| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) || |
|Opera files antitrust complaint with the EU|
| 1:14 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The complaint describes how Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards. Opera has requested the Commission to take the necessary actions to compel Microsoft to give consumers a real choice and to support open Web standards in Internet Explorer. |
| 7:35 am on Dec 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The way I see it is Windows internet explorer is part of the OS, the same system is used for windows exporer as is used for internet browsing. |
You actually buy that argument Mack?
Windows could view directories and files on the disk long before MSIE ever existed.
Microsoft just cooked up that "it's in the OS" nonsense so they could shoe-horn MSIE into every machine and destroy Netscape and avoid the anti-trust making them take it out since it was "in the OS".
Having used Windows since 2.0x, I know it's a steaming load.
| 10:25 am on Dec 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yep I buy it. If the OS didnt have a file explorer it would be as good as useless, if you produce a browser and an os would you not include your own browser as part of it. Why would you include 3rd party software.
I also think Marcia made a great point. In a lot of cases it is not MS that do the bundling. it is often the OEM supplier HP, compaq etc.
| 11:24 am on Dec 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If the OS didnt have a file explorer it would be as good as useless |
Maybe I didn't make my point - they had a Windows Explorer before it became MSIE.
The 2 utilities had absolutely nothing in common until MS forced them to be in common.
Next thing I know you're going to tell me eMail is part of the OS and you'll get an earful.
| 12:42 am on Dec 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Microsoft Responds to Opera Complaint [windowsitpro.com] |
Microsoft on Friday issued an official reply to a complaint by browser maker Opera that the inclusion of Internet Explorer (IE) in Windows is somehow anti-competitive. According to the software giant, the proliferation of browsers in the market place, including a new Windows-compatible version of Apple's Safari in the past year, proves that Opera's complaint is baseless.
"Computer users have freedom of choice to use and set as default any browser they wish, including Opera, and PC manufacturers can also preinstall any browser as the default on any Windows machine they sell," a Microsoft spokesperson said. "Microsoft is committed to ensuring that freedom through our Windows Principles."
| 1:11 am on Dec 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Good for Microsoft, they're 100% right. And it's proven out by FACTS that computer manufacturers include software that isn't Microsoft; not only browsers, but other types of software as well.
They have for years. I bought a NEC Windows 98 computer back in September, 1998 that included, among other things, both MS Money and Quicken (just to mention two)- just not the most current versions, so what? They were the latest, greatest when the versions first came out, they don't stop working fine just because of planned obsolescence by software manufacturers.
And HP/Compaq (with HUGE retail distribution) include a TON of system-hogging junk that's a pain to find and uninstall, that is not from Microsoft.
I have never yet encountered a website that didn't work in IE - not so with FF, though I've started using it a lot. A very tiny percentage of sites are put together by perfectionistic CSS "religious fanatics" and IMHO it's far more inportant to be WEBSITE compliant than W3C compliant. The W3 doesn't make the wheel go around, information and ecommerce do.
| 3:42 am on Dec 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Good for Microsoft, they're 100% right |
Well... yeah... sorta...
Opera files antitrust complaint with the EU
Urges Microsoft to give consumers a genuine choice of standardsócompliant Web browsers [opera.com]
|The complaint calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy. |
Microsoft's unilateral control over standards in some markets creates a de facto standard that is more costly to support, harder to maintain, and technologically inferior and that can even expose users to security risks.
It's easier to be "100% right" if/when you (conveniently?) forget to address the actual issues of the complaint
|I have never yet encountered a website that didn't work in IE |
Lucky for you
And I wish you just as much luck if/when you're ever asked to maintain an existing site that was NOT written to standards.
[edited by: tedster at 4:44 am (utc) on Dec. 18, 2007]
| 10:05 am on Jan 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Opera's Complaint Update [people.opera.com]
|Some people have asked: Which standards should IE have to support? Who should write the list? Fortunately, we don't need for someone to decide on a list. This is what Microsoft wrote in 1998: |
|"Microsoft has a deep commitment to working with the W3C on HTML and CSS...We are still committed to complete implementations of the Recommendations of the W3C in this area (CSS and HTML and the DOM)." |
As you can see, Microsoft picked the standards themselves and there is no need for the European Commission or Opera to do so. When Microsoft promises to support a standard, we think they should use their best efforts to do so. When they don't, we think it's fair to say so.
btw.. Marcia, your comment doesn't make much sense to me - what defines "website" compliance. Surely in order to have compliance of any sort you need a set of "accepted standards". Which 'websites' should set these standards or would you be happy that MSIE should have free reign?
I know it's late but I'm always offline for most of December and am just catching up!
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) |