Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Clean Install Only In Europe
jbeale53 writes "It seems that to install Windows 7 in Europe, you'll have to wipe the system and start over. There will be no ability to upgrade. From the article, 'The unfortunate side effect has been caused by Microsoft's decision to avoid any further EU censure on Windows 7 by removing Internet Explorer 8 from the OS. Because Internet Explorer is so deeply integrated within Vista, it's not currently possible to perform an upgrade that removes IE.' Why would Microsoft cripple it this way? Just to try and point fingers at the European Union? Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup."
As much as I would like to find fault with Microsoft here...
Anybody that "upgrades" a Windows operating system in place from one version to another is an idiot.
People should reinstall their Windows from scratch at least once a year. Any less frequent than that and the successive patches to patches to patches become too much for the system to bear. The successive software installs and uninstalls leave hanging dependencies that slow the system to even worse of a crawl than it was at first install. An "upgraded" system drags with it the legacy rootkits previously installed, and those cause issues even in the best case. In the worst case the malware and crudware bog down the system so much you're lucky to get any work done at all.
A fresh install of XP on modern equipment is almost as snappy as Linux. After a year you're powering up and going for coffee while it "wakes up". After an "OS Upgrade" you don't dare power the thing off unless you're going on vacation for a week. Patch Tuesday has spawned "Team Building Wednesday".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The last thing we need is out of date third party browsers bundled with Windows. (And yes, by the time the disks get from RTM to the consumer the browsers will be out of date.)
A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway, so what's the point? An incompetent user, on the other hand, will go ahead and use an out of date browser, and blame Microsoft for it when they get burned.
What I'd like to see is a mini-browser shipped with Windows: no Javascript, no plug-ins, no active content of any kind. Just basic HTML. This would be enough to let the user download whichever browser he or she chooses.
They did exactly the same thing during the antitrust trial. In December 1997 (or thereabouts), Microsoft responded to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's order to provide a version of Windows 98 without a browser by offering up a version of the OS that wouldn't run.
Upgrading from one OS to another OS is always a risky thing. The conditions and results are likely to be incalculably variable. For businesses, this should not be a big deal. Their data should be stored on servers, not on workstations. Their workstations should be loaded from system software images which are deployed when major upgrades are rolled out or when a machine becomes corrupted with malware. Simply building Windows7 images is the best way to deploy Windows7 in the EU or in the US... in the office or even at home. Okay, at home, they should buy a new hard drive and install Windows7 then put their old drive in a USB box and import only the data.
Installing any OS clean is generally for the best and will give the OS the best opportunity to give a good impression.
On the flip side, can you imagine what a machine would be like today if a machine once running Windows NT 3.x with general applications was upgraded to every incarnation of Windows since then along with every incarnation of their applications along the way? I'm morbidly curious to know what that would be like...
Or maybe they didn't plan on making upgrades possible from a version with IE in it to versions without it? Maybe they didn't conspire to "cripple" it, but instead told you you'll have to clean-install a new OS that is not a strict superset?
They were investigating Microsoft for illegally tying IE to Windows. So Microsoft stopped tying IE to Windows. I don't see how that reaction is all that surprising (well, except among the set that thought Microsoft would take the most evil possible route in every case).
I have to say, I think forcing a person to click through another damn screen after every install for a choice of several browsers would also have been "crippling" in the same sense -- an annoying one-time event that most consumers won't even face in the first place because people rarely install or upgrade their OS in the first place.
EU gets the money but looks stupid in the end, and its citizens lose.
Users install something else after feeling punished by Microsoft.
What is with these companies? I thought Microsoft was above this kind of passive aggression.
Task Mangler
Still it is not clear how clean installation using update copy of windows 7 can be achieved. Microsoft was quick to offer pre-order copies of Windows 7 upgrade without officially explaining what are the ways to perform upgrade. The issue is in validation of previous version of Windows. Some believe that previous version of Windows has to be installed and activated before performing update which is ridiculous in long run. In other words, it seems that EU people might have to install vista first, then Windows 7.
What happened is that people need to research how they can perform upgrade, but there's still no official word for it.
This doesn't sound like they learned all they could from Vista debacle.
I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all. Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7? Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.
Internet explorer deeply integrated in Vista? I remember all the claims that Internet explorer had been separated out for Vista specifically.........another lie? Or summary full of shit?
Since neither MS nor most of the companies who write software for Windows know how to write a program that can be uninstalled 100% after use, you cannot simply remove IE.
Additionally, a lot of business software is relying on IE to work. It simply does not care if FF would run with it, but it simply only executes IE for in-window browsing etc.
If you upgrade from Vista to 7 and loose IE, you will be stuck with more non-working programs than you want to handle - or better - than MS wants to handle.
If something breaks after an upgrade with a forced removal of IE, the users will scream "The new Windows broke my machine!". The same thing they screamed when Vista came out.
no sig
Bracing for modded down... but here goes.
There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS. Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS? A software company should be able to include whatever they want, and if people don't like it then either don't buy it or stop complaining. But the fact of the matter is... anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer either likes it better than everything else, has no clue of the difference between it and Firefox and whatever else, or the more likely reason that their company forces them to, and that is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS.
But anyway the point of this comment is to say that of course Microsoft is going to do their best to make sure they meet all of the requirements and then some, because they are pissed. If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor, I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off by making things as hard as possible for them as a result of their stupid decision.
Also, great work on the unbiased summary there jbeale53 and samzenpus.
It's Europe.
Why would Microsoft cripple it this way? Just to try and point fingers at the European Union? Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.
Actually the EU has not ordered MS to take any specific action. They do seem to favor multiple browsers installed by default as a remedy, but haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime and are looking into it. MS's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy, but the EU basically told them they weren't dropping the case and were going to investigate and determine the most effective remedy regardless of what MS does at this point.
Assuming all the above premises hold, it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that won't install IE.
