[Scunnerous]

Umm, how convenient to forget that it was MS who mucked up Web browser compatibility with their attempt to make the whole infrastructure proprietary. First they EMBRACED and allowed plugins, then they EXTENDED with their misconceived ActiveX, then they tried to EXTINGUISH by disallowing plugins. Fortunately, the vocal minority, with help from Mozilla et.al., managed to prevent a complete take-over of the Web & Internet by one company.

It's tragic that so many people don't comprehend how close we came to losing the whole show to a Microsoft total monopoly of the Internet... and that they are still trying. If you want to be led like sheep it's up to you but I will not participate in the destruction of a public resource for the benefit of a corporate scoundrel. As for Firefox not "displaying a few pages", do you really not understand how that came about? Your comprehension of the evolution of the standards process and attempts to subvert it by MS is severly lacking: MS provided tinker-toy tools for amateurs to create Web sites which work only with IE, not forgetting their attempted hijack & proprietarization of Java. Fortunately those Web sites withered and mostly died, apart from www.microsoft.com itself, such that in most cases any site which does not work with standards conforming browsers & plugins gets ignored by the Internet community.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the "regulations" before deciding whether MS is in compliance: like I said it is ILLEGAL to use a monopoly position in one market to leverage a competitive position in another, different new market. Again, since you seem to not understand, it is possible and perfectly reasonable, to build an operating system with the hooks and APIs to allow independent developers to integrate their software as a tightly coupled, synergistic part of the user experience; that MS chooses not to is the principal objection to their methods and tactics.

Oh and your comparison with Apple is invalid - Apple is not, and cannot possibly be considered, a monopoly. Furthermore, as opposed to MS who put roadblocks and secret performance hurdles & handicaps in the way of ISVs, Apple fully cooperates with independent developers such that Firefox works just fine with Mac OS... without any attempt at subverting the established common, international standards. Uhh, Apple does not want, nor have they ever shown any sign of wanting, to take over and own the Internet.

[Scunnerous]

BGG001 said:

Today, the US demands that German automaker, BMW, doesn't install their engines in the M class; instead, they must put in either a Ford Focus engine or a Chevrolet Colbalt engine.

Get the picture?

Syllogistic and, I suspect, jingoistic nonsense. Get a clue and, and for your own benefit, quit bending over for a scoundrel.

[dgresko]

LOL, well stated :)

[GOED]

Perhaps I don't understand.

However, MS paid the EU about a billion dollars for just including a Music Player. MS Removed it IN COMPLIANCE tu EU regulations, and now is back to another piece of software that just because it has the MS name has to go.

MY WHOLE POINT HERE - Was that everyone has a choice with any MS Operating System.

If you don't like it people don't have to use it.

The two more viable companies that produce a very stable operating system are - Apple and Microsoft.

My reference to Apple was not to indicate that Apple is a monopoly, being that both produce an OS and a BROWSER, it was logical to explain that Apple is doing exactly what the EU is telling MS NOT TO DO.

This is a retorical question but - Do you support Apple not being investigated because it distributes Safari ONLY - with their operating system ? Do you feel that Apple should be treated different then MS ? if yes then case closed and I have no further comments for you

[dgresko]

Let the past go man! We are talking about now..WIN 7 and IE 8. You can get any browser you want.....so stop beating a dead horse already. I say lets take it even further...next time I buy a Dell PC I will demand that Sony and TDK both have DVD burners installed, that ar ethe same speed...because by God, thats fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!



See its an idiotic argument...let it go man...come to 2009 with the rest of us....

[BGG001]

[quote name='Scunnerous']

>

BGG001 said:

Today, the US demands that German automaker, BMW, doesn't install their engines in the M class; instead, they must put in either a Ford Focus engine or a Chevrolet Colbalt engine.
>
> Get the picture?
Syllogistic and, I suspect, jingoistic nonsense. Get a clue and, and for your own benefit, quit bending over for a scoundrel.

Me? Patriotic? Really? I sense no patriotism in my statement, I was simply using an analogy: the US forcing foreign automakers to change the internal pieces of their cars, which is similar to what is happening with the EU.

Forcing a company to put software in their software is preposterous. Something tells me that if any other company would be forced to do this, it would be immoral and wrong to you, the fact that it's Microsoft is what makes you happy. I have also nowhere stated that I agree with Microsoft and how they've run Internet Explorer in the past, I agree it has actually screwed the internet moreso than helping, but to force Microsoft, nay ANY COMPANY to change their product in such a way is ridiculous.

I use Opera, the company which filed the complaint. I use Windows. I hate IE. Do you honestly believe I have an extreme disposition to protect Microsoft in this case just for brand loyalty? Your arrogant and empty assumptions sicken me.

[quackadilly]

"Syllogistic and, I suspect, jingoistic nonsense. Get a clue and, and for your own benefit, quit bending over for a scoundrel."



