[TechieXP]

@bombdiggady


note that I was merely referring to the sentence, not to my opinion.


In any case, I think that yes, I think that positions of monopoly (or almost monopoly) need to be guarded in the interest of maintaining the market free and some competition. Does this mean that if somebody is "too good" it cannot "dominate"? No. Microsoft still have almost 90% market share (despite abot 5% decline in the past few years) which is quite high overall.


The problem is that Microsoft COULD abuse its position at the disadvantage of the customers. How? Some examples: they could force OEM to sell PCs with Vista even if they don;t want it or need it,or if they prefar XP. Just look at Dell, the largest PC manufacturer in the world. You cannot buy a PC without an OS. You have a few options with Ubuntu, but that's very recent history.
What does this have to do with the browsers? Well, install IE8 and you see that, without asking for confirmation, IE will be set as your default browser, even if IE7 was not the dafault browser. It will set msn.com as your default homa page, even if it wasn't on IE7. MSN brings money to Microsoft through advertisement: does this wualify as unfair competition? Maybe, maybe not, but in a world where internet is .. well, what it is today, a browser is critical and embedding yours in windows may not be considered fair. I'm not a lawyer, but as a user I welcome the idea of less IE.

I agree 100%

You can expect NSFT to make sure their products advertise their other offering. As you stated this is how they make money. When you install IE and it sees no other browser yes it will make it self the default. However if you have another browser and you open IE it will ask if you want to make it the default.
With XP SP2 MSFT introduced the ability for you to set your default programs for ALL media playback...don't like IE change to something else. Don't like WMP, change your default to something.

I agree that MSFT should be able to bundle any of its software together...ALL OF THEM. Even Office...Open Office is free, MSFT charges for Office...so thus what advantage does bundling do? It simply intrduces the product to you. Its not like we all don't know about Office. You can use it free for 30 or 60 days befoe you ahve to buy it. Don't wanna buy? You can download Open Office.

In fact it is safe to say the following...MSFT doesn't make any software that you are forced to use whether and End User or Enterprises User. Businessuse MSFT software bec they built there business around it for whatever reason..most because when MSFT first started there were no better options. ow that there are, many are changing...for thoise who don't it is either bec the solution is no better or the cost to implent isn't worth it to gain marginal advantages they can do without. Which is probably why Apple and Linux have broken into MSFT's advantages on a small scale...bec what they offer is similar and offers only minor benefits.

[dgresko]

We are talking about now.... The burden is on the competition , at this exact point in time, to make and market a better product now that end users can install whatever they, like if they expect to remail relevant. If they cant , then they will fail. Thats what is supposed to happen. That is what drives innovation and new things. What we dont need is yet another Government entity dictating what companies can do with thier own products as far as what they wish to add or not add. I mean, if MS wants to put IE 8 in the next copy of Flight Sim, well, Its all their software so whos to say no?
Microsoft will always have the people, cash, and talent to innovate when and what they choose, when they want to. They were fat al lazy and FF took off a bit. IE still enjoys about 70% market share, and, to be honest, with all the software MS makes, not to mention hardware like the xbox, I doubt that IE is really something thet are sweating too much.

Something MS has always done is make the overall user experience easy. Hence Windows itself...it does what it does well and its easy to use...and, back in the day, was way more user freindly that anything else. Only after Linux learned to follow suit and make installs and usage simpler did it start to get used by anyone who wasnt a tech geek. And with IE 8 they have the same deal.. it works, and well, and most people wont bother to remove it. They know that. The fact that they are willing to ship WIN 7 without a browser should show that thay are not all that worried.

As to the future.. well, tech changes so quickly that trying to predict what broswer will do what and when is pure folly. Yahoo had a lock in the search arena once... and a better product came out and took over--Google. Note that the government did not put a foot on yahoos neck so that Google could gain. Google had to fight its way up....the same must be true if FF, Chrome or a yet unseen player is to become King. And MS does not control progress on the internet. Any company is and has been able to create a better way ....they just havent yet :)

[TechieXP]

@YankeeDDL on Acid3 test.

I have seen that test before. I didn't code that page so I can't say how accurate that data is. That page could have been coded to make IE look bad...
Bit lets just says it right...W3C standard has been around for quite some time. I remember loading 1000's of pages that had thw W3C icon on them...as far as I can tell...I have never had an issue opening thos epages and viewing content with IE.

