Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Will Ship Windows 7 in Europe With IE Unbundled

Posted by timothy on from the when-bureaucrats-slither dept.

jimmi_hendrix was one of several people to note CNET's report that 'Microsoft plans to remove Internet Explorer from the versions of Windows 7 that it ships in Europe, CNET News has learned. Reacting to antitrust concerns expressed by European regulators, Microsoft plans to offer a version in Europe that has the browser removed. Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers, according to a confidential memo that was sent to PC makers and seen by CNET News." There's also a report at Ars Technica.

93 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. Why are we deprived of this in North America? by TropicalCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America

    1. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're not! Check the pirate bay after the european release is made. Furthermore, look to those Windows - LITE versions that people put together. They are also quite effective.

      My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine? My guess is the former. The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine. A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.

    2. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

      A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.

      MS got rid of the tie between Windows Explorer and IE with Windows Vista; trying to view a local folder in IE opens Windows explorer, and trying to view an internet URL in Windows Explorer opens your default browser.

      My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine?

      My reading is that they basically can't remove the rendering engine completely; too much stuff depends on it. HTML is behind the entire Windows Help system for instance, and I can't see them either altering the technology that radically or disabling help. There's also a lot of third party software (e.g. Steam) that uses it.

      I don't know how much IE adds to the rendering engine though. It may be the case that MSHTML (what's used for the help system and such) is actually pretty lightweight and IE adds quite a bit, so this split is actually quite meaningful, but I doubt that's the case.

    3. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The people whos software no longer works would not 'rejoice' at the outcome.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by eosp · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I recall correctly, the API:s that expose browser components (e.g. to Windows Help) were designed with the intention of making rendering engines pluggable. Thus, Windows Help could at some point in the future use Mozilla to render if Mozilla wrote a bit of code and Microsoft finishes this API.

    5. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothing useful as explorer.exe doesn't seem to parse its command line anymore.

    6. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I recall correctly, the API:s that expose browser components (e.g. to Windows Help) were designed with the intention of making rendering engines pluggable. Thus, Windows Help could at some point in the future use Mozilla to render if Mozilla wrote a bit of code and Microsoft finishes this API.

      The API to host IE is COM-based, so it consists of a bunch of interfaces, all of which are documented. Technically, anyone can reimplement those interfaces to the spec, replace IE's CLSID in the registry with its own, and everything on the system will start using the new code. We do actually have the first part of it done already, though the coverage is not 100%.

      The tricky part is that most applications that host IE also assume IE-specific behavior when rendering pages, running scripts, ability to host ActiveX controls inside, and so on. That's what's hard to duplicate.

    7. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no.. the producers of the software that requires E.I. cannot "simply install I.E."

      The users wont do that for them .. those users will call tech support.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine? My guess is the former. The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine. A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.

      Who cares if the rendering engine is still there? The *browser*, the thing that Microsoft uses to leverage one illegal monopoly into another, is gone, and that's what counts. The rendering engine can sit amidst the countless gigabytes of crap that is already there, and serve local help pages, steam, and other crap, and it really doesn't matter at all.

      Arguably this fight is over anyway. Microsoft has already lost the leveraging power it had in that space.

    9. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As previously mentioned, the Windows help system is all html-based. Various programs (Steam and most of Red Kawa's products jump to mind) require the Trident engine to display the program's main window. That being said, when you install Wine on a Linux machine, you can install Gecko as the renderer used to display those things, so I don't see why Microsoft couldn't technically allow another browser to provide the rendering engine.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    10. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

      Geez, how about just making the help consist of GODDAMN HTML FILES?

      Um, they basically are. They're zipped together somehow because help usually has multiple pages and they want it in one file, but that's what they are behind the scenes.

      They point is how do you display that HTML? It's that which we are talking about. Right now Windows uses MSHTML to display them. The APIs under discussion would allow Mozilla to hook up Gecko so that it could render your help files (which would maybe allow you to totally remove IE stuff from the system), or someone to hook up Webkit to display help files, etc.

      (Another interpretation of what you say is to just have the web browser itself display help files; this has a number of drawbacks, not the least of which is that without a browser in there by default, you wouldn't be able to read help. And it's exactly that situation which is why I'm postulating that MS isn't going to remove MSHTML.)

    11. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by moon3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Windows Help could at some point in the future use Mozilla to render

      What kind of weed are you smoking there ?

    12. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by spitzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doxygen is able to write .chm files, so I think it is sufficiently documented so that another browser could display them.

      I think the complaint is more that Microsoft is not providing any means to call another browser. Assuming the file is adequately documented and actually serves some purpose then the browsers should interpret them.

    13. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by spitzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft did not allow any *other* browser to be installed in OEM copies.

      I think it is Microsoft shenanigans that got it changed to "remove IE". What should be allowed is that an OEM can sell the system preset to use a different browser by default, and remove the 'e' from the desktop and menus. It should not really matter if IE is there.

    14. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it sucks that they won't package IE

      Your opinion is noted.

      and the EU needs to stop meddling with these things.

