Europe to Get Windows 7 Sans Browser

[Exavior]

There is nothing stopping OEMs from uninstalling IE and putting anything else on there now. Nobody FORCES them to not include firefox or anything else. That would be a vilation of anitrust there.

Last I checked Dell includes google toolbars, desktop and other google crap on their computers, they also include either norton or mcaffee antivirus and not live oncare.

There is no need for Microsoft to be told that they can't include IE with windows. The fact that people have been using other browsers show that IE being included doesn't keep people from using other browsers.

I find it funny what people do and do not want included with Windows. They do no want free browser software, but they do want any other piece of software that you would normally have to buy. Antivirus, Office, DVD playback, full DVD/CD/Blu-Ray burning support.

If you don't like what Windows gives you then stop using it. Go use linux or a Mac. If you want to bitch about those not having what you need to do what you want then just rember that is because people like you don't cause enough damand for it. It isn't Microsoft's fault that nobody wants to make either cross platform software or make software only for the other OSs.

 

[Shadow2531]

Why don't you just turn off IE8 in Windows 7 after you get it installed?

That's fine for people on here. However:

The problem is that users that don't know their ass from a whole in the ground (I meant that nicely of course) will start using whatever browser is installed by default. Then, they'll keep on using it forever without ever knowing that there are other browser choices.

If you know that type of people (your average user), they do not like change. So, if you present them with options later, it won't matter as they won't give anything else a chance (unless you force them) for the sole reason that they hate change so much. It's the reason people get broadband, a new computer and still insist on trying to use the AOL 7.0 browser.

This makes it so other browsers besides IE don't even get a chance.

Now, if you instead make them choose right off the bat (with no influence to which one they should use), then they'll know they have a choice.

Then, they have the option of clinging to the one they picked or trying others if they want (since they'll know they have choices). This makes other browsers get a chance.

So, the sole purpose of all this is to prevent the *unconscious* *automatic* clinging to one browser that MS pulls with Windows and its OS market share. The victims are average users that don't know any better.

None of this affects the techie crowd though as the option to choose is known and we're generally more open-minded.

So, really no browser should be installed by default and you should have to choose.

Now, as for other parts of the OS, or other OS's or other companies, it should be handled on a per-problem basis and not generally applied across the board.

 

[gtg465x]

That's fine for people on here. However:

The problem is that users that don't know their ass from a whole in the ground (I meant that nicely of course) will start using whatever browser is installed by default. Then, they'll keep on using it forever without ever knowing that there are other browser choices.

If you know that type of people (your average user), they do not like change. So, if you present them with options later, it won't matter as they won't give anything else a chance (unless you force them) for the sole reason that they hate change so much. It's the reason people get broadband, a new computer and still insist on trying to use the AOL 7.0 browser.

This makes it so other browsers besides IE don't even get a chance.

Now, if you instead make them choose right off the bat (with no influence to which one they should use), then they'll know they have a choice.

Then, they have the option of clinging to the one they picked or trying others if they want (since they'll know they have choices). This makes other browsers get a chance.

So, the sole purpose of all this is to prevent the *unconscious* *automatic* clinging to one browser that MS pulls with Windows and its OS market share. The victims are average users that don't know any better.

None of this affects the techie crowd though as the option to choose is known and we're generally more open-minded.

So, really no browser should be installed by default and you should have to choose.

Now, as for other parts of the OS, or other OS's or other companies, it should be handled on a per-problem basis and not generally applied across the board.

If people are dumb enough to not know that there are other choices, how in hell are they going to find and download ANY browsers without a browser? lol

 

[TechieSooner]

There is nothing stopping OEMs from uninstalling IE and putting anything else on there now. Nobody FORCES them to not include firefox or anything else. That would be a vilation of anitrust there.

Unless they have a specific contract of sorts with Microsoft... Wouldn't be unheard of, but I don't think Microsoft actually does that.