Also grant it....many pages as someone said are coded to take advantage of MSFT based components and thus break in other browsers. Yes it forces you to use IE to view THAT page...doesn't force you to use it with every page. Some of those features are better and safer for you to use with IE. Example...I know many hate Active X...and like Flash it has been abused often. Well people abused alcohol too, that doesn't mean it should be removed off the shelves. What I have learned the more ypu try to crack down on a company, the more they rebel by simply making something else to defeat the purpose.

Another example...MSFT has create a way to make sure is you have Windows Media based content on a site, it needs to be coded a certain way. This insures teh media play the way it was meant to be seen. I can't even count how many times I have gone to pages that try to use some custom BS to play Windows Media content and it breaks...even in IE.

I agree with you and others that IE should be more compliant with newer technologies. But not all of these new techs are that good. I am open to change as long as it doesn't effect what I do. MSFT should ake sure IE works with new technologies and the new guys should work with MSFT stuff...whether they like it or not. THEY ALL SHOULD BE FORCED TO PLAY FAIR...NOT JUST MSFT. That is where teh conspiracy comes in. MSFT is pusehed harder to play fair because they have a bigger share of the marhet. I am ok with that. However others should be forced to play far if they are to compete for that same market. If you simply always force MSFT to always comply and no one else...that's biased...and it is a conspiracy. And its wrong.

Just to add...I have downloaded Safari, Chrome, Firefox and Opera and used them. Opera sucks period...when I look at web pages with it..I feel like I am reading a newspaper. Its flat and bland and the pages have no life whatsoever. Same for Chrome. Safari I simply removed becaus eit simply crashed to much bec again it doesn't work with MSFT stuff very well..if at all...typical of Apple stuff anyway IMHO. I kept FF...I too liiked FF at first becaus eit was faster than IE in many respects...but after loading all the plugins to make it work like IE...it was just as slow..and sometimes even slower. Many pages still don't render properly.

Just like the Wiki says about Acid3...since I colde pages I know how much of a PITA it is to make sure teh cose works with all browsers. if all you are displaying is text and pictures...that stuff is simple. Its when you need to use forms and use other media...especially streaming media...is where you have problems. The coding used to play flash based media is cross-platform and works in ALL browsers...however many sites don't use it properly and change teh code to fit what they want and thus it breaks in some and works in others. That isn't a browser fault...that is a coding fault. Same for Windows MEdia...MSFT create a code that allows you to play their files without needing an external player and it is delivered to you using Active X. Active X basically just forces you to accept the code needed to play the media...but many have abused the code to teh point it breaks. Same for forms. Same for CSS. CSS is the biggest pain. Bec of the nature of browsers...if I had to code CSS to work 100% cross-platform...I wouldn't be able to use certain formatting..bec the formatting breaks in those other broswers...yet it works perfect in IE and it isn't IE specific coding...it just a way to make the content be viewed the way it was meant too be view...in other words...the way I WANT YOU TO SEE IT. Not the way a browser may read it and display it too u. Again that is a developer of teh browsers fault. Not MSFT ot IE fault.

Getting back to the EU...what they are asking for us stupid because it isn't going to create an even playing field. IE is the most familiar browser. Anyone who says that...well if IE is already on the desktop no one will look at other offerings...that is simply a lie. That was true in the case of Netscape vs IE. In retrospect, that is like saying...bec GM is a more familiar name and there are more GM dealers on the street that more people will buy GM cars...the past 10 years have proven that is no longer an advantage so thus is no linger a fact. Just like the choice of Windows over any OS.

IE is used more bec at work the IT uses IE and may not allow other browsers on the desktop...and for good reason. Windows allows you to set rules for IE that make browsing safer and it makes it easier to make sure all desktop are compliant. The other browsers don't offer this on an enterprise level...so thus they are seen as non-compliant software so thus not used. Most users at work may not know this...but what they do know is I use IE at work and it always works so I use it at home. Thus there us no need to look elsewhere. But that doesn't mean they don't know about other offerings...maybe they just don't care. Here is a fact that can be an opinion depending on how you look @ it: If you already have something that works for you...why do you need to look at another offering?