Fancy words don't make you smart..... What makes you think that everyone in this thread is wrong and you have swept in here and "enlightened" us all?

Is that Apple sauce I smell on your breath?



MS isn't forcing anyone to use IE. I have it on all of my computers, yet, I use FireFox and Chrome. If a person wants something better, they will go look for it. If everyone stays with IE, they must be ok with it.

-----

Lets say you made a truly good product that had 90% of the market and the government forced you to include competitors' software packages on your installation disk.......how would you feel about that?

[Jam144]

That article gave me a good laugh this morning I must admit. This however has nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with what Page said "OEM's have had the freedom to uninstall IE". Firstly the OEM is not the customer in my eyes, as if someone selling a PC is going to care what software is installed. It would take time to uninstall IE, and time is money. Secondly has anyone ever tried to uninstall IE from a windows distro? I have and it's a pain in the butt. You see when you uninstall it, it seems to have gone, but then you restart your PC, and as if by magic another one has grown to retake it's place. In the end you have to go into the registries and start deleting things. This isn't good for someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

[BGG001]

Jam144 said:

That article gave me a good laugh this morning I must admit. This however has nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with what Page said "OEM's have had the freedom to uninstall IE". Firstly the OEM is not the customer in my eyes, as if someone selling a PC is going to care what software is installed. It would take time to uninstall IE, and time is money. Secondly has anyone ever tried to uninstall IE from a windows distro? I have and it's a pain in the butt. You see when you uninstall it, it seems to have gone, but then you restart your PC, and as if by magic another one has grown to retake it's place. In the end you have to go into the registries and start deleting things. This isn't good for someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

That's because certain components of IE are tied in with Windows' internet functions. Getting rid of it in Windows 7 gets rid of everything except the core services that Windows 7 needs. That's why it's so incredibly dumb, but yet amusing, that Microsoft did this to the EU. They uninstall IE8 to the point where you can't use it, but the core services are there, right? There's no way to access the internet; your only choice: install IE8. EU deserves this for loafing with their resources in such a dumb way.

[TechieXP]

This lawsuit is so stupid. This is like telling McDonald's to carry Burger King food in other countries, because Burger King has a small or no footprint in countries where McDonald's is everywhere. MSFT has their own browser, why would they put another competitor product on the desktop over their own? Anyone can download a browser if they don't like IE. Anyine can download another media player if they don't like WMP. How does IE or WMP hurt another offering? I don't see where having it there already is an advantage in these days. Maybe back then when that POS Netscape was around. I don't think IE advantage was simply being included in Windows...its advantage was more simple...it was simply a better browser. If people like FF they will download it...if people like WinAMP they will download it...

Het MSFT I have a better idea...there is no law that says you have to release any of your products in Europe...so how about YOU DON'T. Let them use OSX and Safari or Linux and see how much they cry. Linux comes with one browser..FF...OSX comes with one browser Safari. I don't see the EU all over them.

The EU is simply stupid.

[TechieXP]

correct.

Thet is bec they don't follow a standard.
Even when I use Dreamweaver which has a plugin that insures teh page will follow W3C...things still break in other browsers.
What he said was BS. The only things that other browser REFUSE to include in there code is the way SFT requires Active X to work. Active X even if you don't like it, protects you. Other browsers also break on Windows Media components like for file playback.

That isn't MSFT fault. If you make a browser, you ahve to insure its works with the web...even if pages use a technology you don't like. Internet Explorer was out first among these lat comers. They should make sure their browser works with todays technologies and introduce new ones. They chose to make their own crap and make sure its break on MSFT stuff. Period.

[Countess666]

you say that we are talking about now, but we are not.

we are talking about the future.

while firefox and chrome have managed to gain a significant market share with superior software after almost 10 years of MS inactivity on the browser front, they have also succeded in giving MS a slap on the backside and getting them back in the game.

it remains to be seen if firefox and chrome can hold on to their marketshare now that their avantages over IE have to a large extent disappeard.

and if they dont hold on to their share, we'll be right back where we were right after MS did away with netscape, and then did nothing for as long as they could stiffeling the growth and developtment of the internet in the process.

[rgreen4]

It puzzles the Europeans because they are incapable of understanding the American disdain and rancor toward tyranny. The EU commission behaves more like a fascist state (government favoring certain business and companies) than a socialist state (government running whole industries). In the days when one had to pay for the browser ala Netscape and then MS comes in and bundles IE for no additional cost with the Operating System, it was possible to prove the damages. However, in today's world where every single consumer Operating System available comes with an included browser, it is impossible to prove damages. How does Opera show any damages when there is no revenue from shipping the browser? Since Opera does not have an OS to bring in revenue, one must ask, how do they survive?

