"Seems to me that virus writers would want to target Macs because of all the talk about how Macs are less succeptable to viruses. It would be more prestigious to create a virus that spreads like wildfire through the "impenetrable" Mac community than to create one for the "wide open" Windows community."
It's very difficult to "create a virus that spreads like wild fire through the 'impenetrable' Mac community", because there is no such "community", per se. That is, it's not like Mac users are all huddled together so that a Mac-specific virus would infect them all. Rather, Mac users are dispersed throughout the larger computing community, so a Mac-specific virus has difficulty migrating to other Macs. It's like a biological virus that targetted left-handed red-heads. Left-handed red-heads are a small part of the US population, but if they all lived in one place, such a virus would spread through that population like wildfire. But since that population is dispersed throughout the larger US population, such a biological virus would find propagation to be very difficult.
For example, my own Mac has no connections to other Macs. It has a connection to my Windows computer through my home network, and it has virtual connections to other Windows computers through my email and IM contacts lists, but no real or virtual connections to other Macs (my buddies don't use Macs). So, if my Mac were to contract a Mac-specific virus (e.g. I foolishly downloaded a trojan/virus), it would do its ill on my machine and then spread itself to the computers that my Mac is connected to, only to find that those are Windows machines, not Macs. At which point the propagation of the virus terminates because the virus is Mac-specific and can't do anything on the Windows machines that it spread itself to.
So, I don't see a *wide-spread* Mac-specific virus anytime soon. That's not to say that there won't be OS-agnositc viruses that can spread like wildfire such that its affected computers would include, but not be exclusive to, Macs.
"This is part of the explanation for the number of IIS viruses being greater than the number of Apache viruses, even though Apache has a significantly larger market share."
Better links regarding Open XML (the default format for Office 2007, which is going through ECMA standarization process as we speak): http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/default.aspx The 2006-05-04 entry provides the most recent update on the ECMA standarization process, including revised spec, and notes on a Novell dev working on an open source spread sheet that can read/write Open XML format (so there is no "lock in").
http://openxmldeveloper.org/default.aspx The home page of the OpenXML group that's pushing this format through the standardization process. Includes Java sample code that manipulates OpenXML documents, again demonstrating that there is no "lock-in").
Microsoft can compete with OO.o on a level playing field just fine. Office 2007 makes OO.o and all other office apps look like antiquated garbage. And Office 2007 uses open formats by default, so there is no lock in regarding format anyway. When Office defeated WordPerfect, Lotus, and others, it wasn't based on format lockin; they all used their own formats. Hell, Microsoft invented RTF to allow interchange of rich text formats. I know that it's slashdot doctrine that Office is only used because of its format, but its not the case.
Speaking of competing on a "level playing field", how about OO.o being "free as in beer"? OO.o is the app that isn't competing on a level playing field.
"If Microsoft were to split itself up into different companies, and spin off the web browser, media player, office applications, then those separate companies could do whatever the heck they wanted, without being burdened OS and its conviction-and-monopoly-imposed limitations."
Microsoft only has to operate within the settlement that they reached with the DOJ (I'm discounting Europe for the sake of argument; I couldn't care less what happens there; Microsoft might have to make an IE N that makes Google the default for Europe, who cares). We'll see if the DOJ gives a damn about this issue; I think not, because Microsoft is NOT preventing one from changing the default search engine very easily.
BTW, use your "conviction-and-monopoly-imposed limitations" argument while you still can, for in Nov 2007, the Microsoft/DOJ settlement teminates, at which point those limitations are lifted.
If Microsoft wants IE7's default search to be Microsoft's own search engine on Dell machines, then they'll have to pay Dell too. It's up to OEMs as far as OEM versions of Windows are concerned.
Secondly, Google employs people to be full time developers on Firefox just as Microsoft pays people to be full time devs on IE7. And some of the Firefox devs oh Google's pay role are *key* Firefox devs. You honestly think they don't influence what goes into Firefox and make sure that it caters to Google? Google is also paying people to use FireFox. Google is being disingenuous by pretending that Firefox is independent of Google.
Third, Google and Apple have colluded with each other to block alternatvie search providers from the Mac market, as OSX's default browser Safari has support for Google and nobody else (doesn't even allow adding other search providers let alone changing the default). This could run afoul of antitrust. Taking the definition of "trust" from dictionary.com, a "trust" is "A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry." (A single company monopoly is a just a specific case of a trust consisting of just one company.) Google should tread lightly when talking of antitrust, when one could argue that the Google/Apple trust is blocking alternative search providers from the Mac OS much more so than IE7's having a default search provider does.