While upgrading is convenient, won't this actually give European users a better start with Windows 7? Windows is always better when it's clean and recently installed.
At least my experience with upgrading from one version of Windows to another has been "mixed". I prefer to install from scratch.
how do I go and download FireFox?
It will wipe then all of malware from the start on.
M$, please make it perfect with a mandatory harddisk format at install time.
the more I see MS giving the EU a big F U. Not only have they had to put up with them telling them to open their system up for competition, but they get fined for when they try to do anything otherwise.
"Blasphemy!" they say. "We will only lose more market share!"
And its true. My god, imagine Normal-Joe-User having the choice between several brands of web browsers and media players to choose from. Internet Explorer sounds old and so 80s, where as Firefox has the words "fire" and "fox" so its gotta be both exciting and cuddly right?
So instead of giving them the choice, they opt to not give them any at all, foregoing the need to even have to bother with the EU ever again. I can see Balmer and his cronies sitting in a meeting and they all unanimously say "fuck it," raising a middle finger across the Atlantic as hard as they possibly could.
If I was moved to install windows 7 (which I'm not) I would would be investigating how I could get a European Edition. So That I could install without IE
Well, if I have to use Windows at all it's because I need Internet Explorer for work (see Office and Sharepoint integration). I might as well get the best Windows version they have to host it.
As a European I doubt this will be a major problem for my employer or me. I'll just have to download Internet Explorer after having installed Windows 7 (physically or virtually).
My personal PCs will continue to use UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X thank you very much :)
So in Europe upgrade copies might not be available? I swear that I read just yesterday about how to install the cheaper upgrade copy of 7 and it required an install of Vista, and not XP or 7 RC. Clean install is not an option unless you buy the more expensive non-upgrade copy. Or maybe I read something from someone who didn't know what he was talking about.
Perhaps Microsoft's hope is that EU users will simply grab the upgrade from bittorrent in the states to save themselves the hassle and in the process get IE, helping to keep it ubiquitous.
I doubt Microsoft wants anyone to download a pirated copy for any reason. It's not really going to be a problem for Microsoft the way I see it.
After all it's the applications that require Internet Explorer that ties users to Windows and Internet Explorer.
European users/admins will just have to download and install Internet Explorer after installing Windows. I know I will have to.
Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X?
The MSHTML is the issue. What's the point of saying you have removed the web browser, when you really haven't? If you want to remove the web browser, the HTML rendering engine has to go. Otherwise, anyone could wrap a simple browser wrapper around IE's rendering engine and still get the effect of shutting out browser competitors. Microsoft is completely right in this, and the EU is simply wrong. A modern operating system includes a bundled browser.
This is my sig.
My what an ignorant jerk you are. The EU and the European market represent a huge share of Microsoft's profits, how likely do you think they are to screw with that? How stupid can you get?! If Microsoft wants to play here they have to follow our rules.
I'm so tired of hearing fools like you talk about how Microsoft should just "pull out" of Europe. When are you going to get it? They don't want to! They can't unless they want to lose markets all around the world! European international corporations would move to European Linux distributions (in all the countries they operate in around the world).
The EU asked them to include more options for browsers, do you even know how to read? They did not ask them to remove IE, but that's fine too. After all it's not a problem since manufacturers can add whatever they like OEM-style.
The EU is a massively powerful entity and Microsoft has no power to "lobby" their way out of this or any other issues unlike in the US. So you better get used to having your "American" corporations "screwed" over by us Europeans! Don't worry, the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way!
I will have to rebuild my botnets in Europe from scratch...
Monopolies get special treatment as far as the law is concerned, and for good reason.
Microsoft, if given freedom to trade as it pleases, is in a position to stifle competition by making interoperability impossible and by not allowing competitor's software to work on its systems. This is great for Microsoft shareholders in the short to medium term, but it is terrible for society as a whole. That is why anti-competitive practices are regulated and prosecuted, especially when it comes to large monopolistic corporations.
As a side note, I believe anti-competitive behaviour is bad for shareholders in the long term too. It is no guarantee against failure, but more likely when a monopoly really doesn't innovate its products and services, then the inevitable failure will come along in a catastrophic way. Also, shareholders being members of society should want progression for society as a whole, not just a progression of their net worth relative to everyone else.
Comparing the original XP release without Service Packs (circa 2001) to a much newer Linux install (2009) is a cheap argument. Next you'll tell us that nVidia's GeForce 256 is trash next to an ATI Radeon HD 4000.
An XP CD with SP3 slipstreamed is slightly faster than earlier versions, if reports are to be believed. If you manage to make an XP system as slow as Vista on the same hardware you're doing something wrong.
Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.
Saying "only" doesn't make that statement any less absurd. How is the selection for these browsers to be made? Because you know the moment Microsoft announces they're to put "select few" browsers in Windows 7, everyone will want theirs in.
;)
Opera says "top 5" browsers, but picking browsers by market share, in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony. Not to mention the magical number "5" comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share. If it was "top 3" they wouldn't even be in that list, depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit. Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users? Please upgrade to a modern browser: Chrome, IE8, Firefox. Opera's nowhere in that list. Should they sue YouTube?
What the EU commission wants from Microsoft is a solution that can't be carried out in any sensible manner. But maybe that's exactly what they want, have you seen what EU charges Microsoft for failing to abide? To paraphrase another euphemism, let's call it "surprise tax"
If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people's 3rd party software in my software product, I'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code. That's ridiculous. If you take it out of this context and apply it as a rule in general, it's insane. The worst part is, if they're installing Windows 7 and see Firefox and Opera and let's say 10 other really, really crappier browsers, they'd appear to be official Microsoft options. That means they'd get supports calls when suddenly pages look wrong in Firefox or Opera is crashing, etc. This is all a nightmare no matter how they go about it.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
In my experience Upgrade BAD.