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. I would say that is an opinion based on some facts that surround that view. In this day and age there is no way you can't know about another browser. Once upon a time that could be said as fact...not now.

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 ...

Along with that though...if I chose to build a page that forces teh use of IE because the other broswers aren't forced to play fair that isn't my fault. In many cases where I found pages coded this way...they aren't selling anything. If you are selling a product, then it is to your advantage to make sure that pages works with ALL browsers. However if teh page is calling up specific information form an SQL server or Exchange or Sharepoint or similar...it is best to use IE for those because IE has rules that insure this data can't be hacked or missused...so thus this offers me security. Just bec you see it as some alterior motive...doesn't mean it is. Not all coders code to be IE specific because they don't like other browsers...they do so because it is safer. An example of that...in previous versions of Windows...the way MSFT coded that page in forced you to use IE. That was a safety for you bec if they didn't...someone could try to create a page that look like WIndows Updates and exploit the code and have you downloading who knows what. Just like many did with Flash. Forcing you to use IE in this case is a benefit to keep your computer safe from hackers. Now MSFT took it a setup further. Now you don't need a browser. Windows Vista and Windows 7 use a feature similar to WSUS which was introduced in Windows Server 2003 and patch into Windows 2000 Server to directly hook up to MSFT Servers to get updates...which guarantees you are getting a fule support and created by MSFT and not some pirated hacker version from somewhere else. The WGA plugin is a good example...there are plenty of sites that offer a hacked version of this plugin so you can get updates using the browser for Windows XP/2000...MSFT fixed that by simply building WGA into the OS...in order to get around that...you have to downlaod a hacked version of Windows Vista or 7 to get updates on an unlicensed copy of Windows...and if you download a certain patch from MSFT...that hack will no longer work. Some sites tell you which patch not too install. MSFT went around that once by coding this patch into another update...they go bashed for it and was deemed illegal. I have no problm with MSFT using these methods to protect their property...just like I have no problem with a home owner having a bazooka in their house and blowing someone who breaks in to hell who shouldn't be there.

[TechieXP]

Someone made a comment on if this lawsuit forces MSFt to play ore fair, how do we know MSFT won't twist the arms of the OEM's to not just put IE on the desktop for their machine like they did Dell and even Compaq in the past?

Because for one all they have to do is run to the DOJ and compalin and the DOJ will be all over it. I am aware as are many others that MSFT has twisted the arms of OEM's to get them to play by their rules or else. We all know MSFT will give OEM's that are willing to play the game MSFT way...they get more benefits like lower licensing prices and other discounts vs a company that doesn't play. One reason IBM was forced from the game. MSFT certainly made it harder on IBM because they didn't want to play poker by MSFT rules. Since their own OS was a failure...their only alternative was Windows and they just didn't want to play that way. So where is IBM now?

But where was the DOJ then? Look where they are now? I am sure MSFT will do somethng to make sure IE or any other software remains heavy on the desktop in some way...money is certainly a way to make sure. I would say its up to the OEM is they want to play or not. MSFT has a contract with all of them now...and it doesn't have to be changed until it ends...accept where this lawsuit create a precedent. If the OEM's don't want to play by MSFT rules...the DOJ is their way out...they simply have to suffer what happens next.

THis law does not force OEM's to offer a competitng product...it simply opens the door for them to do so with fear that they have to cave in to MSFT demands. Since Dell and HP are teh largest sellers of PC's that run Windows it is in there best interest to offer Windows the way they always have...bec if they don't they ahve to fear another OEM like Acer who needs a stronger foot-hold who will do it SFT way if they stand to become a bigger player.

I believe Acer is the number 4 computer makers and seller? Which means a change from HP or Dell could mean losing 1st and 2nd place as a seller. MSFT in this case doesn't need to twist any arms...Acer or another brand could force Dell and HP to twist their own arms just to stay ahead of the game.

Not bundling IE or WMP in the OS, too me just means MSFT has to charge a lil less for Windows. It sin't going to change Windows dominance in the market. It will only change the dominance of IE and WMP. However for those who follow the 'keep it in the family' tradition...IE and WMP will be downloaded back to the desktop anyways.

[BGG001]

"@YankeeDDL on Acid3 test.