      No they don't. The US needs to start enforcing their laws so businesses don't go to the EU to get the same laws actually enforced.

      If they want to support open source software by doing something ...

      They don't this has nothing to do with OSS.

      ...but to cripple a OS over it is weak.

      Is Windows crippled because MS doesn't get to pick which CPU it is run on or which video card it is run on? Why would it be crippled if OEMs pick the browser it runs with?

      What if they forced everyone to include every alternative software bundled with the product, and what decides which alternative programs will get the special treatment?

      What if? What if they stab all blonde people or make fire illegal? Do you even know what this article is about?

    15. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's still sitting there making Windows less secure, because you'll still be able to embed it as a component and feed it data

      Well, it's up to developers to do or not do that, isn't it? And you as a user to affect their choice by those means you have available (namely, your wallet). With QtWebKit available, you may be able to make a strong case.

      And EU actions weren't about security anyway, they were about monopoly abuse.

    16. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I realize you're modded Insightful and all, and I guess I'm sticking my "excellent" karma up for grabs, but the GP has a point - what does unbundling the browser from the OS really solve? I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right? So what does it matter what software the vendor chooses to ship with that OS? If the public doesn't like the software choices they can choose a different OS vendor, right? ..right?

      No?

      Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?

      Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.

      So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?

      The problem with MS is that they hold a monopoly on operating systems. Why is it a big deal to fight against their browser? Shouldn't the operating system be the target? No one should care which software a vendor chooses to bundle with their other software (if you don't like it, don't use it), what people should care about is what choice they have in the marketplace. What it sounds like to me is that people *really* want to use Windows, they just don't want to use IE.

      Why is Windows not the target? Why has IE been made the target? What problem does this action really solve?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    17. Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?

      Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.

      No, it's because Apple has not abused a monopoly to try to enter other markets. When they start to do that (for example in the iTunes space), you can expect the EU start to go after them. Now I'm sure the EU process can be corrupted, and they're far from perfect, but in this case I don't think they have an illegitimate target.

      So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?

      Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly to apply leverage to your partners and customers is. Sometimes the radical solution to a monopoly has been to break up the monopolist, however I think fines and sanctions for abusive behaviour are a better remedy, as they set limits on the kind of thing companies think they'll get away with.

      In this case, it seems Microsoft thinks they can do whatever they like, and have decided to thumb their nose at the EU by claiming they'll just unbundle IE from retail versions too (I imagine the focus of the investigation is OEM versions). If instead they decided to stop trying to abuse their monopoly position and just produce better software, this problem (and many others) would go away, but I don't think that's in their corporate DNA.

      I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right?

      Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.

      Apple wisely (for now) sticks to producing their own hardware to get round this problem, otherwise I'm sure you'd see Ballmer saying I'm going to fucking kill Apple and putting extreme pressure on the likes of DELL to never bundle Apple products. That would be illegal, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.

      OEM versions of Windows are the real battle-ground here - people do not choose their OS, they choose a computer, and MS has cleverly shut off almost all alternatives to them in that space. Having done that, they bundle IE so that they can control competitors like Google by controlling access to the web - classic abuse of monopoly status to attack competitors.

      So the problem is not having a monopoly, the problem is abusing it to try to attack competitors - because of Microsoft's track record in that area, and huge existing power, they are not given the benefit of the doubt when bundled software could extend their monopoly in other fields. Forcing them to level the playing field on browsers is a good first step to stop them trying to control the web and tie it to Windows.

  2. HugeOrNot by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me or is this huge?

    We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.

    1. Re:HugeOrNot by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.

      Not really. Many years of a broken market have created a huge number of Websites and Web applications broken to only work properly with IE. Unless this is remedied, we'll only have a slightly less broken market. Additionally, this applies only to the EU, so any company doing business anyplace outside the EU or Web developers wanting to target customers outside the EU will still be subject to artificial market incentives caused by MS's bundling elsewhere.

    2. Re:HugeOrNot by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it would still be very unusual for a vendor to not include IE on a machine. I use Firefox nearly exclusively, but want IE on my machine for the odd web-page. The only real difference is that it may mean most vendors will ship with both IE AND Firefox... or maybe Opera, if they can score some sort of deal.

    3. Re:HugeOrNot by mpcooke3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.

      Now browser market share in Europe will be determined by what kickbacks and/or threats the computer makers receive from the companies behind the major browsers.

      Is that what you meant by non-biased?

    4. Re:HugeOrNot by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Informative

      From your own link:

      StatCounter's total scores for Europe put IE marketshare at 48 percent and Firefox at 38 percent.

      That said, it does appear that some IE users are switching to firefox at a slow pace (2% every 1/4 year, or 8% a year). At that rate, in a year and some, firefox may overtake IE share.

    5. Re:HugeOrNot by nametaken · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been saying this same thing for a long time now, but the odd part is, I've been using firefox and chrome between work and home and I almost never happen on an obviously broken site anymore.