The number of calls I would get because an upgrade went south. (I just used to cringe , users would never have a backup)
A CLEAN INSTALL is always the best.
You mean I can have windows without all the security issues of internet explorer?
http://www.nwnetworks.com/iesecurity.htm
Just have to do a clean install?
Yes Please.
Anybody got friends in Europe ?
Microsoft makes available a tool to transfer user files and settings. It's not quite the same as an in-place upgrade, but in some ways it's better since it doesn't keep all the app baggage that may have accumulated over time. After you do the "Easy Transfer", it tells you what apps you need to reinstall. Assuming you have copies of those apps, you get to retain all your settings.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2b6f1631-973a-45c7-a4ec-4928fa173266&DisplayLang=en
This tired argument of comparing original XP release to current Linux distros really needs to stop. It's apples to oranges and the only thing it accomplishes is a loss of credibility for Linux as a solution ("can't it handle a fair comparison?"). Especially the WPA comment from grandparent is ironic as the out-of-the-box WLAN experience (i.e. just works vs. ndiswrapper hacking) is just now getting together (and comparable to ~XP SP1)
All the Macintosh users are gloating, since upgrades, and migrating to new machines seems to be always flawless and painless.
Alright, here's where I'm confused:
In Windows Vista, you cannot remove IE. You can upgrade from 7 to 8, of course, but there's no way to remove it, and things will break if you try, because it was never designed to operate without IE present, although it's certainly better than XP was in that respect.
In Windows 7, you can remove IE. Control Panel, Programs and Features, click the link in the sidebar to "Turn Windows features on or off", uncheck Internet Explorer 8, click Yes to the warning that this might break stuff, let it reboot, wait a few extra seconds while it "configures" things, and it's gone. The rendering engine is still there, of course, but the application is gone.
Presumably, after you have upgraded from Vista to 7, this is still true; you can still remove IE by following the above steps.
So how hard is it to just automatically add the uninstall to the upgrade process? Make it optional: after completing an upgrade, ask the user whether they'd like to remove IE or keep it.
And hey, if I recall correctly, they were planning to offer two versions anyway: you could either have IE preinstalled, or not. So, they could make the no-IE version clean-install-only, and the with-IE version could be clean-install or upgrade.
This is definitely not a technical problem.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
It takes me about 30 minutes of work to clean up the worst infected windows computer
Care to share? I've always had the feeling this must be possible, but have no idea how. Do you manually edit the registry, or have some magic tool?
installation will perform bearably well for a couple of days. I recommend a fresh Windows install every 3 months. This is the first time MS has recommended a fresh install as far as I know.
Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
why is the windows 7 price in europe going to be 150% of the dollar-price in euro's (100 dollar -> 150 euro). That's twice what americans pay.
.sig: No such file or directory
and I can't upgrade my Windows XP box to 7 because there's no upgrade path either. This means that I have to upgrade to vista first, and then to 7. Like I have nothing better to do.
The other thing is that on my core 2 quad with 2gb ram, I never really run into delays of switching between processes, windows XP feels snappy (and 'feeling snappy' is mostly a user interface trick anyway), as the major bottleneck of all things done on a system is the harddisk.
I.o.w.: upgrading to 7 (if it were possible) will not give me much better hardware usage anyway than win XP does now. And no, I hate the 7 taskbar (as I have to fight with hidden settings to get my beloved quicklaunch back and I hate the grouping of icons).
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
XP still trumps Linux on a desktop where people want shit to just work.
I completely agree. However a lot of us don't want shit on our desktop, regardless of whether it is working or not. Apart from the unpleasant odour there is also a large risk of serious infection.
So if they are going to ship W7 without IE in Europe, how do I install Firefox on the box???
Do I need to download it from another system, transfer on a usb key, then install?
Does anyone know?
The EU is still investigating and has made no recommendations.
Interestingly when Windows 7 went on pre-order yesterday it exceeded Vistas total pre-orders (over several weeks) in 8 hours. I guess people hate vista quite a bit and are not to worried about the install and browser issue.
But, I too will, have to install the Microsoft Website Explorer. I still need to get bugfixes from the Microsoft website after all.
Why do you say that? Since Windows Vista updates come from the built-in Windows Update application and not their website. You don't need Internet Explorer for those updates.
And Microsoft.com has actually become more standards compliant and accessible with other browsers lately, so any other patches should be available with Firefox etc.
I'm more worried about Microsoft Office and Sharepoint tie-ins, where I need both the Office applications and Internet Explorer to work with files/data.
According to the new Microsoft Office 2010 videos the new suite is actually compatible with both Firefox and Safari, so there is some hope...
we've found that mcdonald's consistently sells their 'big mac' cheeseburgers in their branded restaurants. this prevents potential customers of burger and wendy's from purchasing alternative burgers, such as the whopper with cheese and the whatever wendy's sells. the united states government has determined that if mcdonald's begins to sell wendy's and burger king cheeseburgers alongside the big mac, a pending antitrust suit against mcdonald's will be dropped. mcdonald's has decided to stop selling the big mac completely, which is totally unfair, because our entire business plan was based on forcing our competitor to carry our products!
The MS Office 2010 videos put out by MS a couple of days ago include Firefox accessing Sharepoint and the narrator emphasizing the "full experience." Your need for IE may be short-lived,
If you find the Sharepoint video, look at the 10 or 11 minute mark.
Actually I have already seen the video and know what you mean. However I'm not sure it will work as it should without Internet Explorer. They even claim that the web edition of Word will work with Firefox/Safari.
However you are forgetting something very important, you don't upgrade Sharepoint servers on a whim. Whole applications (sites and webparts etc) might have to be rewritten to upgrade to 2010. And our clients would have to pay for that, I don't know if they would see the need. So I would have to continue to use Internet Explorer to work with/on those servers.
Sharepoint 2010 server also requires Windows Server 2008 (x64) or better. So now you have to upgrade servers and possibly hardware etc.