I have seen that test before. I didn't code that page so I can't say how accurate that data is. That page could have been coded to make IE look bad...
Bit lets just says it right...W3C standard has been around for quite some time. I remember loading 1000's of pages that had thw W3C icon on them...as far as I can tell...I have never had an issue opening thos epages and viewing content with IE."

That is not the case...ACID is very well renowned and made so I'd watch what you say about it. Fact here is that IE8 is the least compliant with the W3C standards, period. The only two browsers that correctly follow the standards are Opera 10 and Safari 4. This is an indisputable point. Me? I don't like IE8 at all really.

...don't get my opinion on browsers mixed with my opinion of what the EU is doing here though. Just because I don't like IE8, doesn't mean that I don't believe what the EU is doing.

[TechieXP]

Hey I read some more of those details of the acid3 tests?
Based on what I read, its only recently the other browers passed those tests.
I have no idea why MSFT is choosing to offer compliance on a small level. However I did read where most of those engines came from. Many are opensource and we already know...MSFT doesn't support many opensource formats...and I am not sure they have too.

However I am not sure how you know which one of those engines are being implemented on a certain URL. For my usage for the sites I visit...most browser work fine...however IE and FF tend to work better.

PCW is the only site that seems to break in versions of IE above version 5.5. I think RGreen4 answered why this site breaks in IE6 or better. Having a site that seems to work perfect in FF, yet breaks in IE to me just shows a form of biased...in this case I am betting since PCW often speks of info that is MSFT related, that most people who visit this site will be using IE...especially at work. Which means if the page breaks in IE which it does...pushes and forces a user to use a competing broswer which is no different than what everyone claims MSFT does. For PCW...for a site that publishes a magazine that is viewed by several users who use lots of browsers...it would seem by now they would have made something that works better on each browser. If this page breaks in the most popular browser...yet works perfect in browsers that are trying to gain popularity...it shows biased to me. Neowin is a site that talks about technology too...yet it works perfect in IE and FF...PCW should be more like them.

[TechieXP]

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.

I get what you said..not sure if that makes what I said wrong. How about this way? McDonald's certainly has a monopoly on hamburgers if you apply MSFT concept of monopoly...right? However Burger King certainly has better tasting sandwishes and so does Wendy's and I can certainly cook my own and have it my way right? So how does McD's keep such a good market? Because they taylor their product to a certain crowd...for example 'kids'. Since families with children out number families who don't...McD preys upopns teh wants of kids...which means it cause parents to go often...so thus even tho other fast food giants offer competeing products...they still want this one. THus teh parents on their pown time bec they visit McD's so much simply do it out of habit when they go to work..or go to Grandma's or go on a trip...even when the kids are not with them. So if the EU could force McD's to sell another brand of food it doesn't mean it would level the field...it just means i have to drive around less to get what I want. The best offering will still be the best offering...no matter what the door says outside. GM is proof of that...GM's own many brands...yet some of them outsells even their own brand name.

Yes I agree competition makes a brand work harder at making a better product. But the only way that works is if the competitng product is a better product. FF to me is the only browser that makes MSFT work harder at being better. Opera and Chrome and even Safari is moot in comparison. To me those 3 are all the same and use a different badge to identify them...well maybe Safari is a bit better on the level.

One of teh biggest separations of browsers has been speed and features. IE builds in many features that others offer only with plugins. Tab browsing is a nice feature however I sledom use it now. In my case bec I use 2 screen all the time...extra browser windows is better for me than using tabs...especially when comparing pages side by side...for others they may feel different and that is fine. However when it comes to this EU thing...MSFT monopoly to me is moot. Back in Netscape days it mattered bec IE was a free bowser that in fact was better than Netscape at a cost. Now that they are all free...IE being on the desktop only advantage is it is there for you to use and you can use it to download a competeting product as YOUR choice. MSFT shouldn't be force to put a competing product in their software. That would be like forcing MSFT to install Open Office when they have there own Office Suite...the only time I see it fair for a company to offer a product that isn't theirs if if they don't offer a similar product.

Free doesn't make it better. The fact that it is free and already there doesn't make it better. If McD's offered free ice cream and it sucked compared to other offerings...just bec it is free doesn't mean I have to get it bec it is already there. Unless I was an I don't care if it sucks and I just eat it bec it is convienent.