Firefox, plain and simple, lacks enterprise support for massive deployments and things like that. It's why Dell won't include it.

That, and it's kindof the pot calling the kettle black. On one hand you bitch that IE adds bloat to the OS, and then in the next hand you're actually wanting them to include TWO browsers.

This makes it so other browsers besides IE don't even get a chance.

That's why Firefox has 25% market share???

I call BS on that argument. It's nobody's fault but Mozilla's for not advertising their browser to consumers.
Fact of the matter is Microsoft really has no competition. Or at least competition that tries to gain more users. Linux distros and Firefox, OpenOffice, etc are all like this. Why don't they try advertising about it? Microsoft spends money advertising to promote their product, all the Open Source community is doing is relying upon word of mouth.

 

[SilverSliver]

So now the OEM's will get sued by the EU for not pre-installing every single browser available on each and every system.

 

[trooper11]

For the people wishing they had access to this EU versions, you do know that you can uninstall IE at anytime now right? That gives the same result as this EU version.

some people simply want to bash MS becuase its the cool thing to do. MS is making this move to protect themselves from EU rulings in the future, leaving it up to the OEMs to deal with the mess. I dont believe MS should be forced to support a competitor's products. thats like saying when you boot up the pc, you should be given the option of Linux or Windows and that MS should support Linux. Its not the responsibility of MS to prop up or support its competition. The market takes care of that if there is enough customer interest. Its one thing to go after them if they do something illegal (such as the Intel issues ), but I dont see where MS has actively blocked the use of competitors products in their OS. OEMs already have the power to install anything they like, MS cant do anything to stop that.

I mean why dont we force Google to have links to Yahoo and Bing on its homepage to be 'fair'.

As far as adding options for other browsers becuase people just dont know any better, who are we to dictate to users what we believe is a better option. I dont hate IE8, in fact I use it in tandem with Firefox. Some of you hate it, and thats fine, but thats not an excuse to then ASSUME everyone would agree with you on that. Some people use IE becuase they actually want to....shocker I know. But lets say they did present the user with install options, who picks the browsers on that list? How is it fair to just pick say the top 3 or 4 browsers? My point is, none of this should be the responsibility of MS. Firefox and the like have made grate gains on IE without any government intervention, the market is already taking care of this, but apparently its not happening fast enough for some.

 

[qkool]

That's fine for people on here. However:

The problem is that users that don't know their ass from a whole in the ground (I meant that nicely of course) will start using whatever browser is installed by default. Then, they'll keep on using it forever without ever knowing that there are other browser choices.

If you know that type of people (your average user), they do not like change. So, if you present them with options later, it won't matter as they won't give anything else a chance (unless you force them) for the sole reason that they hate change so much. It's the reason people get broadband, a new computer and still insist on trying to use the AOL 7.0 browser.

This makes it so other browsers besides IE don't even get a chance.

Now, if you instead make them choose right off the bat (with no influence to which one they should use), then they'll know they have a choice.

Then, they have the option of clinging to the one they picked or trying others if they want (since they'll know they have choices). This makes other browsers get a chance.

So, the sole purpose of all this is to prevent the *unconscious* *automatic* clinging to one browser that MS pulls with Windows and its OS market share. The victims are average users that don't know any better.

None of this affects the techie crowd though as the option to choose is known and we're generally more open-minded.

So, really no browser should be installed by default and you should have to choose.

Now, as for other parts of the OS, or other OS's or other companies, it should be handled on a per-problem basis and not generally applied across the board.

If they don't know the quality of the other browsers, how are they going to choose? If I told you that I have product x, y, z, and I told you to choose one you like w/o letting you know the features, which product are you going to choose? But if you are familiar with product x, then it doesn't matter how much better or worse products y and z are because you'll go with what you're most familiar with.

You're asking them to blindly pick a product and hope that they get the better of the two.