Fourth, when upgrading to IE7, the default search is whatever it was in IE6. If one had installed the Google or Yahoo toolbar, both of who's setups set IE6's search to be Google and Yahoo respectively, they IE7 will use Google or Yahoo as the default.
Fifth, when visiting Google.com in IE7 (which most google users using IE7 will do), you are greeted with a huge "Click here to make Google the default search provider in Internet Explorer!!" placard.
Sixth, it's easy as pie to change IE7's default search engine, and IE7 supports the open standard "OpenSearch" to do this.
Seventh, IE7 has search provider discovery functionality, whereby if you visit any page that has search functionality, the search engine dropdown lights up, indicating that you can add that search page to the dropdown list permanently, including optionally making it the default search provider.
Lastly, IE has had a search pane since IE4, and the default has always been MSN. Why is Google so upset now just because IE7 uses a search text box in the upper right corner (like all of today's browsers do) rather than the search pane that previous versions of IE used?
This flaw was found by a security audit of the code, which is an advantage of OSS, that such audits can be performed by third parties. But why didn't the ongoing peer reviews perfomred by the open source community themselves uncover this ages ago?
The fact that that was an AP story carried by CNN, FoxNews, and newspapaers as well wasn't enough to dissuade you from conspiracy theories? [face_rollseyes]
Not every Macbook Pro "whines", but many do, so much so that Mac users are organizing an End the Whine - May 20th, 2006 in which every one with the problem calls Apple support on the same day to get Apple to address the problem (Apple's been ignoring it so far). ("End the Whine Day" also concerns the heat issues.)
Note that some parts of MySpace still use.cfm extensions, but those are mapped to ASP.NET as well:
"Some parts of the site like Browse are all.aspx extensions. As Jeff mentioned above, other parts of the site still have a.cfm extension, some of which is mapped to BlueDragon.Net -- which is an ASP.NET IHttpHandler that parses and can run ColdFusion syntax (but which is still running on ASP.NET). The backend cache servers are also all ASP.NET based."
And just to add more proof (since I know that most here will be skeptical;-)), here's an entry to the above cited blog from MySpace developer "Chris":
"Hi everyone, I work on the MySpace C# codebase... To clarify, we wrote a custom configuration section that maps "fuseaction" URL parameters to ASPX extensions so that we'd maintain link integrity. The only place we aren't doing this is 'Browse' and certain other new features. Meanwhile, as Scott said the parts of the site that are running in ColdFusion are essentially doing so in ASP.NET 2.0 (via BlueDragon). Thanks for the mention, Scott. It's been an exciting time putting this together and I can't imagine pulling this off on another platform. Chris"
I'm not certain what the "AutoSearch" settings are exactly, but I do know that if you install Google or Yahoo toolbar, certain search settings in IE6 get set to Google or Yahoo, respectively, such that if you then install IE7, IE7 will use Google or Yahoo as the default search engine.
(I think that one might be able to *explicitly* alter the AutoSearch setting by customizing the search pane that comes up when clicking IE6's Search button, but I'm not certain.)
"I had/have Google toolbar installed, and I have Google desktop running."
That's why it defaulted to Google. IE7 simply uses IE6's search settings (which are I believed used by IE4 thru IE6's search pane and IE6's address bar autosearch), which are set to Google by Google's toolbar.
Except Firefox isn't owned by Google, making this an entirely different situation. Hence, the whole "antitrust" arguement.
I keep seeing people repeat your statement, and I wonder if any of you even know what the "trust" in "antitrust" means? Or why Teddy Roosevelt was known as a "trust buster".
From dictionary.com: Trust: A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.
In otherwords, a trust is one or more companies working together to restrict competition by controlling resources of and entry points to a particular market. A single company that has a "monopoly" is a special case of a trust consisting of one company. But trusts generally have multiple companies, and antitrust law was originally written to combat multilpe companies colluding with each other to restrict competition. Firefox and Google being different companies is irrelevant (and I've read that Google pours funds into Firefox anyway, so one has to wonder how independent Firefox is to begin with).
1) Google doesn't make Firefox hence decide the choice.