And it what must be completely unrelated, Linux seems to be much more widely used here. In Spain, we have about half of our technical users using Linux ONLY, the other half run both. The non-technical users are still mostly on windows, but some run linux at home. I see a lot more linux on the desktop in Europe than in the US, and also, with the exception of Microsoft Exchange and the odd MS SQL server here and there, ALL the other servers are Linux. I haven't touched a server running microsoft in years now. Not because I really have anything against them, we just don't need Windows servers for anything.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Just so you know that there's some price to pay for using Windows.
When my child gets punished for bad behavior, she will sometimes get cross and in a fit of spite she will do things that she thinks will hurt us, her parents. Often she ends up hurting herself more through her actions.
Microsoft makes some fine software. They are a bunch of bright, creative people. But apparently they have the corporate personality of a 4 year old bully. They were caught being bad, again, and their response to being punished is petulance. Not to worry; they are harming themselves. The middle of a recession is not a good time to make your product more expensive and with a higher barrier to entry.
----------
I've seen a few people saying that it would be hard for them to give a choice of browsers, and that, in fact, just deciding which browsers would be too hard for some of the brightest people on the planet. I wouldn't compare my intellectual powers with those of Mr Ballmer, but I can imagine that they could:
1. Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports, so that it can be implemented in other browsers
2. Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the API
3. Bundle Mozilla, Opera and Safari
4. Ask the user for a URL, then download a browser as part of the installation process
5. Ask the user to insert a CD containing the browser
None of these are exclusive of the others - they should be doing all five.
What I see is a case of corporate petulance and bad grace from a management team who think that they are above the law.
--------------
Now some balance.
If I were in the position where I was genuinely surprised by the EU's decision (though I can't see how MS could possibly be surprised), and I was completely unprepared, rather than hold back the launch of the OS globally, I might choose to issue it in stages in the EU to give myself time to comply with the ruling. However, I would also be incredibly careful to communicate about this strategy so as not to upset my customers. But as far as I can make out, this is not what is happening here because I've seen no explanation as to how insisting on a clean install fits in with a two stage strategy or how it complies with the EU ruling.
I'm fairly sure that Win7 won't be available as a "clean" install on a Laptop either. Why do you think the practice of bundling all sorts of crapware would cease?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's pretty obvious to me that not having IE8 is a huge advantage. Just think of all the critical security patches Windows won't annoy you with.
Microsoft might be playing with fire in this case. Restricting the Windows 7 in Europe, just because they are annoyed by the decisions of the European Commission, might trigger some European governments to start sponsoring more aggressively alternative OSs to Windows.
Nowadays, with Linux and the Open Source community it would be easy for some of them to do so.
In your opinion. Windows isn't actually needed for things to work unless you drink all the MS-Koolaid.
In my opinion, you should use Linux if you just want things to work. I'll admit that for some users, MS-Office is a requirement, but Windows **is not** a requirement unless you wish to be hacked. I'm not suggesting KDE or Gnome either. They both suck. fvwm2 does what a window manager should.
I've been running xubuntu the last 8 months and I'm much happier than I was running with either KDE or Gnome "environments."
See, Linux follows something called "standards". Don't get me wrong, setting standards is good, but then you don't threaten to sue other companies when they adopt your standards as something becomes more popular.
MS pulling IE out of the OS build in Europe is no small feat. I'm impressed that it is possible. Sometimes legal issues trump sanity. If MS included 1 other browser, all the other browsers would sue in the EU to be added as well. It would never end.
XP pre patches was fast. And crap.
XP SP1 was slower. And mostly crap.
XP SP2 was quite a bit slower. And now did something SENSIBLE: start the firewall BEFORE the network stack!
But when you compare the speed of XP to linux you use the 2001 version because it's faster. Then when someone says XP is crap, you complain that they should be using SP3 version not pre-SP.
Well YOU decide.
Linux is faster than XP (SP3) but XP is as good at "Just Working" as Linux.
OR
Linux is better at working than XP (no SP) but Linux is no faster under most configurations than it.
Okay, so I'm on XP at the moment... Just what incentive is there for me to upgrade, exactly?
I just ran through the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor program, purely out of interest. Technically, I shouldn't have to update any hardware, though it didn't like my version of OpenOffice. Hardware's the biggest hurdle usually - I didn't plug every USB device I have in (as it recommends) but I don't see there being problems. However, the hassle associated with an "upgrade" is too much:
- I would have to wipe my machine clean (I've never done that on a personal computer, only for work... I've reimaged from backups, or converted a blank partition over to Linux, but never had to wipe an operating system off just to upgrade).
- I would have to reinstall ALL of my programs, settings, drivers, etc. that took me MONTHS to set up (seriously, I still have config files and reg files from programs that I set up ten years ago because they took a long time to get them how I like them).
- I lose quite a few little interface tweaks that I like to use.
- I gain some features that I really *can't* imagine myself using, and some that I can't imagine *anyone* really using.
- I gain a chance to remove Internet Explorer, that I don't use anyway.
I'm simplifying horribly, but what do I actually *gain* in real terms? Slightly updated hardware support? Maybe, but I haven't found anything that doesn't work on XP yet. Slightly better performance? Most probably drowned out by the fact that I only *just* qualify to run Windows 7 on this machine anyway, whereas I'm way over XP's comfort zone. Does it actually *do* anything that my current OS doesn't (that I will *ever* use), or is it just a case of "version apathy" and that when I get a new computer, it'll be Windows 7 and until then I might as well stick with what I have? Just the reinstall is hassle enough for me to say that I'll leave it until I get a new computer (which is a rare event for me).
I don't remember it being this way for Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or Windows 98 (and their various editions). I have even upgraded from 98 to XP without problems before now (although it's not something I would just assume would work). There's no technical reason why I can't upgrade, it's purely political, but even assuming I could: What do I gain for my money?