This reminds me when I installed linux on one of my machines for the first time. On installation, it asked me if I wanted gnome or KDE. There was no information whatsoever about the differences, and I couldn't look up the difference because I have no internet connection because I needed to get to the damn desktop first. So, I just picked the first one in the list. I think it was KDE.

 

[Crimson]

You would think after saving Europe's asses in two major wars and the US forgiving much debt to rebuild Europe afterwords they would take it easy on US companies. Guess not.

 

[Shadow2531]

If people are dumb enough to not know that there are other choices, how in hell are they going to find and download ANY browsers without a browser? lol

When a connection is made to the net (and they haven't installed a browser) (with obvious shortcut on the desktop too), a GUI browser download utility asks them to pick one, downloads it and installs the browser for them (which the installer will give the option to launch the browser). Then, they just use it.

No need for a browser just to get a file off of http or ftp. That'd be overkill in this case when a simple download utility can do it for them automatically once they pick.

 

[Exavior]

Unless they have a specific contract of sorts with Microsoft... Wouldn't be unheard of, but I don't think Microsoft actually does that.

Firefox, plain and simple, lacks enterprise support for massive deployments and things like that. It's why Dell won't include it.

That, and it's kindof the pot calling the kettle black. On one hand you bitch that IE adds bloat to the OS, and then in the next hand you're actually wanting them to include TWO browsers.



That's why Firefox has 25% market share???

I call BS on that argument. It's nobody's fault but Mozilla's for not advertising their browser to consumers.
Fact of the matter is Microsoft really has no competition. Or at least competition that tries to gain more users. Linux distros and Firefox, OpenOffice, etc are all like this. Why don't they try advertising about it? Microsoft spends money advertising to promote their product, all the Open Source community is doing is relying upon word of mouth.

Yah, but the extra bloat is fine because it is added by a non M$ program.

They already through so much other crap on OEM systems why not two browsers. It would give me 1 more thing to remove off of new machines along with all the google bullshit, Ebay, and other crap.

My point was though that there is nothing stopping OEMs from giving you a choice as it is. They can either put two browsers on there, or give you a choice of which you want or something like that. Years ago you use to get Netscape on OEM computers, then they started to include AOL.

They did it before, why not again or do it better this time where they ask you if you would want a different web browser when you are ordering the computer. That is still no different than this. OEMs make up their own images with what features they want. They could turn off IE and give you an option just as easily as they can get a copy of Windows without a browser present and give you the option to choice your browser.

That all said, I myself use IE and have no problems with it. For an office it can easily be deployed, upgraded and administered. None of which can be done with firefox.

 

[gtg465x]

When a connection is made to the net (and they haven't installed a browser) (with obvious shortcut on the desktop too), a GUI browser download utility asks them to pick one, downloads it and installs the browser for them (which the installer will give the option to launch the browser). Then, they just use it.

No need for a browser just to get a file off of http or ftp. That'd be overkill in this case when a simple download utility can do it for them automatically once they pick.

That's a good idea, but that's not what the EU is mandating, thus it won't happen. What the EU is doing is not helping anyone.

 

[Shadow2531]

If they don't know the quality of the other browsers, how are they going to choose? If I told you that I have product x, y, z, and I told you to choose one you like w/o letting you know the features, which product are you going to choose? But if you are familiar with product x, then it doesn't matter how much better or worse products y and z are because you'll go with what you're most familiar with.

You're asking them to blindly pick a product and hope that they get the better of the two..

I'd say it's more like a bunch of flavors of ice creme that you've never tried (or some you've never tried). You try one and say, ooh, I don't like that, so you try another if you want. That's a lot better than saying that there's only one flavor and you should get used to it and then you find out later that there are really more flavors, but you say, "meh, I'm already used to what I have".

Now, as for how to know which one's better, you have to try and see which one you like better.

But, you're right, there is something to be said about knowing which one has the least security vulnerabilities and such.

 

[Shadow2531]

That's a good idea, but that's not what the EU is mandating, thus it won't happen. What the EU is doing is not helping anyone.