Antitrust law could still apply, as a "trust" can be multiple companies colluding to restrict access to a market by competitors. In this particular case, it might not legally apply (as Google has yet to be declared a monopoly), but it could still apply *ethically*. And certainly in the case of Apple (Apple has a monopoly on Mac OSes, and that OS's default browser hardcodes support for Google without any option to change it; other search providers could certainly sue the Apple/Goolge "trust" for restricting other search providers' access to the Mac market.)
2) Google isn't asking for their search engine to be set as the default. They are asking that the users be given a choice when it is installed.
Something no other browser does. Moreover, Google would NOT be asking for this if Google were made the default. How about if Microsoft asked users to choose between Ask, Yahoo, MSN, and Opera Search, leaving off Google? Would Google be satisfied with that? No? OK, so it is about Google, not about "choice".
3) In Firefox it is very easy to switch engines, only taking one or two easy steps, whereas with IE7 you may think you made the change only to have actually failed.
You're showing your ignorance. IE7 allows very easy changing of the default search engine, and even uses the open source standard (OpenSearch (or whatever it's called)) to do it. (Unlike Firefox, btw.)
4) Microsoft is a monopoly and has to operate by the rules the government set for a monopoly whereas Google and Firefox are not monopolies.
Microsoft merely has to operate within the *settlement* they reached with the DOJ, a settlement that ends in Nov 2007. I emphasize "settlement" because Microsoft settled the case with the DOJ after the original remedies were thrown out and the case was remanded back to a saner judge. Microsoft is NOT under any remedy imposed by a judge, only by a settlement that was approved of by the saner judge. It's up to the DOJ to complain if Microsoft violates the settlement. If the DOJ doesn't care about this issue (and they have bigger things on their mind), then Microsoft is free to make MSN the default.
BTW, MSN isn't even the "default". When upgrading to IE7, you get the same search settings that IE6 used (just like you get IE6's home page, favorites, etc). I installed IE7 and got Yahoo as the default (and only ) search engine. The only difference between IE6 and IE7 is that IE6 has a Search button that brings up a search pane, while IE7 has a search text box like all other of today's browsers have. Google didn't complain about MSN being the default engine in the search pane of IE6 (and IE5, IE4, IE3), so why complain about IE7 just because the search pane is replaced with a search text box?
"IE7 will be preloaded in Windows. So buying Windows will "force" you to use IE7 which will "force" you to use MSN search."
And buying Macs forces you to use Google search (Google is hardcoded into Safari without any option to add any other search engines, let alone change the default).
"Also search providers can be added by any site that contains "window.external.AddSearchProvider('URL')" Where 'URL' points to an OpenSearch description document. So Google could have a link on their front page to allow people to add them as the default search provider on their first visit after installing IE7."
You're right, and Google's page already does just that when you visite Google with IE7. So Google's whining about nothing really.
How about looking at it from a users perspective rather than legal malarky?
Apple has a defacto monopoly on Mac Operating Systems. Apple's default browser in their OS is hardcoded to support Google and no other search engine. Mac OS users have Google forced upon them far more than Windows users have MSN forced upon them. Yet you didn't see Yahoo, MSN, or other search providers go whining about it, and you certainly did NOT see Google raising any objections. As it stands right now, Google has an "unfair" advantage over its competitors in the Mac market.
And if you want to bring legalities into it, "antitrust" is about not just "monopolies" but "trusts", which are a group of multiple companies colluding to control a resource so as to block others from access to a market. Google and Apple are colluding by blocking other search providers from fair access to Apple's OS, and Mac users have no choice in the matter since Apple has a monopoly on Mac OSes.
Apple controls the one and only OSX "distro" and that distro's default browser uses Google as its search engine without even an option to add any others.
You say, "What is "preloaded" on a Windoze system is what Bill Gates wants. The user, ultimately, has no choice because user settings can be undone with any "update." When someone else owns your software, they own your computer." Well, what is preloaded on a MAc is what Steve Jobs wants. The user, ultimately, has no choice because user settings can be undone with any "update". When someone else owns your software, they own your computer.
So start complaining that Apple's default browser only support's Google's search engine, and you might have a point. (Well, you still won't but at least you'll be consistent.)
(And BTW, Windows OEMs can make the default search engine of IE whatever they choose.)
IE7 simply uses the search settings that the users previous IE6 profile used. Seems to make sense that when upgrading from IE6 to IE7 you'd retain the same home page, search engine, favorites, etc. I installed IE7 beta 2 a few days ago and the default search engine was Yahoo, with no other search engines present on the IE7's search dropdown. It took me less than 30 seconds to add Google and MSN.
