| 11:28 am on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It will be very interesting to see if IE still dominates on these machines.
|..make it easy for PC makers and users to get at and install the web browsing program. |
Maybe they will now ship with a 'Download IE' shortcut on the desktop!
| 11:44 am on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Works for me. It's the beware what you ask for, you just might get it.
| 1:06 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Exactly how are users going to download a browser without a browser included in Windows?
And does Apple now have to ship OSX without Safari?
| 1:16 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Users will simply go RUN/CMD and download the browser using Dos......NOT!
| 1:16 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
That question came to mind carguy84; how does the average joe get a browser without having a browser to download one? Not everybody knows how to FTP by command-line (try fetching a GUI FTP client without a browser)... I guess there will be a 'download IE' shortcut on the desktop or in windows update. I for one will just transfer firefox to my USB drive, but all in all it would be nice if the EU actually had given some thought to this issue. I find it unbelievable that MS is not allowed to decide how they ship their own product. Now the users are paying the price.
This kind of downright stupidity is exactly what feeds euroscepsis from both inside and outside the EU.
| 1:53 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Well, what about people like us, who need IE, at the very least for testing? This is bovine fecal matter! Sorry, but it's like telling a restaurant they can't use their own ingredients.
The sheer stupidity of this boggles the mind. Again, another case of "Am I a member of this species?"
| 2:06 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
So, if I developed my own version of Notepad, and got it really famous, could I get Notepad kicked out of Windows too?
On a similar vein, what would happen if Microsoft, in a flash of generosity, decided to bundle Office with every install of Windows? Would they actually be denied this for the sake of the competition?
I agree with everyone else here. This is dumb.
| 2:17 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
sgietz, no one said you can't have IE, you've misunderstood what will happen: it won't be there by default, you'll be still able to install it though.
Very good move I believe. One virus less for Windows.
| 2:44 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Hugene, the concern is that its not practical. Novice users will simply click "download IE" as they'll; think it's the only way to get online. Mid-level users will download IE to get another browser, but they'll still have IE. Only advanced users will likely download another browser to some removable media and install that way. Unless of course you can use the windows shell as IE
| 4:12 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I understand that you can get IE after the fact, but the logic escapes me. I know what they're trying to accomplish, but it makes no sense.
I know there is a lot of bias. Choose your OS (or application) of choice, and imagine that some governmental body dictates to the developer of that OS or app that they can't include certain features, regardless of how (non)functional they may be.
| 4:18 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
pretty big news - how pressure was put on microsoft to comply?
I am with MS on this one though. Dont like the EU and its many dictats.
| 4:22 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just dont get this, "selling windows with IE installed harms competition because there are other browsers in existence" - that is what the EU is saying I think.
So what, selling cars without steering wheels harms steering wheel makers, but they are bloody useful anyway.
| 7:05 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Microsoft are simply playing a game called "petulance". It's a game they might well loose. They think they have the power to win this battle, but, if the EU commission decide that they are going to win come what may, MS cannot possibly win. It could be very expensive. For instance...
The EU could pass a law requiring all new computers to be sold with a choice of certain core applications such a browsers, media players, etc. Microsoft could happily ignore the law, because they don't sell computers, but retailers would have to abide by that law - in other words, Microsoft looses - and looses big time.
| 7:22 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Exactly how are users going to download a browser without a browser included in Windows? |
A question that lawmakers apparently aren't smart enough to ask, which is why they shouldn't be dictating how software makers sell their products.
| 7:34 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Government stupidity has no borders. This reminds me of a recent story of a guy in New Zealand, who rented a wall-less tent (basically a canopy) for the local college and was told by the city he needed to post fire exit signs.
| 8:59 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>it would be nice if the EU actually had given some thought to this issue.
>Government stupidity has no borders.
Let's clear up some of the more blatant implicit mis-assumptions:
Hey, guys, note that this was NOT AN EU REQUIREMENT.