Right, and I agree with you 100%.

 

[Flexion]

They sort of have this already. Its called windows update. All they really need to do is make firefox and other browsers available on it. While they are at it make flash updates and java updates available on it to.

Right on man! I just did an install yesterday I must say having IE around so I can simply type firefox.com to download and start using firefox is handy, but putting their "competitor" browsers in windows update would really be cool, then again they'd need to change the whole damn thing to "system update" and offer the opportunity to install linux, and OSX too! hehehe...

I'd give MS $400 to make that happen.

Don't you all know Billy Gates keeps the competitors around so he doesn't get thown into jail. J/K

 

[faugusztin]

Oh well, people, please, read !

Microsoft has posted a blog on its law and policy Web site, in which one of its lawyers responds to our story.

Of note, deputy general counsel Dave Heiner notes that Microsoft's action was taken unilaterally and doesn't preclude the EU from ordering some other type of remedy, such as allowing users to choose which browser they want as part of the installation process.

Stop bashing EU, there is no ruling, no action taken so far in this case. Once EU will rule that MS must do this or that, i will say OK, you are right. But IE8 removal is nothing EU should be blamed for, it's MS decision to do it.

 

[Exavior]

For the people wishing they had access to this EU versions, you do know that you can uninstall IE at anytime now right? That gives the same result as this EU version.

some people simply want to bash MS becuase its the cool thing to do. MS is making this move to protect themselves from EU rulings in the future, leaving it up to the OEMs to deal with the mess. I dont believe MS should be forced to support a competitor's products. thats like saying when you boot up the pc, you should be given the option of Linux or Windows and that MS should support Linux. Its not the responsibility of MS to prop up or support its competition. The market takes care of that if there is enough customer interest. Its one thing to go after them if they do something illegal (such as the Intel issues ), but I dont see where MS has actively blocked the use of competitors products in their OS. OEMs already have the power to install anything they like, MS cant do anything to stop that.

I mean why dont we force Google to have links to Yahoo and Bing on its homepage to be 'fair'.

As far as adding options for other browsers becuase people just dont know any better, who are we to dictate to users what we believe is a better option. I dont hate IE8, in fact I use it in tandem with Firefox. Some of you hate it, and thats fine, but thats not an excuse to then ASSUME everyone would agree with you on that. Some people use IE becuase they actually want to....shocker I know. But lets say they did present the user with install options, who picks the browsers on that list? How is it fair to just pick say the top 3 or 4 browsers? My point is, none of this should be the responsibility of MS. Firefox and the like have made grate gains on IE without any government intervention, the market is already taking care of this, but apparently its not happening fast enough for some.

If they don't know the quality of the other browsers, how are they going to choose? If I told you that I have product x, y, z, and I told you to choose one you like w/o letting you know the features, which product are you going to choose? But if you are familiar with product x, then it doesn't matter how much better or worse products y and z are because you'll go with what you're most familiar with.

You're asking them to blindly pick a product and hope that they get the better of the two.

This reminds me when I installed linux on one of my machines for the first time. On installation, it asked me if I wanted gnome or KDE. There was no information whatsoever about the differences, and I couldn't look up the difference because I have no internet connection because I needed to get to the damn desktop first. So, I just picked the first one in the list. I think it was KDE.

I agree with both of these. If the end user is not smart enough to know there are other choices out there then they are not going to be able to really make a choice. They are going to stick with IE as that is what they used. As trooper11, who is to say for everyone what is the better browser? I myself use IE only so I would not agree with the belief that everyone should use firefox or anything other than IE. I know none tech people that have tried firefox and either not liked it or had it not work with sites that they wanted to use. Sure some of the time it could have probably have been fixed. But for the average person they just want what it going to work out of the box and not have to deal with finding work arounds. Putting these people's computers back to IE let them do what they wanted to do and they were happy with that.