Slashdot Mirror
"Seems to me that virus writers would want to target Macs because of all the talk about how Macs are less succeptable to viruses. It would be more prestigious to create a virus that spreads like wildfire through the "impenetrable" Mac community than to create one for the "wide open" Windows community."
It's very difficult to "create a virus that spreads like wild fire through the 'impenetrable' Mac community", because there is no such "community", per se. That is, it's not like Mac users are all huddled together so that a Mac-specific virus would infect them all. Rather, Mac users are dispersed throughout the larger computing community, so a Mac-specific virus has difficulty migrating to other Macs. It's like a biological virus that targetted left-handed red-heads. Left-handed red-heads are a small part of the US population, but if they all lived in one place, such a virus would spread through that population like wildfire. But since that population is dispersed throughout the larger US population, such a biological virus would find propagation to be very difficult.
For example, my own Mac has no connections to other Macs. It has a connection to my Windows computer through my home network, and it has virtual connections to other Windows computers through my email and IM contacts lists, but no real or virtual connections to other Macs (my buddies don't use Macs). So, if my Mac were to contract a Mac-specific virus (e.g. I foolishly downloaded a trojan/virus), it would do its ill on my machine and then spread itself to the computers that my Mac is connected to, only to find that those are Windows machines, not Macs. At which point the propagation of the virus terminates because the virus is Mac-specific and can't do anything on the Windows machines that it spread itself to.
So, I don't see a *wide-spread* Mac-specific virus anytime soon. That's not to say that there won't be OS-agnositc viruses that can spread like wildfire such that its affected computers would include, but not be exclusive to, Macs.
"This is part of the explanation for the number of IIS viruses being greater than the number of Apache viruses, even though Apache has a significantly larger market share."
IIS6 has a significantly better security record than does Apache2.
Apache2's vulnerabilities 2003-2006
IIS6's vulnerabilities 2003-2006
Better links regarding Open XML (the default format for Office 2007, which is going through ECMA standarization process as we speak):
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/default.aspx
The 2006-05-04 entry provides the most recent update on the ECMA standarization process, including revised spec, and notes on a Novell dev working on an open source spread sheet that can read/write Open XML format (so there is no "lock in").
http://openxmldeveloper.org/default.aspx
The home page of the OpenXML group that's pushing this format through the standardization process. Includes Java sample code that manipulates OpenXML documents, again demonstrating that there is no "lock-in").
Microsoft can compete with OO.o on a level playing field just fine. Office 2007 makes OO.o and all other office apps look like antiquated garbage. And Office 2007 uses open formats by default, so there is no lock in regarding format anyway. When Office defeated WordPerfect, Lotus, and others, it wasn't based on format lockin; they all used their own formats. Hell, Microsoft invented RTF to allow interchange of rich text formats. I know that it's slashdot doctrine that Office is only used because of its format, but its not the case.
Speaking of competing on a "level playing field", how about OO.o being "free as in beer"? OO.o is the app that isn't competing on a level playing field.
"If Microsoft were to split itself up into different companies, and spin off the web browser, media player, office applications, then those separate companies could do whatever the heck they wanted, without being burdened OS and its conviction-and-monopoly-imposed limitations."
Microsoft only has to operate within the settlement that they reached with the DOJ (I'm discounting Europe for the sake of argument; I couldn't care less what happens there; Microsoft might have to make an IE N that makes Google the default for Europe, who cares). We'll see if the DOJ gives a damn about this issue; I think not, because Microsoft is NOT preventing one from changing the default search engine very easily.
BTW, use your "conviction-and-monopoly-imposed limitations" argument while you still can, for in Nov 2007, the Microsoft/DOJ settlement teminates, at which point those limitations are lifted.
Finally, someone that uses objective analysis rather than religious doctrine regarding this issue.
If Microsoft wants IE7's default search to be Microsoft's own search engine on Dell machines, then they'll have to pay Dell too. It's up to OEMs as far as OEM versions of Windows are concerned.
Secondly, Google employs people to be full time developers on Firefox just as Microsoft pays people to be full time devs on IE7. And some of the Firefox devs oh Google's pay role are *key* Firefox devs. You honestly think they don't influence what goes into Firefox and make sure that it caters to Google? Google is also paying people to use FireFox. Google is being disingenuous by pretending that Firefox is independent of Google.