      To a certain degree I probably have a higher tolerance for things that don't line up, etc., but I'm pretty sure the web is a LOT cleaner than it used to be... in that regard.

  3. Getting Firefox? by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?

    1. Re:Getting Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Blame Microsoft for not adding wget in the OS-default install :-P

    2. Re:Getting Firefox? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what a governing body demanded. It doesn't have to make sense.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    3. Re:Getting Firefox? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?

      FTP?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:Getting Firefox? by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you're saying that they're shipping an FTP client, and instructions to lusers on how to use it?

    5. Re:Getting Firefox? by TropicalCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?

      duh... you didn't have the foresight to stick a copy onto your pen drive? Than I don't think you have the competency to re-install an operating system.

    6. Re:Getting Firefox? by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?

      And thus Microsoft proves it's point to the EU.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    7. Re:Getting Firefox? by icebike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait till the EU finds out they are shipping an FTP client!!!

      Yes, command line ftp has been in every version of windows since 95. Directions? It has directions that are equivalent to the directions shipped with IE. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a microsoft OS ship with Directions? Dos 6.0?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Getting Firefox? by rob1980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FTP?

      God help the internet helpdesk people who have to walk 67-year old customers through command line FTP in Windows 7 to get their sparkly new computer online, and the retail people who get yelled at because the computers they sold "don't work", etc.

    9. Re:Getting Firefox? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?

      Well if you're compentent enough to do a full re-install surely you're competent enough to make a copy of Firefox on CD/DVD/flash drive before you do it?

    10. Re:Getting Firefox? by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative
      You don't even need to RTFA. RTFS:

      Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    11. Re:Getting Firefox? by miggyb · · Score: 3, Informative

      My understanding was that windows would ship with a "browser download tool" that would let you select a browser during the OS install. Kind of how they let you choose a search engine for IE now.

      --
      This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
    12. Re:Getting Firefox? by VertigoAce · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't have a Vista box handy right now, but I know the Win7 help text is quite extensive compared to older versions of Windows. Typing FTP in Windows Help provides instructions on how to use Windows Explorer to access ftp sites. Though it's not much more complicated than accessing any other files, you just type the address in the address bar (and to get you started they give ftp.microsoft.com as an example).

    13. Re:Getting Firefox? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people who are confident on how to reinstall an OS will probably be comfortable with using FTP.

      That's assuming the PC manufacturer doesn't include a CD with the browser on it.

    14. Re:Getting Firefox? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?

      The same way we did back in the days before bundling; from third party media. Remember when every magazine cover CD and ISP setup CD came with a copy of netscape and IE installers? Or if you're just reinstalling from your custom OEM media/restore partition, you'll get their setup, including browser.

      Of course, it's not like they're actually *removing* IE; they're just flipping the switch in the registry that says to hide the shortcut. Go into control panel and re-enable it, and there it is again.

      I have to admit, it'd be a stroke of genius by microsoft; they can tell the monpolies regulator that IE is off by default, and that it's just coincidence that all OEMs* choose to turn it back on as part of their sysprep image cos it's a lot simpler than explaining to users what opera or firefox are. So nothing changes in the end at all, but it gets Microsoft nicely off the hook of having to actually compete on a level playing field.

      And since no doubt somebody in this thread is getting upmodded for muttering the words 'free market' and it's 'just anti-US bias against microsoft' and 'everyone needs a browser, like KDE or apple supply' I'll take the opportunity to explain - again - why this matters.

      Yes, every user needs a browser, so isn't it convenient if nearly every computer in the world shipped with IE, then third parties don't need to support the standards, they just need to support IE. They write to some extension specific to IE - like say activeX - and that's the same as supporting everyone by an open standard, and it's easier to just write to one specific browser than test it in a bunch of them. Eventually, when so many websites are written this way, it becomes nigh impossible to use the web without using IE - and then microsoft have a new defacto monopoly with IE, because everyone writes to it because everyone uses it. That makes it extremely hard for any browser, or any OS that doesn't ship with IE to compete - because they don't work on the web without IE. So Mirosoft have leveraged a monpoly in one market, windows, into a monopoly in another market, the web, and that just reinforces their original monopoly and makes windows even harder to compete with. We've seen this in actually happen Korea for example, where virtually all banking websites use activex, making IE - and thus windows - a near mandatory requirement.

      The way to break that cycle is to ensure that third party developers can't take the shortcut of assuming that because 95% of users are windows users, that 95% of people will have IE, by taking IE off the desktop by default, and giving the alternatives an equal platform. The only reason firefox has the market share it does is because IE won, and was left to rot for so very long indeed that users and developers switched to a project with a pulse.to get new features. The only reason we have IE8 at all is because of firefox forcing microsoft to have to compete again.