Other than some techy people and Apple zealots most people dont' care if their browser is made by Microsoft or anyone else. All they care is can they access the sites they want to access.

I'd say it's more like a bunch of flavors of ice creme that you've never tried (or some you've never tried). You try one and say, ooh, I don't like that, so you try another if you want. That's a lot better than saying that there's only one flavor and you should get used to it and then you find out later that there are really more flavors, but you say, "meh, I'm already used to what I have".

Now, as for how to know which one's better, you have to try and see which one you like better.

But, you're right, there is something to be said about knowing which one has the least security vulnerabilities and such.

The problem is that most people don't care. 99.9% of the world has 1 requirement for a web browser. Can i get to the sites I want to get too?

If so then they are happy. They are not going to install and try out 25+ web broswers to find which one they think is the best.

They are going to try one, if it works they will use it. As i stated above, I know non tech people that have tried and disliked firefox. They prefered IE as it did what they wanted it to while firefox would not.

To use your example. it would be like when somebody orders their favorite version of icecream you first make them sample every other flavor first. Then tell them that to sample this flavor they must first carve a spoon out of a stick. For this flavor you can use the spoon you already created but you must make a new bowl by blowing glass... however the flavor you want will come with a bowl and spoon already. On top of that if somebody complains about not liking one of the flavors you force them to try you then procede to tell them why they should like it over what they normally like.

 

[Exavior]

Oh well, people, please, read !



Stop bashing EU, there is no ruling, no action taken so far in this case. Once EU will rule that MS must do this or that, i will say OK, you are right. But IE8 removal is nothing EU should be blamed for, it's MS decision to do it.

Not yet. However the EU did already tell Microsoft (as the article pointed out) that them including IE in windows 7 would probably violate antitrust laws.

They would have waited till Windows 7 was released then go after them. You can't really punish them for including IE with Windows 7 before it is even released.

 

[RangerXML]

LOL, even though IE8 isn't pre-installed, it is coming bundled on a CD with the notebook. FAIL!

 

[brucedeluxe169]

And guess what? Average Joe wants to start their OS and not have to go about downloading codecs and other nonsense just to play a DVD. Hence why Microsoft starts packing that stuff in. I, for one, love Windows 7 that way because I haven't come across a DVD it cannot play.

well thats fine, joe average can have his windows 7 standard edition, but i'd love it (and many, many, *many* others as well), if MS would sell a very, very slim version of windows 7 also (or make it modular enough during the install process so that we can select many extra programs/components we just dont want installed.... without having to nlite it and possibly muck it all up...)

 

[Shadow2531]

The problem is that most people don't care.

Yes, definitely a problem for browser vendors.

To use your example. it would be like when somebody orders their favorite version of icecream you first make them sample every other flavor first. Then tell them that to sample this flavor they must first carve a spoon out of a stick. For this flavor you can use the spoon you already created but you must make a new bowl by blowing glass... however the flavor you want will come with a bowl and spoon already. On top of that if somebody complains about not liking one of the flavors you force them to try you then procede to tell them why they should like it over what they normally like.

Yes, that would suck. But, what I had in mind was that if you already have a favorite, you can just pick your favorite in the list and use it. If you've already been abducted by the IE autoclinging bandit, then you'd just pick IE. But, if you don't know what to pick, either you must choose or you click a "choose for me" button that is truly random. That way, there's at least some fairness for browser vendors.

Now, if MS started install Safari or Opera or Firefox by default, it'd be the same issue. So, it's nothing again IE itself.

But, you're right. Those people just want to view some websites. The EU is just asking for a little bit of sacrifice on the user's end to make competition fairer. At the same time though, the user can also benefit from knowing that there are more choices. It's a fine line.

 

[TheRapture]

LOL

"So...with out a build in web browser, how do I download Firefox?"

FTP

Yeah, try getting the average computer dummy to command line and FTP download....

