit. Much like you, little girl. Of you go, little girl, to your sourcesafe barbie collection.

Because MS Already Sells It

[maz2331]

MS sells a version of Windows that is actually almost identical to "retail" for embedded applications, where any component can be selectively installed, not installed, or replaced. Windows Embedded (formerly XP embedded) shows that it's NOT impossible at all to have a working Windows install with IE.

Whether or not anyone would want to use it that way in the real world is a different question, but it should be an option to totally customize your machine's load however you want.

Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for the fraction of a second, I found myself agreeing with mgblst's comment. Thank god you came along and cleared it all up for me!

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[Kalriath]

Actually, it's a violation of the HDMI specification to not implement HDCP.

Re:Kill switch for DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I miss my IBM-branded 21" Trinitron. It was totally awesome to haul up five floors at the dorm! Only 75 pounds of awkward weight!

Enough with the jesting: I do miss that 21" still, though it forced me to get a Dell 2005FPW, which is a truly excellent monitor (which means I probably got one of the first ones).

However, nothing more amusing than opening the plastic enclosure for the CRT and finding the max uSv/hr (micro Sieverts per hour) output! Mm-mm, X-rays!

HTML to cause this to happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the HTML to cause viewers of my website to have their IE8 removed?
That would be a community service, right?

Of course, I'd add an "OK" confirmation button. ;)

The non-OS!

[Anonymous Coward]

I downloaded Linux and installed it, then I removed KDE, then I removed MySQL, postgreSQL, and SQLLite then I removed Apache, then I removed the entire GNU toolchain. Then I rebuilt bash to accept only cd and ls commands, then I recompiled the kernel to remove all functionality that is not necessary for a cd or ls to work. Pared it down to keyboard, processor and display. This is the BEST EVAR!

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Integration of THEIR browser into THEIR OS is what caused the problem.

MS used to have an API to write to that you could plug your own HTML renderer into Windows and completely replace the rendering of ALL HTML.

Which, if you used a TTS capable HTML renderer, you're able to "read" all system help files.

Dropped when Netscrape was killed

Better than a Kill Switch

[Baron of Blue]

Fully 92% of Microsoft's customers would appreciate an option of visibly and explicitly disembowelling the Bright Blue E, then hang its entrails from the edges of various icons. A little animation's all you need to boost your popularity immensely, Redmond.