      Without competition, there is no choice in the market, and with no choice in the market consumers lose their own weapon to force improvements of service - to switch to somebody else. When existing monopolies step into new markets, and compete purely on their existing domination rather than any merit, governments are duty bound to protect the long term interests of the public be ensuring competition is kept fair, even if letting the monopoly do what it wants is easier in the short term.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    15. Re:Getting Firefox? by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a potential remedy for bundling violations that was proposed, but Microsoft just yanked the browser entirely instead.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    16. Re:Getting Firefox? by 1001011010110101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't have to use any standard protocol or client. They can probably ad an icon somewhere that says "Install IE" and get whatever is needed from the network with no further user interaction. I dont think they are expecting naive users to open a client, connect somewhere and getting a file using a FTP client or something to that effect.

    17. Re:Getting Firefox? by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Before web browsers were pre-installed (if the kids remember back that far) you could just pick up a free CD at computer stores that had Netscape, and ISPs would send you a "starter kit" CD that had a browser on it (and other junk). AOL used to even send you several CDs a month whether you wanted them to or not.

      While I think the OEMs will handle the majority of this set up for you. For the retail stores, I suspect there will be a stack of free or nearly free Windows IE8 CDs next to the boxes of Windows 7.

    18. Re:Getting Firefox? by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the computer retailer gave you a disk with Windows on it so that you can do a reinstall, smart money is that they also supply a disk with the rest of their bundled software on- including their browser of choice. If you downloaded/bought a copy of Windows yourself, you're probably smart enough to obtain a browser too. And you never know, we might even start seeing "free" browser CDs again, like the AOL days (I could do with some more coasters).

      Not only that, but what's the betting that somewhere in the Euro version of Win7 there will be a big button saying "do you want to download the latest version of IE?". I wouldn't be surprised if they stick it in the "optional" basket on Windows Update and Automatic Updates, so you can grab it whenever.

      Just because they're not bundling it ready-to-go with 100% of their installs anymore doesn't mean they won't still encourage you to use IE.

    19. Re:Getting Firefox? by drizek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ideally, there would be a desktop wizard which would give you links to download one of a variety of browsers. They can have a continuously updated list of the top 5 browsers, which right now would be chrome/safari/opera/ie/firefox. Check the boxes for the browsers you want and it will download/install them automatically and set one of them as your default.

      Likeliness of happening? Not too great, especially considering apple will never let MS distribute safari(how else will they shovel their crapware bundle to consumers if they can't use a variety of misleading checkboxes during the download and install process?). Still, there is no reason why MS can't distribute Firefox, given that it is open source... or maybe Iceweasel.

    20. Re:Getting Firefox? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't it just make more sense to leave IE in, and let people use whatever browser they want?

      Not if you understand why antitrust abuse is illegal. If you don't understand, find out. I'm tired of explaining it.

    21. Re:Getting Firefox? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Presumably Microsoft want to get you all worked up about the absurdity of the EU demanding that they unbundle their browser in consumer editions of Windows.

      I doubt the EU is demanding this specifically, and if they are, they've got it wrong.

      Meanwhile, the real battle over which browsers OEMs are allowed to install by Microsoft (enforced by secret OEM contracts) will be forgotten.

    22. Re:Getting Firefox? by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For crying out loud ...

      It is trivial for MS or an OEM to create a BAT file that will run ftp / wget / etc to fetch an installer from a well known URL. Do this for each browser and create a simple GUI with simple controls to allow the user to select a browser. Then the user just points the mousey thing at the buttoney thing on the screeney thing and does a clicky thing.

    23. Re:Getting Firefox? by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 2, Informative
      ... but Microsoft just yanked the browser entirely instead.

      That's what Microsoft have proposed, but I don't expect that the EU will let them get away with it. They are not stupid.

    24. Re:Getting Firefox? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who wants to bet they'll include some sort of "add/remove Windows components directly from the Microsoft website" (a la virtually any Linux distribution you care to name) tool which will happily install IE?

      And I would not be even remotely surprised if the first thing Windows 7 EU edition does when you first boot it is run this tool and offer to download IE.

  4. Great opportunities by rumith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers

    So, in other words, the status quo will be preserved: Microsoft will likely enter into agreements with OEMs to put IE back in (while keeping Chrome and Firefox out), which will only result into some additional revenues for European OEMs and tax collectors. Nothing else to see here, move along.

    1. Re:Great opportunities by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, MS will not enter into agreements with OEM's, that's what got them in trouble in the first place! They will have the kit available to OEM's but I really think they will stay far away from an official or unofficial pressure to use it. For consumers they will probably offer it as an optional component in Windows Update which hasn't been tied to IE since Vista launched.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Streisand Effect for Opera by orin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What we will probably see is a bidding war between brower manufacturers with each OEM to get their browser put on new computers running Windows 7. In terms of deep pockets, you'd have to say that Google is going to fork over to get Chrome on machines, which isn't going to help Opera (or Firefox) one bit. The ultimate outcome of Opera's complaint will most likely be to increase Chrome's market share. Who will pay OEMs to put FireFox on new Windows 7 computers?