Having been convicted in the EU (as in several other continents) of illegal bundling, Microsoft, on its own initiative, promised to start doing this thing. The EU, for ITS part, has already responded publicly--rather negatively; they claim this will not resolve, let alone redress, the legally-demonstrated harm.
And how about that easy assumption that Microsoft will actually do what Microsoft has promised to do, even though they have so signally failed to follow through before ... and this was what in fact they swore to the US court COULD NOT BE DONE. Well, I KNOW they were lying in the U.S., and would never assume they're telling the truth anywhere else.
And just to put this in context, Microsoft has tried this particular sleazy gambit before. Remember when they agreed to provide a version of Windows without their illegally-bundled media applications in Europe? And did ... at exactly the same price as the bundled version. (Nobody bought the unbundled OS.) Not only will the EU not be fooled this time, the workers can't help but be outraged by this easy assumption that they're so stupid as to fall for THAT trick again.
My assumption is that the Chief Hurler of Chairs will be looking at another 9-digit fine, larger than it would have been had his minions not tried such a blatantly raw scam.
| 10:40 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
hutcheson hit the nail on the head.
| 11:13 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|The EU, for ITS part, has already responded publicly--rather negatively; they claim this will not resolve, let alone redress, the legally-demonstrated harm. |
So what do they suggest?!
| 1:19 am on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The EU Commission suggested bundling multiple browsers with Windows and allowing the user to choose which to install, etc.
I'm thinking it's déjà vu all over again!
| 7:34 am on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
MS announced some time ago that IE8 was removable from Windows 7. Rather than having the EU dictate that they include competing products it seems to make some sense to instead include no browser at all.
| 12:24 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As has been pointed out, a method of downloading a browser will have to be provided. If Microsoft only provide a download method for Internet Explorer, they can expect a multi-billion dollar fine for contempt. If they provide no method to download a browser at all, they can expect a multi-billion dollar fine for contempt.
If they are willing to include a browser download method (during installation) why not make that offer to the EU Commission?
Of course, Microsoft can appeal when the time comes, but this is a war that they cannot win if the EU Commission stands firm. Others might disagree, but I consider the first rule of battle to be "never fight a war you cannot win".
There is absolutely no financial advantage to be gained by Microsoft by fighting the EU on this - it's just childish petulance.
| 2:21 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The question is, ship to who?
This happened once before with Windows Media Player. I think it was Real Networks who took them to court. MS was forced, by court order, to offer a version of Windows without Media Player. Of course, since Microsoft delivers to the consumer mostly through OEM vendors, the OEM vendors turned their back on the version wihout Media Player.
Why pay the same and get less?
So the question is, when faced with two different versions of Windows, one with IE and one without, which one will OEM vendors choose to market to their customers? The vendors aren't under court order about anything.
What an incredible waste of time and money and energy.
| 2:25 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
One last question occurs to me: Will the anti-trust judges at the EU be setting up a toll-free number to handle customer support?
| 2:53 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
how are you going to download a web browser without a web browser?
| 3:15 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
You can install it the same way we did it when installing Netscape/3.0 on Windows 95 before MSIE existed -- from a CD.
| 3:39 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|So the question is, when faced with two different versions of Windows, one with IE and one without |
Here's the thing... Microsoft don't get to choose how to comply with anti-trust laws, they have to obey instructions, just like every other company. In other words, if the EU commission orders MS to bundle other browsers, that's what they'll have to do. MS can't unilaterally choose their own remedy. This simple fact seems to have been missed.
| 3:55 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Pathetic. But surely MS will still have to include the IE engine in order for other various software to work (fully).
| 4:17 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
You are correct, the html help system requires all but Internet Explorer's front end/user interface. Other parts of the OS doubtless rely on IE libraries, etc. even if those libraries are no longer designated as belonging to IE.
| 6:08 am on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|before MSIE existed -- from a CD. |
MSIE3 used to be distributed on a single 1.44 floppie! Here comes the return to the AOL CDs!
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 (  2 ) > > |