 

[Bambi]

People who keep saying it wouldn't be hard to get an alternative browser keep forgetting this is HARDFORUMS where people liquid nitrogen cool their systems. I mean honestly yes we know the ways of getting a new browser but what about the normal user. Heck at work people still ask how to plug in a camera.

 

[TechieSooner]

Yah, but the extra bloat is fine because it is added by a non M$ program.

Bloat is bloat.
Either play fair, or admit your issue is with Microsoft software, not bloat.

When a connection is made to the net (and they haven't installed a browser) (with obvious shortcut on the desktop too), a GUI browser download utility asks them to pick one, downloads it and installs the browser for them (which the installer will give the option to launch the browser). Then, they just use it.

And now what the heck does the user do if they delete the GUI app???

You're right back to getting something that's integrated with Windows itself.

Stop bashing EU, there is no ruling, no action taken so far in this case.

I think we all realize that. The point is that they've made rulings in the past that have forced Microsoft to go this route.

I agree with both of these. If the end user is not smart enough to know there are other choices out there then they are not going to be able to really make a choice.

That's just ignorant.
So it makes more sense to penalize Microsoft because of user ignorance?

well thats fine, joe average can have his windows 7 standard edition, but i'd love it (and many, many, *many* others as well), if MS would sell a very, very slim version of windows 7 also (or make it modular enough during the install process so that we can select many extra programs/components we just dont want installed.... without having to nlite it and possibly muck it all up...)

Again, damned if they do and damned if they don't.
On one hand you say you want a "pay as you go" or "modular" OS, and on the other hand there's so damn much confusion, even between XP Pro and XP Home, that users just want ALL the features in one edition.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. They can't make everyone happy. Thus if you don't like it, go build your own Linux distro.

 

[faugusztin]

I mean honestly yes we know the ways of getting a new browser but what about the normal user.

Never bought a computer magazine with CD/DVD ?

 

[bonsai]

I don't get how MS bundling a browser is anticompetitive in and of itself.

It's all about market share. Anti-trust laws are usually only applied upon entities who have a large market share such as Microsoft. The EU is especially sensitive in this area and has applied anti-trust suits to businesses with as little as 41% market share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

 

[brucedeluxe169]

Again, damned if they do and damned if they don't.
On one hand you say you want a "pay as you go" or "modular" OS, and on the other hand there's so damn much confusion, even between XP Pro and XP Home, that users just want ALL the features in one edition.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. They can't make everyone happy. Thus if you don't like it, go build your own Linux distro.

sure as hell didnt say i want a pay as you go edition.... MS could just use their heads and make the "starter" editions of windows most customizable/stripped down (in a way that makes sense, not selling crippleware). once again, think windows 2000, not crippled, very lightweight.....

also, think windows 95/98.... during setup, the user could remove all sorts of built in apps/utilities as they saw fit.... no reason why such an option shouldnt exist now without nliting

i have rolled my own custom linux, in fact, i still use it everyday, but this thread is about windows, so please keep your linux trolling out of it

thanks

 

[TechieSooner]

It's all about market share. Anti-trust laws are usually only applied upon entities who have a large market share such as Microsoft. The EU is especially sensitive in this area and has applied anti-trust suits to businesses with as little as 41% market share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

Then why don't you go after Google with 80% in search?

 

[faugusztin]

And where is the market in Google's case ?

 

[bonsai]

Then why don't you go after Google with 80% in search?

You'd have to check with the EU on that one. I'd venture to say there hasn't been any anti-competitve behavior (such as tying your own browser to basic OS functionalilty) from Google.... yet. I do think that Google is treading on thin ground in this area, it's quickly becoming a Google world and we may see another AT&T sized breakup.

 

[trooper11]

And where is the market in Google's case ?

I think bing and Yahoo search would be the competitors. Google has such a monopoly on search, the only fair solution is to put up links to yahoo and bing on google's homepage. that way, average joes that only know about google would be exposed to the alternatives and cant hen make a better choice.....