When the cost of an operating system would actually see *more* benefit by being used to purchase RAM, drive space, peripherals, etc. I fail to see the attraction. Of course those with MSDN or money to burn will "upgrade" and tell us all how wonderful it is, but I can't see ANYTHING here... I didn't even see anything in Vista (which is universally loathed by the non-techy people who come to me for support). Even the usual press is quite "dumbed down" about Windows 7 - there was an article on the BBC News website, that was about it, and most of that was telling how people "can't upgrade". I remember a big press fuss over Vista but it doesn't seem present this time around.
Are people finally plateauing in what they expect from an OS?
Or, with DRM, "This program has not been signed. Your computer may be unstable and this may be a virus or trojan". A company will not be able to accept such a program, will it. And if the MS approved version works without the nagging, well, maybe people will move to it.
Also, think of the developer licenses.
They can and do add restrictions to who can write for the OS and what they can write. The program written by a MS programmer who was given an award for their work was threatened with copyright infringement FOR that work because it opened up a capability that MS didn't want expressed in their cheaper (free?) version of their software.
MS HAVE told people what can and cannot run on their OS.
So the EU 'won' and there is a version of win7 with no IE and lots of hassle.
So good job , I know this will be available, and my choice is I do not wish to use it.
I do not use IE for anything I'm a Firefox fan, but I just do not have any wish to pay for all this hassle.
Where can I exercise my right to chose to buy the regular windows 7 instead of the Windows 7 E or N packages?
I'd include an ungodly amount of the most obscure browsers there are. Anything I could get my hands on. Alphabetically, with a catagory on top "Microsoft Certified and Tested" which would include IE, IE and maybe even IE. Mozilla would be in the other category "Untested and possibly harmful to your system". (perhaps with warning pictures, like skulls, communist signs and other things).
Before flaming commences, I've used Firefox since version 0.9 or something, and this was posted in a Gentoo box.
I am an avid Linux and FreeBSD user, have been for a long time. However, I do use Windows on one of my home machine, mainly cause I like to play games...
Now, I think that Windows 7 is by far the best OS to have come out of Redmond for a long time. Yes XP was good (after SP2), but it did suffer from limitations. The 64-bit version is a dead end so my new hardware can not be leveraged with Windows XP. I used Vista for a year and, while bloated and heavy, was an OK OS. I have a miniMac for work at home, I don't like it...The user interface is klunky IMHO. I do like the console though.
Suse Linux is my fav linux, purely because the issues I have had have been easily resolved, package management is good and it just works. CentOS my fav for a server (with no gui).
Back on topic now, Microsoft didn't just decide to remove IE from Windows, they though long and hard about how they can still get what they want and fit into the requirements of the EU. You think they just thought that that was the easiest? No. They did it because 1) They know that most people will just install IE anyway because its what they know. 2) They can blame the lack of functionality on the EU. 3) It's a two-finger salute to the EU. It fulfills the law, but in the worst possible way. 4) If users had a choice on install they may indeed pick something else...it's like free advertising for other browsers, not something M$ would want to do.
Now the EU won't accept this. They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid. The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
>> You've never come across some of the viruses I've seen then. Ever seen one that still loads, even in Safe Mode? How about the one that disables system restore, regedit, task manager, msconfig, *and* still ran in safe mode? That little bugger could lock down the computer better than most IT admins I know.
Normally ones like this are hooked into the winlogon process.
Although the malware usually prevents the applications from running, the RunAs command usually works. So you could try this as an option to start regedit.
Even if not, you can use CMD and REG QUERY to query the contents of winlogon -> Notify, which will give you the name of the relevant DLL or process executable.
For disinfection, either recovery console or a bootable CD (linux distro with NTFS-3G, or any of the minimal Windows PXE-type environments) will allow you to delete or rename the relevant executable.
Sorry to be condescending, but six years isn't all that long in terms of disinfection. I've been doing this since Win3.11 days - fifteen years and counting - and there's doubtless many /.ers who have much more impressive histories. There's nothing like a broad scope of experience for handling infections.
Is there anyway of tricking the installer to do an upgrade instead of wiping the whole syste. I do recall it was possible with earlier versions of Windows. Saved you from having to buy two CDs ..
"if you look at the news reports from yesterday (15/7/2009) you'll see that Amazon sold out of the pre-orders within hours for Home premium"
Why would people pre-order something that is going to totally wipe out their current desktop. I mean having to reinstall and configure your current apps and data must be a major hassle.
Windows 7 pre-orders big in Europe
If you use portable software. Takes me less than an hour to fully reinstall and i'm of again.
Hurrah for portable software (and data partition's )
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
this is Eu. no senate, no congress. you cant pressurize them through shitty moves like that. it is a body that issued and enforced SO many quality standards, some even despite great reaction from public or interest groups that, they made so far as to make a joke about themselves a few years ago, by putting out a fake 'thickness standards in chicken eggs' document in 1 april.
you cant buy mps or senators there either, eu is too big, too many countries in it and its very people oriented.
all this would result in would be eu issuing stricter standards for software companies (especially os producers) to adhere to, to prevent repetition of such shit in future.
whichever moron came up with the idea among microsoft execs - congrats.
Read radical news here
All the Macintosh users are gloating, since upgrades, and migrating to new machines seems to be always flawless and painless.
funny - tell me your joking
Upgrades on mac are just as nightmarish .
Love apple products but if you ever have the choice never upgrade.
Always backup Please !!!
you will be doing the person who has to fix the issues caused by the upgrade a favor and your data is protected. (like safe sex)
Imagine if the EU mandated that Google remove its browser from its new OS. The whole point of that OS is web accelleration. Meh.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
So, the person that buys a service (software) and is told that there is an upgrade procedure by theÂservice provider, is actually an idiot?
I will not throw a cheap car analogy, because it is so obvious how to do it that it is painful just to think about it.