Obviously, IE is supported by the Windows revenue stream. Safari is supported by the Apple hardware and OS/X revenue stream and Firefox is supported by the Mozilla Foundation, but who supports Opera? The answer is very telling - Google. Now we may understand what is behind Opera's claim.

[yankeeDDL]

TechieXP,

Instead of talking about conspiracy theory against microsoft,you should try to use objective metrics.

The acid3 test (http://acid3.acidtests.org/) is a recognized way to test your browser's compatibility with W3C standards.

Using Firefox 3.0.11 I get a score of 72/100.

Using IE8 I get 20/100 and a message that the test failed.

Firefox 3.5 seems to get 94/100. (seems, because it's not yet released)

Safari/Chrome get 100/100

You can see all teh results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3

Now that we know which one is the browser that does not meet the standard, we can move onto the next topic: money.

This has nothing to do with being free to chose your browser. The fact is, much of the people that use IE do so because they don't know, or they don't bothr looking for alternatives. Most of them are "computer illiterate" which stick, for example, to msn.com as their homepage, even if they don't read it. MS makes good money out of it because traffic on MSN is still incredibly high. Only thanks to IE.

A better request, in my opinion, would have been to make IE comply with basic fairness and un-obtrusiveness poclicies: don't change the default home page, or ask to set one at the time of installation. Same for the search engines: don't pick your default one: ask the user to choose. And so on ...

[drklassen]

EULA's are as worthless as the paper the are no longer printed on. When I buy software, I don't what the company thinks I'm doing, but in the USA the law still puts software under the category of a purchase and not a contract (at least those states that never passed a UCITA law). Thus, I, as an end user, am most certainly buying my very own copy of the software and NOT simply paying to use it.

[rgreen4]

True, but since it is copyrighted and trademarked, you cannot copy and then sell or give the copies to anyone.

[yankeeDDL]

I like the comparison with McDonalds. Too bad it's wrong.
Techie, you're missing the (fundamental) component of (almost) monopoly.

Let me take a stab at it: imagine a world where 90% of the food comes from McDonald. This means that you, me, everybody, eats at McDonald breakfast, lunch, dinner and any snacks every single day, except ~2.5days every month.

Say that one day McDonald decides to include a smoothie as free dessert. Now, most people would grab it. It's free no? And it does not stop you from buying an ice cream somewhere else, or a waffle, or a donut. Excep, that since so many people have already dessert at McDonald, ice cream parlors, donut and waffle shops start closing down because of lack of clients.
The result is that people get even less choices. And maybe the ice cream parlors that survive arethe cheaper ones, that don't develop new flavours, that don't improve the quality of their products. Who loses then? Of course, it's the customer.

When monopoly is involved (or looming) you have to look beyond your nose and see what the real implications of certain choices are. Fortunately, there's no monopoly in the OS, so, fortunately, other companies developed browsers and, fortunately, they got Microsoft/McDonald to improve the quality of their products and whether you like the smooties or not, this is a good thing.

[TechieXP]

I agree.

The cost to produce IE is obviously gained from the sales of Windows, so thus there is no need to charge and extra cost. For Netscape, teh browser was its only software and they charged...so thus MSFT including IE for free that offered teh same or better functionality would certainly hurt their business. Thus a very good point as far as damages to a company.

Now that ALL browsers are on teh same playing feild where they ALL are free...the only thing they are fighting for is pupularity. If you simply make a better product it will become more popular even if another company has a commanding lead.

Look at the phone market...Blackberry and even Plam at one point had commanding leads in that industry. Apple basically nose-dived in with a better product. Now look at the playing field. Apple proved that one or 2 companys that are dominant in any said industry means nothing. Anyone can be beaten. All it takes is a better product.

Even now I don't see where MSFT has any advantage by providing IE on its own Windows playform and not offering any other. They don't FireFox or teh others so why would THEY specifically offer it. Any OEm has the right to put any other browser on the desktop in Europe. So why haven't they? Maybe they don't want or need to take out the time to download other software...when YOU the PC buyer should do so. Making an obligation that is YOURS and taking it and placing it on someone else is wrong. Thats like blaming cigarette comapys for you getting cancer because you smoke. They didn't make you buy those cigarettes no matter how much advertasing they do. And teh package says you can get cancer from smoking. If you're dunbass choose to smoke and you get sick...then you're simply suffering the consequences of your actions. That is your fault...not theirs. Same with software.