Now of course I dont really believe that, but its applying the same logic some want to apply to MS when using browsers.

 

[trooper11]

sure as hell didnt say i want a pay as you go edition.... MS could just use their heads and make the "starter" editions of windows most customizable/stripped down (in a way that makes sense, not selling crippleware). once again, think windows 2000, not crippled, very lightweight.....

also, think windows 95/98.... during setup, the user could remove all sorts of built in apps/utilities as they saw fit.... no reason why such an option shouldnt exist now without nliting

i have rolled my own custom linux, in fact, i still use it everyday, but this thread is about windows, so please keep your linux trolling out of it

thanks

so your asking MS to cator to the minority in this case? while I agree that having an option like that would appeal to me, I acknowledge that it doesnt happens becuase the majority of users dont care what calculator or calendar is on the pc as long as it does what they want to do.

MS has the choice of catering to the majority and risk alienating themselves on boards like these, or catering to us and alienating the millions of people that would absolutely hate having to go through custom setups. I dont blame MS for focusing their efforts ont he biggest market. Maybe one day they would do something like you are talking about, but I cant realyl get angry at them for their choice there. Besides, you and I are informed enough to modify windows as we see fit, so it doesnt change how we use the OS.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

so your asking MS to cator to the minority in this case?

sure, they might be a minority, but that minority includes many, many people, perhaps many IT managers as well...

and yea, I mean they supported this kind of customization in the past (the DOS based Windows versions), and with windows being much more modular now, there really isn't a reason why they can't have a little "advanced" option or w/e during windows install for the add/remove components dialog... it wouldnt be hard to include, and it really would deflect tons of the criticism that MS gets for bloat and whatnot

 

[Cannon_Fodder]

it wouldnt be hard to include

Famous last words I believe....

Hey if it isn't so hard, why not whip up the code and we will all use it here. I am sure all of us would love to have a stripped down verson of Vista/7 to install.

 

[faugusztin]

I think bing and Yahoo search would be the competitors. Google has such a monopoly on search, the only fair solution is to put up links to yahoo and bing on google's homepage. that way, average joes that only know about google would be exposed to the alternatives and cant hen make a better choice.....

Now of course I dont really believe that, but its applying the same logic some want to apply to MS when using browsers.

But MS didn't got fined because they had monopoly. MS got fined because they had monopoly and they were doing things not allowed for monopolies, like bundling products together. Google doesn't bundle anything to search engine, so there is nothing which makes their behaviour punishable. Monopoly itself is not a reason, abusing your power while having monopoly is a reason.

 

[trooper11]

Yes, definitely a problem for browser vendors.

Yes, that would suck. But, what I had in mind was that if you already have a favorite, you can just pick your favorite in the list and use it. If you've already been abducted by the IE autoclinging bandit, then you'd just pick IE. But, if you don't know what to pick, either you must choose or you click a "choose for me" button that is truly random. That way, there's at least some fairness for browser vendors.

Now, if MS started install Safari or Opera or Firefox by default, it'd be the same issue. So, it's nothing again IE itself.

But, you're right. Those people just want to view some websites. The EU is just asking for a little bit of sacrifice on the user's end to make competition fairer. At the same time though, the user can also benefit from knowing that there are more choices. It's a fine line.

Then here is my question to you. Why is this MS responsibility? Why arent we talking about the OEMs? Have them add third party software. So lets say you do force MS to do this, tell me how you choose the browsers that will be listed and how do you 'inform' consumers about the differences between the various broswers? Does MS now have to support the browsers since they are pushing them to customers? If you just throw up a list of browsers for people to choose from, at best you get people that just choose something to try it, at worst people still pick IE and 'fairness' isnt affected. I dont see how you would get the result your wanting without someone making alot of effort to support/market each broswer to the customer.