What about blaming the manufacturer that says something is possible and the results are far from, er, desirable....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A good "selling" point for Linux: "I have to delete and reinstall everything anyway, so would you like buy Windows 7 for xxx,xx EUR or get Ubuntu for free?"
Funny, how Microsoft sacrifices one of the biggest reasons for staying with Windows - no need to reinstall everything, just upgrade - just to show how angry they are at the EU.
Don't argue about this please, it simply isn't.
A browser is firmly in the application space, any serious operating environments make sure that this remains so.
MS has made a muddle of this (and many other things, or can you run a headless MS server?), so lets not change Operating Systems practice, and theory just because some companies have complete disregard of sound Engineering practices ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are muddling what an operating system does with what an user space application does.
Let me put it this way: you need an application to browse the internet out of the box.
Fine, no problem with that.
But your operating system should not need a browser to function (and well Engineered ones don't).
Your operating system controls the resources on your machine so you can run your applications.
In Linux and UNIX that is done elegantly and efficiently.
In other OSes, the users think that a browser is part of the Operating System.....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
But they are carefully side stepping the issue, until they get tired of nonsensical attempts of compliance.
If MS keeps doing its stunts the regulators are going to go mental and may take dramatic actions, as they have done with other companies or in mergers and acquisitions...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you would do that, eventually you would lose.
If that is the prevailing attitude in MS's HQs I suggest they are playing a game they can't win.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Having done 1000+ upgrades to Macs, and 500+ to Windows, I'd say you're so dead wrong that you're drunk and confused.
I've seen an occasional hardware issue on the Macs, and stuff like Unsanity's APEs aren't allowed on our systems. But it pales in comparison to the pain of installing windows.
But, yes always back up your home folder. And if you're on windows, make sure you also copy the registry, and the invisible settings folders that MS apps seem to love, and if you're in an AD environment, you might not be able to copy everything.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
*** Why would Microsoft cripple it this way? Just to try and point fingers at the European Union? Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup."***
And since the EU isn't suing Linux companies to include other browsers, etc, they are biased against MS. Where's the suit against Apple? You ONLY get Safari with a base install of OSX....
I'm with MS on this one. When people complain, MS can point the finger at the EU and tell them to fuck off.
I wonder how do I download Opera, if Windows ships with no browser... ^^
Last I checked,
Apple stores aren't required to carry Zunes
Sherwin Williams doesn't carry other companies' paints
Polo outlet stores don't carry Tommy Hilfiger
Toyota dealerships don't sell new GMs (unless they're also a GM dealership)
Wonder bakery outlet stores don't sell Dolly Madison
and Google Maps doesn't provide me with an option to use Bing as a search engine.
Yet Slashdot geeks are obsessed with the idea that it's a good thing that Microsoft is coerced into promoting a competitor's product. No, we don't make other companies promote their competitor's products, but that's irrelevant. FF is better and we should use the full force of the government to give it to us. Yes, Microsoft spent billions and billions on advertising, product development, etc. but the socialist, all-software-should-be-free types on Slashdot don't care, Firefox is better and MS ought to give it to then. You're just a bunch of selfish brats who want something and if it means trampling on people's property rights (yes, the right to determine what line of business you're in as well as what you're going to see is a property right), who cares, because FF is better and that's all that matters.
Or, . . . , we could take 2 minutes and download FF ourselves and leave our property rights intact. Tocqueville was right. Democracy fails when the majority begins deciding that they can just take from others what they want through the coercive power of the government without regard for property rights.
Just to rub a little more salt into the wounds, I wonder what happens to FF when the Google discontinues their financial support for FF. Hmmmm.
Am I the only one who misunderstood the title as (Windows 7 Clean Install) (Only in Europe) rather than (Windows 7) (Clean Install Only) (in Europe)?
Who really cares about this? The only morons who don't do clean installs to begin with, won't be buying Windows via this route any way (average home users will get it via new PCs and whatnot).
So basically this amounts to "Option that no one used will no longer be available"
these so-called actions by governments (the EU, state governments, etc.) aren't done to make Microsoft, AT&T, Apple, etc. behave. The point of these actions is to generate tax revenue. The EU spends hundreds of millions "investigating" Microsoft and at the end of the day, they'll charge Microsoft with a few billion in fines.
Why do you think that the IRS makes their forms as confusing as possible? It's not for accuracy, it's so that you'll make mistakes. And when you make mistakes, they'll triple the amount that you failed to pay. The same goes for speeding tickets. They generate revenue. Yeah, we could just put cameras up on the freeways and take away people's licenses, but then nobody would speed (and they'd get no ticket $). And we could have just banned smoking years ago, but we decided that it was better to just demonize "big tobacco", and then justify raising cigarette taxes higher and higher.
The EU never cared about FF or the other browser makers. They just like finding ways to find ways to fine Microsoft and generate dollars without raising taxes.
What was the tech used to convert photos to black and white pseudo-pen-and-ink pictures used on that page for the author's pictures?
Advice: on VPS providers
You know the executive branch is the President, right?
Because which ones do you include? I mean ok there's obvious big ones, but then the whole point of anti-trust is to protect the little guy. So MS goes and releases 7 with IE, Mozilla, Opera, Safari and Chrome. However then some new browser comes along and they want to be included too, so they go after MS saying it isn't fair that MS includes the large guys but not theirs. So MS includes that one. Then another browser comes along and so on. Before you know it, you have 50 browsers included in various states of completeness. This is a nightmare not only from an updating standpoint (any time MS does an update they have to deal with all the third party code) but from a user standpoint. The users would get hopelessly confused by all the choices, especially since if MS pushed IE over the others, they'd doubtless get in trouble. Users wouldn't know what to choose, and would get mad when they chose poorly and the browser didn't work well for them.
A much cleaner idea is just to say "Ok, no browser included, do what you like."