In todays wrodl since browsers and media players are all basically free they are all on the same playing field. So one being always there isn't an advantage ...except in market numbers as far as usage. As long as MSFT doesn't prevent a competing software from being installed by the end user then monopoly presence to me is moot. It may not be moot in itself...but it is moot to many. As long as I can still make my own choice...then the rest is ok for me. Its like buying a car...there are options and features that you need to buy from a 3rd party...you already know this when you make the initial buy. All cars come with a factory radio...if you don't like it...you rip it out and buy a better one. However if the one it came with does what you want...even tho there are better ones with more features...why be concerned if those features don't matter to u?

If fact if you take a list of everything you can remove from a car other then what teh car needs to work...and be safe...everything on the dash can be removed accept the dials. The fact the other sy=tuff is there isn't focing you to use it. You are welcome to install whatever you want. If you don't like what teh car comes with...just like a PC you can order one without that stuff. But an exception shouldn't be forced on everyone...bec not everyone likes it that way. And proof what the EU is doing is in another thread right here on PCW. It said that Windows XP N virtually had no sales vs the typical standard editions of XP that have WMP. Which means MSFT wasted money bulding an OS without it. Whicn means teh Gov't of Europe asking form Windows 7 without IE is not what the people want...its simply what the Gov't wants. I actually don't see what the EU is going to gain.

[PoorBird]

a reply to techieXP.... but meant for EVERYONE, even at the risk of irritating EVERYONE, which I do NOT intend.....

1. life goes on, here and in EU

2. in 100 years, this will not even be remembered....and will have made no difference to anyone, anywhere.

3. when any of several potential natural disasters occurs , none of this will matter to anyone ...now or in a 100 years.

[BGG001]

PoorBird said:

a reply to techieXP.... but meant for EVERYONE, even at the risk of irritating EVERYONE, which I do NOT intend.....


1. life goes on, here and in EU


2. in 100 years, this will not even be remembered....and will have made no difference to anyone, anywhere.


3. when any of several potential natural disasters occurs , none of this will matter to anyone ...now or in a 100 years.

I get what you mean and you're right, but to live in the future is to destroy the future as well.

I'm keeping my posts relatively short because, quite frankly as you say, it isn't that big of a deal; it's wrong on the EU's part, but not even a petition will stop this from happening, which is the most I can do about it, not worth getting worked up about if there's nothing that can be done.

[yankeeDDL]

TechieXP,

I think once more we need to agree to disagree.
You bring several examples to support your theories, of all of them, I think you're missing the monopolistic aspect of this discussion. So I simply think they're not relevant. I'll give you only one example, and this is the last thing I'm going to say about it: your 2nd example on McDonald having an almost monopoly of burgers is not relevant because people have tons of choices for food. And this will be true even if McDonalds was the only burger company. And yes, it would be "bad" if there was no competition there, but hardly a disaster for the user. If instead McDonalds was the only source of food for the entire umanity (!!!) then it would be a catastrophe.

That hopefully also makes it clear to you why the fact that Linux (with 1% market share) and McOS (with 5~6% market share) embedding one browser is totally irrelevant.

Just to be clear, I do believe, like I stated at the beginning of this thread, that EU's decision is questionable, at best and I don't think it addresses the real issue that it raised: if it wasn't for other browser, we'll probably all still be using that POS of IE6, or maybe IE7. IE8 is a huge step forward, but still is 6X slower than Chrome and ~5X less compliant with standards than any other browser.

It's not a matter of which browser is better: it's a matter of stopping competition and allowing any party to sit and relax without making any development. The same exact would be true if FireFox was embedded with Windows. The point is, because of the (almost) monopolistic aspect of WIndows, any software embedded for free in it, needs to be scrutinized. The same will apply, for example, when MS will start embedding its own free antivirus with Windows. Unless it's as crappy and useless as Defender, it will constitute a treath to fair market and competition in the anti-virus industry and we'll be having this discussion all over again.

Does this mean that MS is (or shouldn't be) free to include extra software or features in it's own OS? EU thinks YES. I disagree but only partially. Meaning that I agree with the possible risks and consequences but I would have taken different actions to prevent monopolistic positions.

[PoorBird]

Thanx for not taking offense at my thoughts!..... but I must at least LOOK to the furture..... it must get better than what we have today....across the board, not just this software exercise in futility..... ask people in Iran how many browsers they are not able to use today...... or their TM service, cell services, landline services, et al.