I just dont see how this makes anything fair. If someone cares enough about their browser and they are unhappy with the IE experience, then they will seek out alternatives. I know your point is that people are ignorant, but if IE was so bad for what they do, they would get frustrated and look for other options. Going with your ice cream analogy, if someone doesnt like a flavor, they wont keep eating it just becuase they dont know about other flavors, they will stop eating it and seek out other options. Besides, the best way to beat ignorance is marketing, and I dont see how you can force MS to market alternatives, thats up to Google, Mozilla, Apple, etc.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

Famous last words I believe....

Hey if it isn't so hard, why not whip up the code and we will all use it here. I am sure all of us would love to have a stripped down verson of Vista/7 to install.

lol?

considering how well the nlite series of programs works, it would be foolish to think that MS couldn't create and include something by default that was safer to use, easier to use, and created supported windows installations when used (once again, they DID this during the 9x era....)

famous last words? lol again

 

[soulesschild]

lol?

considering how well the nlite series of programs works, it would be foolish to think that MS couldn't create and include something by default that was safer to use, easier to use, and created supported windows installations when used (once again, they DID this during the 9x era....)

famous last words? lol again

Because then you'd have bitches that buy it because it would be potentially cheaper and then bitch and moan about how they don't have this or that.

 

[soulesschild]

I've always been the opinion of if you want something do it yourself or else you'll never be happy. Microsoft could offer this, but then you could say, well it included this or that and still bitch and moan about MS.

 

[TechieSooner]

You'd have to check with the EU on that one. I'd venture to say there hasn't been any anti-competitve behavior (such as tying your own browser to basic OS functionalilty) from Google....

I'm confused. You said it was all about market share, earlier....

It's all about market share

Conflicting statements. Now the only question in my mind is how the backpedaling will work...

sure, they might be a minority, but that minority includes many, many people, perhaps many IT managers as well...

I'm an IT Manager.
Let's say I create a base package with the features we use. What do I do if I want to use another component of Windows down the road? THAT is the issue with that. I don't want to cripple all the Windows features that I may want to use later down the road.





The earlier analogy is excellent. If you apply the same logic to Google, then Google should be REQUIRED, God Dammit, to place links to Yahoo and Bing on their homepage, because "Google" is so dominate and people don't know to use anything else.

The counter argument you'd get is that they CHOSE to use Google and Google does such a good job they CHOSE to stick with it. Guess what? You could apply those same arguments to Windows. Windows is backwards compatible, works with more stuff, and is a very good product with plenty of apps pre-installed to do what you need to do, without having to download anything else.

The argument would have merit if Microsoft outright prevented third-party software from being installed.

 

[trooper11]

But MS didn't got fined because they had monopoly. MS got fined because they had monopoly and they were doing things not allowed for monopolies, like bundling products together. Google doesn't bundle anything to search engine, so there is nothing which makes their behaviour punishable. Monopoly itself is not a reason, abusing your power while having monopoly is a reason.

Google doesnt bundle anything to their search? what about all of those links at the top of the page to their email, maps, docs, etc? They may be free apps, but that is still bundling. All Im trying to point out is that if you really wanted to, you could make the case that becuase google is senonomous with search, they have a monopoly on users and use that monopoly to push their service. Would we not all agree that Google is king in the search market just as MS is king in the OS market?

I dont have a problem with them doing that, but I dont see the difference between what they do and what MS does with a browser. Neither prevents you from using alternatives, and neither promote the competition. This boils down to the question of how much do we force? When do we instead leave it up to the consumer to do some of their own homework. Trying to protect consumers is a good idea, but as a consumer myself, I know that if I want to know something, I need to go out and find it.


Now that I think about it, if people are insisting that MS bundle other browsers, why arent they insisting that MS bundle other mail apps? I mean hey, windows mail isnt the only option out there. What about WMP, I dont see them offering links to vlc or mpc. Sounds to me like this ends when MS decides to include no apps with the OS or includes tons of alternatives to be chosen from at startup. Sounds a little rediculous to me.