    1. Re:Streisand Effect for Opera by orin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Browser inclusion will be a bidding war. This means Opera will now have to pay to get its browser on machines initially. Google has deep pockets to get Chrome on new computers and can out-bid Opera. If users already have an alternate browser, they aren't going to bother using Opera or Firefox. The winner in this is Google. The losers will be Opera and Firefox because an alternate browser is going to gain market share and the one that gains the market share is the one that convinces OEMs, though a completely legal bidding process, to include its browser.

    2. Re:Streisand Effect for Opera by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And where does the Streisand Effect enter the picture?

      The more people who know that alternative browsers exists, the better for Opera. In addition to that, Chrome is standards compliant, so if it became the dominant browser, even more sites would be standards compliant, which would be good for Opera. Remember, Opera reported a massive increase in downloads after Chrome was launched because of the renewed interest in alternative browsers.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    3. Re:Streisand Effect for Opera by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't really think that google cares about Chrome's market penetration in and of itself.

      My theory is that google cares about getting fast, reliable, standards compliant javascript rendering a bigger market share. That's why I think they released chrome under a BSD license instead of as GPL(or some other form of copyleft license). If Microsoft and Mozilla steal Chrome's javascript engine, Google wins, if Chrome gains substantial market share, Google wins. Google wins because they're getting very close to needing fast javascript to make their ajaxy web apps work properly and however that happens they win.

  6. i still dont see the logic by meow27 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If someone wants a new browser they should get it themselves. Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust? MS doesn't charge any money for it, and it was better than Netscape when it came out, why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?

    1. Re:i still dont see the logic by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't like IE, so we invent justifications to pretend including it is illegal. We like arbitrary laws when they can be twisted to our side.

    2. Re:i still dont see the logic by zonky · · Score: 2, Informative

      They *do* charge for it. You have to pay for it whether you use it or not, the price is part of your OS. Those developers are not working for free, and MS doesn't run that business unit out of the good of their heart.

    3. Re:i still dont see the logic by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust?

      No, because it isn't considered a trust. You don't even seem to know what a trust is, so one can only assume your ignorance of this topic is extreme. Have you considered a dictionary?

      An antitrust law is a law against undermining the operation of a free market by using overwhelming influence in a market. A trust is a group of companies or organizations that collude to use their market power to this end. A monopoly is a company with enough influence to do it my themselves. MS has been ruled to have such influence in the "PC Operating System" market (differentiating it from the workgroup server OS market.). As such, they are forbidden from using that influence to disrupt other, pre-existing markets. The Web browser market qualifies as such a market.

      MS doesn't charge any money for it

      Irrelevant.

      ... and it was better than Netscape when it came out...

      Irrelevant.

      ...why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?

      They had a monopoly then too, and it was a crime then, the US charged them with it. Since then other countries have tried them for it over the years. The EU finally charged them in response to complaints from their victims.

    4. Re:i still dont see the logic by Ironica · · Score: 4, Informative

      If someone wants a new browser they should get it themselves. Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust? MS doesn't charge any money for it, and it was better than Netscape when it came out, why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?

      It was antitrust 15 years ago. The DOJ found for Netscape. Then we elected Bush, and the enforcement of the ruling went out the window.

      (BTW, it's antitrust because MS leveraged their OS monopoly to gain market share for their browser, after Netscape turned down their purchase offer.)

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    5. Re:i still dont see the logic by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is there really a "web browser market" when only one of the four major players are actually trying to charge for their product?

      Yes. AT&T was forced to stop bundling telephones with their telephone service, despite the fact that no one was selling telephones at the time. Immediately thereafter there was en explosion of innovation including push buttons, autodial, answering machines, wireless sets, etc. Why do you think that is? Why do you think we have antitrust laws?

      IE, FF and Chrome are free.

      IE is Windows only and every time you buy Windows you're paying for it. The cost is bundled into the price of Windows. "Free" is just marketing. The others make money in ways other than directly charging for the browser.

      The only company out there trying to make money by selling a web browser is Opera.

      Opera's regular browser is free too.

      When I was using a WinCE phone, Opera Mobile was absolutely the best browser for that platform.

      Guess what, you paid more for that phone than you should have. The phone maker paid Opera. Opera spent millions working around broken Web pages. Broken Web pages exist because IE is broken and was artificially granted huge market share despite being inferior. MS's actions, thus, cost Opera money and they pass that on to you, which hurts their business by making their product more expensive and less useful because of MS's illegal act.

      Despite whatever technical merits their browser might have, I think Opera is looking to the government to create a market for them that in a truly free market, wouldn't exist.

      Yeah, expecting the government to enforce the laws and MS to obey them the same as everyone else sure is unfair. Let's cut to the chase then. Do you feel antitrust law is wrong in principal or do you feel it should not apply to MS in this case. Why?

    6. Re:i still dont see the logic by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But back to anti-trust law and Microsoft browsers. The market has pressured Microsoft to incorporate better standards compliance into their browser. That's the end goal, right? To make sure that the monopolist supports what the people say that they want.