Ask them, if you can find them! They likely would be very happy just to be able to hit the delete key on our discourse. I like to try to keep my feet on the ground..... and I am old enuf to have played with tincan-string walkie-talkies..... I remember the first VCR I saw (it was called a VTR then)...about the size of 5 of today's refrigerators.... it was a commercial/professional TV station unit..... no one even dreamed of a handheld color unit for the masses in those days.....the laptop and i'net connection I am using was the stuff of pure science fiction.... we are so blessed (or are we?) today, and so few seem to recognize or appreciate it..... hmmmm...hadn't thought about that VTR in awhile...it was bloody huge...the station had to knock out most of a wall between the conttol room and an office to get it installed...... and oh yeah,we had a "mobile studio" too...... a converted bus.... Greyhound type bus...... that was a hoot to work out of!..... and folks want to argue about a web browser.....wow!.... by-the-by, I use Firefox and I used Netscape before that..... I have rarely ever used IE.... and I have had very few problems.

[nickr123]

If the EU wants to talk about monopilies they should take a good hard look at themselves.

[BGG001]

This isn't necessarily an argument over a browser, at least in my mind; it's an argument against government over-regulating businesses, specifically the EU. We have one side that says Microsoft is a monopoly, which is false because there are other companies out there that offer browsers and Microsoft doesn't try to stop it, they're simply being competitive as businesses are supposed to be.

Now, beyond that, you have the EU controlling a company, while they are voluntarily releasing their product in Europe, they're still being regulated. This regulation is communistic in the fact that Microsoft is not hurting anything by including a browser on their OS, and why should they feature competitors on their OS without being paid for it? Free advertisement? That just doesn't sound right to me. If Microsoft buys out Opera, Mozilla, Apple, and any other major producers of browsers, then there would be a monopoly in browsers (and since they bought out Apple, OS's as well) and this would be an understandable step for any government to do.

The only problem I had with your future comment was that it gave me the message that the present and past don't matter as much as the future, which obviously the past guides the present into the future. Everything we do today, even this browser issue with the EU, has repercussions in the future that might be so minor, or perhaps larger than we'd even imagine. Arguing about it, perhaps not, but it's something to do I suppose.

[PoorBird]

And of course, you could be correct.... but in much tech stuff, there is no past, its treading new ground..... maybe not so much in this case, but some even in this.... and folks should not be overly concerned with the EU, unless they live there. They should save their wrath for what is coming down the pike in this country.... I am concerned about unintended consequences (or are they intended sometimes?).... and we have seen many such consequences over the last 18-24 months. The "new normal" is getting burdensome..... take a look at the IRS concern over taxing partial use of company-supplied cellphones as income.....it does appear that they don't want to fool with it, that they want to change the 1989 regulation....do away with it..... i shall reserve judgement unti I see it happen. We live in interesting times!

[TechieXP]

They are crying bec since MSFT has the largest stake in this market that MSFT is somehow being unfair. When MSFT released IE there were not competitors, except Netscape. MSFT tried to work a deal with the and it was not excepted/ So MSFT simply made their own. IE being free provide an advantage with a software that perform the same over one that was charging.

In this case MSFT's only advantage is being well know. Including the browser in Windows is convenient at best. If teh other browsers want more reconition they need to advertise. To this date I have never seen a browser commercial. And you don't need one. Google has a broswer, yet at Google.com com they only have a generic link to it. Since they have their own site and they want more users to use their browser...why not advertise it heavily on your own site. You don't need money to advertise online...all you need is a webpage and find a way to drive traffic to it. Google already gets more traffic than almost any site online. Only Yahoo.com and MSFT.com come close.

Just because Google and Apple and Firefox is a familiar name..doesn't give you some automatic ad for people to use your software. You need to get people to want to use it. When a software like IE has been well established it is almost moot at this stage to even make another one anyways...but now that they are here...draw people to your brand. MSFT doesn't need to bec the draw is accomplished by Windows. However if MSFT removes IE it present a problem. Unless you are smart 99% of Windows users know of no other way to download software...so if they remove IE and the OEM's don't put another...ur basically out of luck. It is not MSFT job to place a competitors product within their own. PERIOD. And the OEM's don't want to deal with it bec it isn't their job either. They get paid or get discounts from MSFT to provide Windows as it is...as a corporations...if your business solely depends on another as the PC industry does depend on MSFT...are you going to bite the hand that feeds you? HELL NO.