Third, Google and Apple have colluded with each other to block alternatvie search providers from the Mac market, as OSX's default browser Safari has support for Google and nobody else (doesn't even allow adding other search providers let alone changing the default). This could run afoul of antitrust. Taking the definition of "trust" from dictionary.com, a "trust" is "A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry." (A single company monopoly is a just a specific case of a trust consisting of just one company.) Google should tread lightly when talking of antitrust, when one could argue that the Google/Apple trust is blocking alternative search providers from the Mac OS much more so than IE7's having a default search provider does.
Fourth, when upgrading to IE7, the default search is whatever it was in IE6. If one had installed the Google or Yahoo toolbar, both of who's setups set IE6's search to be Google and Yahoo respectively, they IE7 will use Google or Yahoo as the default.
Fifth, when visiting Google.com in IE7 (which most google users using IE7 will do), you are greeted with a huge "Click here to make Google the default search provider in Internet Explorer!!" placard.
Sixth, it's easy as pie to change IE7's default search engine, and IE7 supports the open standard "OpenSearch" to do this.
Seventh, IE7 has search provider discovery functionality, whereby if you visit any page that has search functionality, the search engine dropdown lights up, indicating that you can add that search page to the dropdown list permanently, including optionally making it the default search provider.
Lastly, IE has had a search pane since IE4, and the default has always been MSN. Why is Google so upset now just because IE7 uses a search text box in the upper right corner (like all of today's browsers do) rather than the search pane that previous versions of IE used?
Google is full of it.
This flaw was found by a security audit of the code, which is an advantage of OSS, that such audits can be performed by third parties. But why didn't the ongoing peer reviews perfomred by the open source community themselves uncover this ages ago?
The fact that that was an AP story carried by CNN, FoxNews, and newspapaers as well wasn't enough to dissuade you from conspiracy theories? [face_rollseyes]
Not every Macbook Pro "whines", but many do, so much so that Mac users are organizing an End the Whine - May 20th, 2006 in which every one with the problem calls Apple support on the same day to get Apple to address the problem (Apple's been ignoring it so far). ("End the Whine Day" also concerns the heat issues.)
Um, that was an AP story that ran on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and various newspapers.
Here is a blog by a Microsoft ASP.NET dev describing the details (it's an interesting read):
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/03/25
Note that some parts of MySpace still use
And just to add more proof (since I know that most here will be skeptical
It likely happened because you had previously installed Google Desktop or Google Toolbar.
I'm not certain what the "AutoSearch" settings are exactly, but I do know that if you install Google or Yahoo toolbar, certain search settings in IE6 get set to Google or Yahoo, respectively, such that if you then install IE7, IE7 will use Google or Yahoo as the default search engine.
(I think that one might be able to *explicitly* alter the AutoSearch setting by customizing the search pane that comes up when clicking IE6's Search button, but I'm not certain.)
"I had/have Google toolbar installed, and I have Google desktop running."
That's why it defaulted to Google. IE7 simply uses IE6's search settings (which are I believed used by IE4 thru IE6's search pane and IE6's address bar autosearch), which are set to Google by Google's toolbar.
Precisely, Reverend Purlie, precisely. :-)
The parent's post is the most succinct and insightful regarding this issue.
Except Firefox isn't owned by Google, making this an entirely different situation. Hence, the whole "antitrust" arguement.
I keep seeing people repeat your statement, and I wonder if any of you even know what the "trust" in "antitrust" means? Or why Teddy Roosevelt was known as a "trust buster".
From dictionary.com:
Trust: A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.
In otherwords, a trust is one or more companies working together to restrict competition by controlling resources of and entry points to a particular market. A single company that has a "monopoly" is a special case of a trust consisting of one company. But trusts generally have multiple companies, and antitrust law was originally written to combat multilpe companies colluding with each other to restrict competition. Firefox and Google being different companies is irrelevant (and I've read that Google pours funds into Firefox anyway, so one has to wonder how independent Firefox is to begin with).
1) Google doesn't make Firefox hence decide the choice.
Antitrust law could still apply, as a "trust" can be multiple companies colluding to restrict access to a market by competitors. In this particular case, it might not legally apply (as Google has yet to be declared a monopoly), but it could still apply *ethically*. And certainly in the case of Apple (Apple has a monopoly on Mac OSes, and that OS's default browser hardcodes support for Google without any option to change it; other search providers could certainly sue the Apple/Goolge "trust" for restricting other search providers' access to the Mac market.)