      The point of antitrust law is to ensure every player in continually pressured by the market to make the best product. Right now MS is feeling pressure to make the worst browser slightly less terrible, but still not as good or better than every other browser out there. Therein lies the problem. Unless the laws are enforced, there is no reason to expect the type of rapid innovation and improvement we see in other markets because the financial incentive is not there. We're a decade behind where we should be already. We need to make sure MS is subject to the same pressures as everyone else. That means when they have absolutely the worst product on the market they don't have 60-70% market share, like they do now. The only think keeping IE in the game is bundling. We don't want that changed because we want IE to fail, but because we want IE to be a decent browser.

      Just because MS has monopolized the desktop OS market that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass to push crap on us in other markets. Every time in history that has happened we see innovation in that second market slow to a crawl. That's one of the big reasons we passed those laws. MS is breaking those laws.

      You write, "I'm all for anti-trust law." Okay, but you don't think it should be enforced in this instance for some reason? Why? What they're doing is illegal. Are you proposing we change the laws and if so, what changes do you propose that would make what MS is doing legal, but not make antitrust law ineffective?

      So the batteground will evolve, and it will come down to what vendor gives the developers the tools that they need to construct the applications that do what the users want to do.

      But the battleground hasn't been evolving. We're still trying to present Web pages using half implemented decade old standards because we haven't been able to move forward with anything new because MS uses their illegally gained dominance in the Web browser market to stop it. Further, other companies have no financial incentive to move forward either, since they know IE won;t implement anything new so Web developers won't target anything new they create.

      IE 7 and 8 are far too little far too late and offer no promises for the future. Putting MS in the same position as everyone else, where if their browser sucks they rapidly lose market share, does offer that guarantee. That's a big part of the reason we have such a strong capitalist component to our economy. Rather than trust MS will keep improving, what's you objection to giving them direct financial incentive to keep improving at the same time as enforcing our current laws and giving every other browser developer a fair shake?

  7. Doubt this will affect much by MLS100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any OEM with any brains at all will re-add IE to their system images, lest they field a mass of tech support calls claiming their computer doesn't have 'the internet' because they don't see the big blue E on the desktop.

    This will only affect people buying at retail who likely already know how to install and configure an alternative browser, but now have to download via FTP or flash drive.

  8. This will be hell by Useful+Wheat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm going to guess that this statement applies to most of the people on slashdot.

    "I provide tech support to my friends and family."

    Doesn't it chill your blood to imagine that you could very suddenly be in a situation where every single person you know who gets a new computer is going to need you to set it up? They will be totally and completely helpless without Internet explorer, they won't be able to burn it to a CD or put it on a flash drive without your detailed instructions.

    And then it won't work. And it won't be what they're used to be because FireFox/chrome/IE 8 isn't IE 6. And then you'll have to come over again to explain that the download manager isn't stealing their awful FWD: jokes.

    This isn't progress, this is a punishment to each and every one of us.

    1. Re:This will be hell by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      be in a situation where every single person you know who gets a new computer is going to need you to set it up

      I don't support people, family or not, if I didn't setup their computer and if they don't abide by my rules.

    2. Re:This will be hell by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeh yeh because an OEM is going to provide a PC without a web browser. God dammit why does this ludicrously moronic argument come up time and again. I pity the people who rely on you for tech support.

    3. Re:This will be hell by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ``This isn't progress, this is a punishment to each and every one of us.''

      If we choose to support Windows, that is.

      I stopped doing that years ago, because I saw it as a sort of punishment in and of itself. The thing is, ideological arguments aside, I use Debian because it requires very little time for maintenance. Supporting any sort of other operating system besides is going to increase the maintenance burden, and that is particularly true if maintenance requires a lot of manual actions or even physical access (which I have needed only once with Debian - and even that was once too often for my taste).

      Nowadays, I just tell people "Sorry, I don't know how to deal with Windows and I have no desire to learn." They turn to somebody who actually likes supporting Windows, and everybody is happy.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  9. MS Updates by Wowsers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now how will anyone go to Microsoft WindowsUpdate for updates, it barely works with Firefox but has no problem with IE.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:MS Updates by zonky · · Score: 5, Informative

      Updates in Vista uses a seperate contral panel applet, presumably its the same in 7.

    2. Re:MS Updates by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2, Informative

      afaik Windows 7 Updates works with a seperate program, not via the browser.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:MS Updates by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      What year is it in your little world, 2000? Critical updates have been delivered via control panel applet/service since, what, Windows 2000 at least. Non-critical ones can be easily downloaded using Firefox, or any browser you'd like to name.

      Vista (and possibly XP; I haven't had XP in awhile) even let you select the non-critical ones from the same control panel as the critical ones, so there's absolutely zero reason to use IE to get updates. Not that there has been one in ages, anyway.

      --
      Comment of the year
  10. Only Half the Story by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article submitter fails to note the EU is not necessarily on board with this as they've been circulating a survey asking PC companies about how many and what browsers should be pre-installed as well as asking questions about if MS is pressuring them on the issue.

    1. Re:Only Half the Story by Slothrup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly." It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.

      It's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.