Having done 1000+ upgrades to Macs, and 500+ to Windows, I'd say you're so dead wrong that you're drunk and confused.
nope but I have been on the receiving end of upgrades gone wrong and in the customer's mind you suddenly become the person who caused it. Nasty
Please please backup - (beg even.)
1000+ upgrades to macs and 500+ windows (you dont say it but I imply that you mean you have never had a problem)
yeah well .... you are the luckiest /most skilled? IT person I have ever met.
The real issue with upgrades is that your dealing with a moving target software wise and the people who made the OS upgrade may not always anticipate how software changes.
drunk and confused ? - Interesting and how will this win your argument ?
Question: Modifying a Linux hosts file requires SUDO, right? After all, you don't want anyone/anyprogram redirecting certain names to some fake site in China.
Same thing in Vista. You just need to learn which things are administrator-based, or need admin rights to edit. You ARE running your account as a non-admin, right?
And if you need to take 5 minutes for EACH changed line, EACH time you touch the hosts file... well, you're doing something wrong. Or you're an idiot. And that's an OR, not an XOR.
I would seriously consider using Linux if it wasn't such a bitch to get, since I use wireless my DL/UL bandwidth is really bad. I've heard of getting a Linux CD sent to me via mail, but which Linux should I get? I know there's a ton; uBuntu, Mint, and others I think. All I can think of is uBuntu now. I also do not want to lose all my vital files on my current Windows Vista Home Premium. Does anybody know which type of Linux I should get? I want to be able to still play PC games without needing much configuration. This is why I have a hard time switching, I've been convinced that you can't play the same games on Vista/PC as Linux, especially new games. I run a laptop by the way, had no problems with it for the year I've had it. I've toned down the Vista graphics a lot so that it doesn't suck up so much memory, which it did before. So, recap - Can I run PC games on a Linux OS like I can on Vista? If so, which Linux distribution should I consider? What is the price? What is the size? Can I get it sent to me in the mail? If not.. I will just run Windows Vista and play my games in peace.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This isn't crippling. They are doing you a favor by not letting you "upgrade". Whoever thought that upgrading was a good idea should be taken out back and shot.
If you don't see the problem, then you are blind. What is the last 10 years ? What is IE6 ?
IF Apple had beat Microsoft way back in the day, we would all be bitching about Safari.
IF Linux wins, we'll be bitching about um, Konquerer.
Any product that wins in any competition will die because people will get sick of the reasons that it won.
[troll - look at vi, which triumphed over emacs... and look at how much its not evolved]
This is my sig.
Country: Kazakhstan
38.42% Opera
37.18% IE
22.26% Firefox
In Soviet Kazakstan, Opera is not bundled, Opera bundles you!
This is my sig.
We call them USERS around here. And yes, Reinstalling the OS doesn't fix that problem. Only thing that solves that problem is having Management clearly define what programs / websites / systems are needed to do the job, and LOCK all the others out.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Maybe I'm behind the times, but since when was "Time taken to add a line to your hosts file" considered the final word in OS benchmarks?
Of all the things you could argue are better about Linux when compared to Windows: price, security, speed, support for old hardware, package management, faster release cycles, and better consumer rights, you chose how long it takes to add a line to the hosts file.
Mod parent +1 funny to immortalize the single greatest fanboy post I've ever seen.
It doesn't "just work" on all systems. It works on most, but if you want guaranteed compatibility everything* runs with Windows, even if you have to hunt for some drivers.
How sweet. Do you really believe that?
Just a small list of counter-examples:
Thats just a couple of examples that came to mind first. Mind you, ive already worked full time fixing these "imaginary" bugs.
Okay, lots of speculation and misinformation. Let's try and clear this up:
The laws: The EC has laws stating that a company cannot bundle one product of theirs with another if one of those products constitutes and effective monopoly. (No bundling, as this allows the company to use it's monopoly in one market to artificially create one in another.)
The indictment: Microsoft has an effective OS monopoly and bundles with it's OS a Web Browser (IE).
The proposal being floated (not by the EC, but by various members...no judgment has been made) is to force Microsoft to bundle additional browsers with the OS, allowing the consumer to choose among them.
The problem: The proposal does nothing to remedy the original complaint of bundling.
Did it remove the bundled product? No.
Is the law, as written, still being broken? Yes.
So why are we still floating this "solution"? Because it is appealing; It's a nice thought, and the Media has found that articles regarding it generate a huge amount of hits.
What's the point? All we're doing here is making other people rich, really. The "solution" ... isn't one. It's a fanciful game of pretend that has little to no meaning with regards to the laws or the actions questioned.
Did it remove the bundled product? No. Is the law, as written, still being broken? Yes. So why are we still floating this "solution"?
You are mistaken. You see, the law doesn't make bundling, per se, illegal. It makes undermining a second market illegal and bundling is an EXAMPLE, of how such undermining can take place. Any remedy that prevents the browser market from being undermined effectively stops the crime.
What's the point? All we're doing here is making other people rich, really.
The point is to make the browser market competitive again so that MS has to actually compete and make IE the best browser if they want it to have the most market share. In that way all the browsers get better and technology rapidly innovates and everyone wins except Microsoft who has been making money through criminal action.
6 strains
6 hours
6 years
SATAN ALERT!
from other articles i read it was stated that IE is still in the w7 eu version but not activated, since it is also there deeply in the system...
anyway i dont care, running linux
OK.
Wow..
Crime??? Seriously? Someone's going to jail and getting a criminal record over this? ;)
The focus of the complaint was bundling and the law does, in fact, expressly forbid it in the instance where one of the products is a monopoly. There is wording regarding other methods of entering a secondary market that do not include bundling, but this refers more to price-fixing, collusion, and so forth.
As to the point of making the browser market competitive again, how does removing IE from the field entirely block competition?
I'd be interested in this euro Windows 7 with no trace of IE ... where can I get it?