As far as I am concern we don't need other browsers. If they can't find a way to pay the OEM's to put their software on a PC...then to bad. MSFT is paying and thus they should reap the benefits of that cost.

All OS's have a browser..but bec MSFT has a industry advantage they all just simply thinks that whenever MSFT name is mentioned with a product...they automatically have an advantage...THEY DON'T. A monopoly by definition is total and complete 100% ownership. ATT once had a monopoly bec they were teh only telephone provider. So the Gov't breaking them up create competition that would not have been their otherwise. The software industry is very different. If the game is lead by a specific company and you want to get in the game...it just means you need to come with some heavy artillery. These latest newcomers came with plastic ware and are crying bec no one wants it.

These browser offer no advantage over IE...they simply offer a different way of doing things...but where everything is the same they are simply a similar concept. They aren't better overall...they just do a few things better. The owners need to advertise why their software is better over what we all have bee using for years and create fair fighting among them...using the govt to fight a battle that you should be doing is cowardly. These browsers are simply options for those who don't want to use IE...just like Toyota is an option for those who don't want to buy American bec they feel American cars aren't as good. Isn't that why we look for alternatives? We choose mostly for 2 reasons...what we have isn't good enough...or what they have simply appears to be better. The fact that the majority of website were written based on IE already gives IE an advantage bec there were no other browsers. And maybe developers don't feel like changing. Yes the war has forced MSFT to innovate more as IE remain virtually unchanged for a decade...so what...didn't it work? You never know how bad or good something is until you have something to compare it too. MSFT didn't have a need to make changes bec one was never presented. Everything was already working..so why break it?

The EU is simply proof of why the govt shouldn't get involved in day to day activities. They stand to make matters worse than they already are. As someone said..if Opera didn't start this we wouldn't be hearing this. Everyone who goies online knows there are other browsers..and music players and operating systems. When you have what works why do you need anything else? Anything else isn't important unless they are going to give you MORE than what you already have. Non of those browsers really give you more than IE. Example...FF and NO Script. No Script should be written at the OS level to make browsing safer. If a 3rd party needs to make a software to make your browser safer, then I question the developer f the browser. That should be their job. To this day I have never needed to install anything to make using IE safer...PERIOD. So why should I download a browser that doesn't make browsing safer themselves?

As long as people preach that MSFT has monopolistic powers and control...there will always be a dumbass who will believe it. Asisfish made a statement once to me saying...that just because you continue to riddle off an opinion as if it is fact, certainly doesn't make it fact and it doesn't mean people will believe it. I guess he was totally wrong. Maybe if I say it...that may be true...but if someone has some type of high commanding title...people believe anything. Just like our govt convinced so many people that a bunch of people who live in rocks...would be smart enough to hijack 4 commercial jets with butter knives and fly the planes into building and kill people. And it was all done by a guy whose family has ties to our own President as a business partner. All of which every single business was a failure. So what business will always make you money...you simply start a war. Which is exactly what is being done here...they can't all can't fight MSFT on a level playing field bec they feel MSFT has an advantage they they can't concur...so they run to teh govt like a bunch of cowards and get the govt involved. Again thank God this country is no longer a part of them. I say MSFT should keep Windows 7 as it is...if they don't like it as is...simply don't buy it. Go by OSX if you can afford the hardware, go buy Linux its free...they certainly don't have to use anything MSFT makes..EVER and that goes for anyone. You don't like the way MSFT does business there is a very easy way to show them...by not buying what the sale. PROBLEM SOLVED. At that point either they get their act together..or they go out of business. Every single software MSFT publishes on a retail or enterprise level..all have alternatives from other sources..problem is many aren't even close to be as good. MSFT makes no money off IE or WMP...they could remove them both and lose no sales in Windows. People don't use Windows bec of the bundling of those programs...it simply is a convenience. Well 7-11 is convenient too...but you don't see them being popular then Wal-Mart or any other retailer that has stores that stay open 24 hours do you?