      --
      The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
  11. Re:What next EU: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple and every flavor of linux can't be hit with anti-trust charges... because they don't have a virtual monopoly on the desktop.

    And I'd also go ahead and point out that there was a time when web browsers were sold seperate from the OS. At that point there was competition to IE - Netscape. Then MS bundled IE with windows so that you *had* to buy IE even if you also bought Netscape, and Netscape died overnight. And then we went 7 years without a new version of IE.

    So yea, I'd certainly include "bundling IE" as one of MS's more egregious business practices.

    Wordpad/Notepad? Probably staying bundled. But Word and Office? You'll note that they were never bundled, but if they had been I'm sure undoing that would be part of this deal as well.

  12. Re:Oh, so MS lied then by rob1980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When was that, 10 years ago? It's been a long time since Windows 98...

  13. Re:What next EU: by int69h · · Score: 5, Informative

    Big difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring. Neither Apple or any Linux vendor strong armed OEMs into exclusively installing their browser.

  14. Re:Oh, so MS lied then by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Um, just when was the US Antitrust trial?

    How many versions of Windows have been released since then?
    This isn't 1998 anymore..

  15. Re:Total protectionism by the EU by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not even in the US....

    That's very true. Our agricultural protectionism is something my right wing friends tend to overlook as they ballyhoo free trade.

    --
    This is my sig.
  16. Microsoft is NOT removing IE by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft is not removing anything, they are hiding one of the shell applications around the HTML control. All the same dangerous and insecure code will still be there, as part of Windows Explorer and Control Panel and Windows Media Player and Windows Update. Stil rendering websites for you, still displaying untrusted content.

  17. Does that mean I can install ANY browser I want? by Klistvud · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've heard of this fast, sleek, free browser called IceWeasel. Apparently, it gets installed in mere minutes, including all its accompanying dll's and stuff (the bundle is called Debian Lenny or something like that). And, purely as a bonus, it makes your system seem twice as fast!

    --
    Intellectual Property: an immaterial non-entity, most fiercely contended by those with no proper intellect to speak of.
  18. Re:I don't understand you guys... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean I really don't understand you...

    Yup, that's pretty obvious.

    Why is this a good thing?

    It helps to restore the free market so we can have innovation in Web technologies.

    The fact that you need a browser in order to get a browser (no, a bundled wget would certainly not do for Windows users), for me means that the browser should be part of the operating system... However isn't the fact that you REALLY need to bundle a browser an indication that it should be part of the OS?

    You really need a display to get a browser too, should it be bundled with the OS? You really need a CPU to use an OS, should it be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft were to come out with their own brand of CPU tomorrow and required all PC makers to buy a bundle of Windows with their CPU, instead of just Windows would you support that? After all, a OS won't work without a CPU. And PC makers can always throw away the MS brand CPU and buy one from Intel or AMD right? And if you wanted to run Windows on a PC you were building you could just throw away the CPU too right? And just because MS pays to create that CPU and deliver it does not mean the price of Windows was raised to include it, does it? After all, it comes "free" with the OS.

    Perhaps we should have Apple remove Safari next. The DO have a monopoly on pretentious/cool-wannabe devices, don't they? ;)

    They don't have a monopoly on desktop OS's or on Web browsers, so it does not undermine the market. MS does have an effective monopoly on desktop OS's so anything they bundle with it does undermine the free market.

  19. Re:I don't understand you guys... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 2, Informative

    allright,
    although this has been mentioned on slash about a million times before, here it goes:

    -there are other ways to install a browser, you can have a downloader supplied, you can do it via FTP, or you can simply pick up a CD.
    -IE is insecure, and simply having it on your system is a risk. someone may accidentally use it, other programs with vulns can invoke it etc.
    -apple does not have a monopoly on the consumer OS. And even if they did, they're not abusing it.

    Microsoft was not found guilty of being a monopoly. They were found guilty of abusing it.
    Welcome to slashdot.

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  20. Here we go again by hkmwbz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Cue hundreds of comments like "why can Apple bundle a browser but not Microsoft" (Apple is not in the same dominant position, and didn't break the law), "EU is a bunch of commie bastards" (ignoring the fact that the US has the exact same antitrust laws as well), and so on. It's the same old drivel every single time. It's as if there is a legion of Microsoft shills just waiting in line to post the same fallacies over and over again every time someone posts about the EU antitrust case. I can't believe that some people still don't get the basic facts of this case.

    Sigh.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
    1. Re:Here we go again by GF678 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't believe that some people still don't get the basic facts of this case.

      If my readings on Neowin are anything, I think it's a bit simpler than that:

      * People either don't KNOW about Microsoft's history with the law, or
      * People don't care, or don't see it as being particularly important

      The first is simple ignorance. Keep in mind a lot of younger folk won't remember or will have heard about past issues with MS. Furthermore, Slashdot seems to be the only site that has a fixation about Microsoft's anti-trust issues, and since we keep going on about it in comments, people from the outside see us as IRRATIONAL Microsoft haters instead of wondering WHY.