#6495ED - cornflower blue
All I can say, that's what Microsoft gets for not having a package manager. Most Linux distros have allowed full upgrades, and in some cases downgrades, for years. If Microsoft had a working package management system this would just not be a big deal. It'd make upgrades easier, patches easier, and the whole mess of "enterprise management" largely seems to revolve around the kind of problems that are easy when your OS uses a package manager.
OK. Wow..Crime??? Seriously? Someone's going to jail and getting a criminal record over this? ;)
Antitrust violation is a criminal offense. When corporations commit crimes, however, jail time is rarely an option. Breaking the company up into several smaller companies has been used in the past as a punishment.
The focus of the complaint was bundling and the law does, in fact, expressly forbid it in the instance where one of the products is a monopoly.
U.S. law used bundling as an example of illegal tying (the first example in fact), but tying in turn is only one type of antitrust abuse. There are plenty of methods of antitrust abuse and even tying that don't use bundling. MS has already been convicted of illegal tying between their desktop and server OS's for example, when there was no bundling. It is undermining markets that is illegal. Bundling is just one method, like stabbing is one way of committing assault with a deadly weapon. As far as I've read, EU antitrust law takes the same tack, making undermining markets illegal, then listing example methods.
As to the point of making the browser market competitive again, how does removing IE from the field entirely block competition?
It doesn't, but neither does it solve the broken market. Th point of the remedy is to stop further crime while repairing the damage already done. Just removing IE from the shipping OEM version of Windows 7 in the EU, does not repair the damage.
I think you're exceptionally skilled - the type of person to whom generalizations like that do not apply.
Imaging does take a lot of the grind out of refreshing a system. Once you get the habit of it, you can do some cool stuff. It takes a good process though, and a lot of storage to make waypoint snapshots.
You may find it amusing that the post at the top of the thread was moderated 23 times so far - including every moderation key except funny or redundant. A personal best for me, I think.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
And I've set systems like that up. They work fine.
But I don't run Windows Server at home so I put together a corruption of LTSP that PXE boots to a menu, and you choose the image to download using Clonezilla, the diagnostic OS to run live, or it defaults to a thin client session on the server for guests.
Some people collect lint...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Okay, how many service packs have you downloaded for Windows Vista? And how many do you think an ordinary consumer will download outside the Windows Update Application? I think you are being unreasonable.
Ordinary users won't ever have to go to Microsoft's website, even if they should, they won't. That what we are there for!
I would certainly download a lot of files from their website, but their Downloads website actually works with Firefox! Even Windows Genuine Advantage has it's own Firefox Extension to validate!
I have downloaded files from their website using Firefox on Linux and Mac OS X. I don't know if you meant just MSDN? The ordinary Downloads section works just fine.
I don't know why you bring up MSDN at all! What consumer is ever there? The ActiveX stuff there is obviously a problem for us, but I hardly expect my mother to download the ISO-file for Office 2010 herself.
I only said there was "some hope" that Office 2010 might work with Firefox/Safari, I don't believe it myself either. At least not before I see it.
Upgrade disks are a scam. The amount of times I am passed machine to re-format with an upgrade disk and no original OS.
Good riddance
So if the EU tells Microsoft they have to include third party code in Windows, and the third party code causes Windows to malfunction, who is going to compensate Microsoft for costs incurred, loss of goodwill, and so on?
Ha ha ha...
Was tired of all this s**t. Last year I switched to Ubuntu...
So far so good. No windows update c**p.
Reading this thread is like watching people trying to swim away from the Titanic whilst you're in a boat.
Common guys get on board... There's plenty of room...
Looks like Europe is goind to be liberated before the US...OEM will find it easier to negociate opt-out of imposed Windows d**g on new HW
Al
A browser is firmly in the application space, any serious operating environments make sure that this remains so.
The distinction between operating system and application is entirely arbitrary. The phrase operating system, literally, means "software system to operate the computer with", therefor, it could even include applications.
It's really here why one could say, that, Linux is a better operating system than Windows, because it comes a word processor, a C++ IDE, and a bunch of other stuff. It has more ways to operate the computer.
This is my sig.
If you want to keep computers as general purpose machines, you must make the distinction between the software whose task is to make the computer hardware accessible and the software that sits on top of that other software in order to run tasks for which the computer has been completely abstracted.
If you don't do that abstraction between OS and applications you are ensuring that security is more difficult to achieve and reliability is nigh impossible to ensure.
The myriad of security problems with MS OSes, where marketing and commercial matters took precedence over sound Engineering principles, tell us al lot about why the distinction although arbitrary, it is still important.
Nerds boasting here and elsewhere about their machines' uptimes may be annoying, but reveals an important fact: the abstraction in some OSes is much better than in others, this leads to reliable systems where the relationships between all the actors working in a computer are better understood (this is obviously witnessed in corporate environments, where Windows OSes are overwhelmingly not trusted with tasks where important information is handled).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you want to keep computers as general purpose machines, you must make the distinction between the software whose task is to make the computer hardware accessible and the software that sits on top of that other software in order to run tasks for which the computer has been completely abstracted.
No you don't. You don't have to do that at all. I mean, you could even argue that in the HTML world, that, having a browser is a necessary thing for making full use of a network card.
The myriad of security problems with MS OSes, where marketing and commercial matters took precedence over sound Engineering principles, tell us al lot about why the distinction although arbitrary, it is still important.
Like what?
The myriad of security problems with MS OSes, where marketing and commercial matters took precedence over sound Engineering principles, tell us al lot about why the distinction although arbitrary, it is still important.
I would say that if you wanted to go by sound engineering principals, David Cutler's inclusion of real ACLS, auditing, the hardware abstraction layer, the existence of different subsystems that can run on top of the OS layer... You can complain about the implementation but I think it is inaccurate to say that NT has less layers of abstraction than Linux does.
This is my sig.