Its simple...now that we have 4 or 5 options...if you don't like IE don't use it. But don't make MSFT put a competting product on its own product. Just like you can't force McDonald's to sell Burger King food, just bec McDonald's dominates the fast food market. You can't force Intel to use AMD chips in computers they don't even build. MSFT is their own brand who make stheir own stuff. They don't rely on anyones software. MSFT shouldn't be forced to remove IE. I think MSFT is doing right by simply remvoing IE just for them. And then allowing the OEM's to do whatever they want. I however don't think that will make a huge difference. IE simply works with all web sites in more cases than others do. I choose IE not because it is preinstalled or integrated with the OS. I use it bec it works better. Netscape was a POS and shouldn't have costed a dime...PERIOD. And that si my opinion. It was faster than IE simply bec like FF it is simple was Adobe Reader is to Adobe Acrobat. FF, Opera, Chrome, Safari and others ato me are just stropped down web page viewers. By the time you add all of the plugins to make them work like IE, they still don't always work...they crash more...and they are just as slow. I ave opened pages in both OE and FF at the same tie and FF has taken just as long or longer and I don't have any plugins installed for it at all. I like FF, but I don't think its better than IE. That is my opinion.

I do agree that bec of the browser war MSFT has to work much harder at keeping its FAIR share of teh martket and has forced them to stay in their toes...As it should be. The fact IE works 90% of the time and the other browsers don't to me show who actually has the better product. Just like with cars. Even though Japan and Germany have their own standard for building cars, they all must meet our standard before they can be sold here...which drives up the cost. Browsers from other companys should follow teh same concept. It is ok to make your own idea...but you should have to at least support 100% the technology that set the standard whether you liek it or not. IE set teh standard as it was teh most used browser..and yes designers make pages based on IE being used more. Now it should be ALL browser should offer full 100% cross-platform compatibility. When they don't they break..that isn't showing up IE..its showing them up. Others may look at it from the other side...but fair is fair and that si what it is. Intrducing a new technology doesn't mean you have to break existing ones...you should support the all and introduce new and then let us choose what we want. If we like your idea we will use it more...if we don't..we won't.

[TechieXP]

Here is a FACT for you....you don't need a brower to download software from a PUBLIC web address
A browser simply makes it much easier to do so. As long as you ahve the URL there are other ways to get the files
You can download files using the CLI. You can download files using FTP and can download files by typing the http or ftp address in any address bar in Windows. Because IE is builtin...IE simply opens. If IE wasn't there Windows would use what other means MSFT put into place to get the files.

Browsers don't downlads for you from websites...browsers are basically for viewing data coded with whatever the pages uses. When you click a link to download the file...the browser is actually calling up a string of code that can be done in other ways to get the file. When the file box pops up it shows you where teh file is comming from. If you copied and pasted that address into and ftp client or some other way..you can still download the file. Doing it in the broswer simply makes it one step and easier...

[GOED]

Points are being made about how other browsers are better at passing the ACID 3 TEST and how other browsers are better to adhering to the W3C standards then IE is.

The point is clear and understandable, however, the bottom line about the whole article is the WRONG INTERVENTION AND UNDERSTANDING OF the EU to assume that MS STRONGARMING all pc vendors to include ONLY IE.

This days, MS, just like any Linux Distro and OSX include their PREFER BROWSER. Peaple have choices.

Windoes DOES NOT KEEP YOU from getting your own browser, MS is making it easier for consumers to access the internet just once if they please and download their own choice. As I stated before MS has pull out several useful program from the installation of WIN 7 - Allowing the user TO CHOOSE the programs they want for - EMAIL -CHAT -PHOTOS -CALENDAR and so on. This was not require by either the U.S. Antitrust laws or any other country. So again more choices.

Must of us here know what an acid 3 test is, someone pointed out before that we forget about those who have less technical knowledge about pc's, so in the past MS has try to cater to MANY of this individuals by including software that would make their tasks easier.

Postings about MS being the monopolistic company is misleading and untrue. You can continue making comparisons between other companies and reach the same conclussion. Companies make products to make money. You could also compare Target to Wal-Mart - Wal-Mart is the behemoth here, but no one in the Government here or elsewhere is asking them to carry Target's products.

MS has submitted the Win 7 code to antitrust regulators here in the U.S. they seen that MS is taking steps on their own to unbundle pieces of software without having told to do so / or required to do so to give consumers their choice.

MS has accepted without protest for the Antitrust laws to be extended I believed to 2011 or 12 when they were supposed to expired in 2010.

What is it going to take for some people posting here that MS is not forcing anyone to use their products. MS spend a lot of money in advertising their products. If other companies selling similar programs can't or won't spend the money to advertise their products then people won't know about them and the end result maybe what was suggested in one post. " I stick with MS Products "

This is what capitalism is, make products sell them, make money, continue inovating.

Regardless that IE8 did not pass acid3, most people will program web pages for IE because at the moment IE percentage of market is higher. This does not mean that it will stay that way for ever, MS will keep improving their browser and advertising it.

AS IT IS RIGHT NOW - MS is also fighting to stay with their market share. If they get overtaken, they felt at sleep on the wheel and it would be their fault, no one elses. Just the same applies to other companies.