      The second is simple - unless it affects them, people don't care about what Microsoft does. The EU are seen as money-grabbing corrupt bastards, and everyone's trying to get a piece of the Microsoft pie. Poor Microsoft.

      So don't act surprised.

  21. Re:I don't understand you guys... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You really need a display to get a browser too, should it be bundled with the OS? You really need a CPU to use an OS, should it be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft were to come out with their own brand of CPU tomorrow and required all PC makers to buy a bundle of Windows with their CPU, instead of just Windows would you support that? After all, a OS won't work without a CPU. And PC makers can always throw away the MS brand CPU and buy one from Intel or AMD right? And if you wanted to run Windows on a PC you were building you could just throw away the CPU too right? And just because MS pays to create that CPU and deliver it does not mean the price of Windows was raised to include it, does it? After all, it comes "free" with the OS.

    Oh, come on, of all the arguments you could use you resort to cheap sophism? I can't seriously respond to this, perhaps I could revert to humor... but...

    This isn't sophism, it is how antitrust law works. Answer the question. Should MS be able to bundle a CPU with their OS? If not, how is a CPU qualitatively different from a browser? Either action is the same in terms of effect upon the market and both are illegal under the same antitrust law.

    I have no doubt you can't respond to this, but not because it is not a serious argument. It's because you;re completely wrong in principal.

  22. Re:Total protectionism by the EU by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 4, Informative

    You do know that MS was found guilty in the US don't you? You also know that the EU has imposed huge fines on EU based companies too don't you?

  23. Re:Ecological Disaster? by dimeglio · · Score: 2, Funny

    WTF are CDs?

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  24. thanks a lot by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Funny

    great, now I have to go find IE6 and download it myself. thanks a lot jerks

    --
    how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
  25. I can see the commercials now. by Deathlizard · · Score: 3, Funny

    MAC: Hello, I'm A Mac
    PC: And I'm a PC (PC is holding up a chicken statue in one hand and an Egg, in another)
    MAC: Say, you should see my new picture collection of my trip to Cupertino that I posted on Facebook using IPhoto? They came out great.
    PC: (stares intently at the chicken and egg.) You don't say. I'd love to but I can't until I figure this out
    MAC: Figure what out?
    PC: Well, since Windows 7 doesn't ship with a browser anymore, I can't look at webpages, and since I can't look at webpages anymore I can't get a browser. It's so philosophical.
    MAC: I see. well, Macs come with Safari, the worlds fastest web browser, so you can browse the internet out of the box.
    PC: Must be nice.
    MAC, Well, since you can't look at my page, how would you like to listen to my new MP3 Mix tape I made using Garageband. It sounds awesome.
    PC: Well.....
    (Show picture of IMac with the Mac Background)

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
  26. How many idiots are there here on Slashdot? by spitzak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know if it is stupidity or Microsoft shills.

    However if you read the fa, or even if you think a little bit:

    NOBODY IS GOING TO SELL A COMPUTER WITHOUT A BROWSER!

    The machine the end user gets will have a browser. Likely more than one. Probably the blue E and the firefox will be on the desktop. The user can click on either one.

    This is what Microsoft did not allow before and what they have been forced to allow.

    They are still up to the same shit, saying "IE is missing" without saying exactly what they were forced to do.

    1. Re:How many idiots are there here on Slashdot? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For that matter, OEMs themselves were free to take the hassle/cost of installing a different browser if they so desired.

      You blew it there. That is a LIE.

      I've seen people argue both for and against it several times on /. - i.e., that OEMs are strong-armed into leaving IE in place (some even say that agreements they sign legally require that, some say it's just behind-the-scene), or that OEMs are free to do whatever they want. However, neither side has so far produced any references backing up their claims. I would be curious to see either.

      Note however that I'm talking about the present-day situation, not what was going on 10 years ago...

  27. WINE : Gecko by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Meanwhile, WINE is happily working without any IE code at all.
    The trick is, WINE uses another HTML engine (Gecko in this case) whenever a software expects to use MSHTML. (And I'm ready to bet that ReactOS does a similar trick).

    In theory you could completely remove IE, as long as you replace the rendering engine with some other, and provide the necessary bindings so all the softwares using HTML can still function.

    But currently, beside WINE & ReactOS' Gecko-based implementations, I don't know if there are that much replacement to help people run softwares requiring an HTML engine.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  28. Re: Microsoft are dealing with the problem by cheros · · Score: 2, Insightful

    looks like Microsoft are dealing with the problem

    With all due respect, I disagree. This is window(s) dressing, and I think MS knows this. They still appear to think that trying to game the EU Commission will work like it has with the US DoJ (which, as a result, has lost a HUGE amount of credibility), and I think (and hope) they're in for a very rude awakening.

    MS appears to forget that it's now under extreme scrutiny because the EU Commission fines to change behaviour, not posturing. The Commission hasn't exactly reached the end of what it can do with MS if it doesn't play ball properly. MS is playing a very dangerous and irresponsible game, and if the EU decides to call hem on it it will *really* hurt.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.