2) Google isn't asking for their search engine to be set as the default. They are asking that the users be given a choice when it is installed.
Something no other browser does. Moreover, Google would NOT be asking for this if Google were made the default. How about if Microsoft asked users to choose between Ask, Yahoo, MSN, and Opera Search, leaving off Google? Would Google be satisfied with that? No? OK, so it is about Google, not about "choice".
3) In Firefox it is very easy to switch engines, only taking one or two easy steps, whereas with IE7 you may think you made the change only to have actually failed.
You're showing your ignorance. IE7 allows very easy changing of the default search engine, and even uses the open source standard (OpenSearch (or whatever it's called)) to do it. (Unlike Firefox, btw.)
4) Microsoft is a monopoly and has to operate by the rules the government set for a monopoly whereas Google and Firefox are not monopolies.
Microsoft merely has to operate within the *settlement* they reached with the DOJ, a settlement that ends in Nov 2007. I emphasize "settlement" because Microsoft settled the case with the DOJ after the original remedies were thrown out and the case was remanded back to a saner judge. Microsoft is NOT under any remedy imposed by a judge, only by a settlement that was approved of by the saner judge. It's up to the DOJ to complain if Microsoft violates the settlement. If the DOJ doesn't care about this issue (and they have bigger things on their mind), then Microsoft is free to make MSN the default.
BTW, MSN isn't even the "default". When upgrading to IE7, you get the same search settings that IE6 used (just like you get IE6's home page, favorites, etc). I installed IE7 and got Yahoo as the default (and only ) search engine. The only difference between IE6 and IE7 is that IE6 has a Search button that brings up a search pane, while IE7 has a search text box like all other of today's browsers have. Google didn't complain about MSN being the default engine in the search pane of IE6 (and IE5, IE4, IE3), so why complain about IE7 just because the search pane is replaced with a search text box?
"IE7 will be preloaded in Windows. So buying Windows will "force" you to use IE7 which will "force" you to use MSN search."
And buying Macs forces you to use Google search (Google is hardcoded into Safari without any option to add any other search engines, let alone change the default).
"They got Firefox to default to them because they paid Firefox. "
Let them pay Microsoft them.
Um, the OEM version of windows that is "wrapped up in your hardware" is cheap, less expensive than the RedHat and OSX retail distros.
"Also search providers can be added by any site that contains "window.external.AddSearchProvider('URL')" Where 'URL' points to an OpenSearch description document. So Google could have a link on their front page to allow people to add them as the default search provider on their first visit after installing IE7."
You're right, and Google's page already does just that when you visite Google with IE7. So Google's whining about nothing really.
How about looking at it from a users perspective rather than legal malarky?
Apple has a defacto monopoly on Mac Operating Systems. Apple's default browser in their OS is hardcoded to support Google and no other search engine. Mac OS users have Google forced upon them far more than Windows users have MSN forced upon them. Yet you didn't see Yahoo, MSN, or other search providers go whining about it, and you certainly did NOT see Google raising any objections. As it stands right now, Google has an "unfair" advantage over its competitors in the Mac market.
And if you want to bring legalities into it, "antitrust" is about not just "monopolies" but "trusts", which are a group of multiple companies colluding to control a resource so as to block others from access to a market. Google and Apple are colluding by blocking other search providers from fair access to Apple's OS, and Mac users have no choice in the matter since Apple has a monopoly on Mac OSes.
Apple controls the one and only OSX "distro" and that distro's default browser uses Google as its search engine without even an option to add any others.
You say, "What is "preloaded" on a Windoze system is what Bill Gates wants. The user, ultimately, has no choice because user settings can be undone with any "update." When someone else owns your software, they own your computer." Well, what is preloaded on a MAc is what Steve Jobs wants. The user, ultimately, has no choice because user settings can be undone with any "update". When someone else owns your software, they own your computer.
So start complaining that Apple's default browser only support's Google's search engine, and you might have a point. (Well, you still won't but at least you'll be consistent.)
(And BTW, Windows OEMs can make the default search engine of IE whatever they choose.)
IE7 simply uses the search settings that the users previous IE6 profile used. Seems to make sense that when upgrading from IE6 to IE7 you'd retain the same home page, search engine, favorites, etc. I installed IE7 beta 2 a few days ago and the default search engine was Yahoo, with no other search engines present on the IE7's search dropdown. It took me less than 30 seconds to add Google and MSN.