You enevr heard Target or Wards crying with Sears dominating the market for years have you? GM dominated teh automobile market for years...how many times you ever seen Chrysler or Ford or any import crying about it. Many import simply came out of nowhere and found their niche. Saturn and Kia and Hyundai all made names for themselves with teh others helping or hurting them. They simply produced a competitive product and marketed well. That is exactly what all these crybabies need to do when they have a product and need to go against MSFT. And Opera? I wouldn't install that POS on anything PERIOD. It isn't work a hill of beans...FF is teh only one I use sparingly and the rest...? I have an Air...I use Safari and FF on it bec I simply can't install IE on it. But if I could I would certainly use it over Safari.

[TechieXP]

Well what they do in EU does effect us. Bec these same crybabies will go crying to the DOJ to force MSFT to do the same thing. People have been bitchen for years that MSFT creates unfair competition when they bundle software. The reality is..it is a lie. As far as I can remember, Windows had a way to play media files since Windows 95 with Windows Media Player Classic. MSFT has never charged for the WMP. What we use now is simply a more update version which was introduce start with WMP 7 in Windows ME. MSFT intdiuced it as something better to compete against QuickTime and RealPlayer which even today are still a POS. The problem was they charge you for crappy software and MSFT gave you some better andit was free. Free isn't always better ad people will still buy something better no matter how much it cost. However the biggest thing people use media players for are to play MP3's...and view media online. You don't need some cheesy expensive player to play MP3's at good or even excellent quality. The only thing you need media players for is to play the propritory formats they all have. However it was Apple and RealMedia who were first to introduce cheesy formats. RMV and RMA and QT MOV in my opinion especially back then sicked in Windows. RealPlayer was better than QT...but that isn't saying much. As soon as MSFT intrduce WMP 7 and WMA and WMV and you can create better sounding and better quality video basically for free they all bitched and went crying to the courts. If they wnat to battle MSFT all they had to do was simply make a better product. They chose the cowardly way out. They are all just a bunch of cowards who can't fight unless they run and get their friends with power. All of those players were free for basic features...you only had to pay for the so-called advanced features. Compared to that the WMP player is very generic. It has no advanced functionality whatsoever. Its just a player and a betterone IMHO.

And ever since then every company has followed suit. If you don't like what MSFT is doing...you run to the courts and sue or they run to the DOJ. Bundling products just makes it so you don't have to waste time downloading. To this day not everyone has a highspeed connection to teh internet. Even those browser packages are small...there are mnay still using Juno/Netzero dialup. In 3rd world counties what they call DSL is only 512MB and it isn't reliable at all.

The fact that this win will put wind in their sails to tell the DOJ...look we feel MSFT is not playing fair and using their so-call monopolistic infuence to keep the industry at their mercy. Look teh EU agreed so that means you need to comply too. MSFT has an unfair edge bec they own 90% of this market and it is hard for us to gain leverage. HELP US! WE CAN'T COMPETE AND MAKE MONEY. How can you make money providing free software? Yahoo and Google manage to do very well offering several services thay had FREE...look where they are...those things are still free. They found a awy to gain and even beat MSFT in what they offer...why can't these guys do it?

[PoorBird]

OK..... points made....I still fail to understand the broohahah...... I use what suits me..... WinXPPro has proven to be the most stable OS I have ever used...when I say stable, I mean 24/7/365, 3 crashes in 5 years+...that I can remember.... last one was some kinda conflict with some piece of software, don't remember what, reboot, restore to last checkpoint, no problem.....I almost never use IE, FF has been default browser, I don't remember how long now...... WMP is rarely ever used....winamp (yeah, good 'ol winamp, with its downsides) is default..... and if ya think that's no good, try realplayer, or quicktime - whoa......now remember, I am not a "power user".... I just go with what does it for me, with my simple needs....also remember way back in the beginning of this discussion, I sided with MS on this deal with EU.... frankly, I could care less what they do there..... the thing I do care about is that we seem to be headed to a government structure in this country closely resembling that of the EU..... let's par-tay!!..... and oh yeah, if memory serves correctly, wayyyy back in the day when Gates was launching what would become Microsoft, he danced a fancy two-step to enable him to provide IBM the first DOS...... no one's hands are lily-white in this business.....Gates, Jobs, and any others you care to mention....that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.