Microsoft went further - they prohibited OEM manufacturers from installing other browsers on computers prior to shipping (and there was the infamous pretending they couldn't easily be remove IE from Windows during DoJ v Microsoft).
Microsoft to release Windows 7 in Europe without IE8
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
Microsoft went further - they prohibited OEM manufacturers from installing other browsers on computers prior to shipping (and there was the infamous pretending they couldn't easily be remove IE from Windows during DoJ v Microsoft).
The second I'm familiar with, of course. But I never new they prohibited OEM manufacturers from making choices like that. That's a bit... unethical, isn't it? Or is it simply self-protection?
well it's part of what landed them in trouble with the DoJ for anti-competitive practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Fortunately for Microsoft the case against them was dropped in 2001
Oh and reading wiki it should be United States v Microsoft
OK so I can agree that Microsoft trying to keep OEMs from providing other browsers is wrong.
I don't agree that IE is broken from most peoples prespective. I had tried firefox and opera before. Gave them what I thought was a good shot, a few weeks. I did not notice any improvemnet over IE6/7. So I stuck with what I knew. Now it's diffrent, using IE8 I have noticed a diffrance and for the first time I too have noticed some things other browsers support that IE dosn't (before it was the other way around).
Firefox has been getting better, and as more and more people notice, word will spread. I don't think you need the EU to do Firefox's, Opera's, or Safari's job for them.
I don't agree that IE is broken from most peoples prespective. I had tried firefox and opera before. Gave them what I thought was a good shot, a few weeks. I did not notice any improvemnet over IE6/7. So I stuck with what I knew. Now it's diffrent, using IE8 I have noticed a diffrance and for the first time I too have noticed some things other browsers support that IE dosn't (before it was the other way around).
Firefox has been getting better, and as more and more people notice, word will spread. I don't think you need the EU to do Firefox's, Opera's, or Safari's job for them.
Can't say I've ever gotten in Opera too much but one of the biggest things that I liked with Firefox was tabbed browsing when Microsoft release IE6 around the same time and didn't offer it.
I understand why you'd think that. The front-end of Internet Explorer (the buttons, menu's and such) don't have serious problems. The back-end (engine, if you will) however, does. If you buy a Smart, you'd think it perfect, until you realize the engine can't keep up on the highway.
So Internet Explorer doesn't look broken. That's because it's a vicious circle, you see; the webdesigners are instructed to use little to no modern technology in order to cater for the Internet Explorer users. Those users, in turn, don't notice a large difference on the websites they visit when they try out anything else, thus they stay with Internet Explorer. So, when a new website is commissioned, the webdesigners are, again, instructed to use little to no modern technology in order to cater for the Internet Explorer users.
And while it doesn't cost the user anything to switch to another browser, except perhaps an hour or so to get completely comfortable with it, it costs the businesses if they try to create modern websites that Internet Explorer can't (correctly) display. So they rather not take that chance, until the percentage of Internet Explorer users drops enough.
The less people use Internet Explorer, the more vibrant, interactive and stunning websites will become.
Any method of removing IE-as-application, sure. But the web engine DLLs that other applications (like Steam) rely on still need to be included.
As long as any browser manufacturer can have themselves added to the list, sure. It shouldn't be a popularity contest.
At the time, c. Windows 98/2000, it couldn't be easily removed. It took them over five years to finally separate the two in Vista.
Only the OCX and the Trident HTML engine DLL needs to be retained then; that hardly constitutes the full Internet Explorer browser (it consists of over 30-40 files in your System32 folder, depending on the version).
No, but it should be limited to some degree. You can't expect people to choose from 25 browsers. And the level of technology the browser's implemented is as good a standard as any; you'd want the browser you could use to visit the most modern websites, since that's its function; to display websites and to display them correctly.
It was always possible to remove it from Windows; all stripping-software like "nLite" had options for removing a part or everything of Internet Explorer. Now the software wasn't available in the time of Windows 98/2000, but with a little knowledge you could easily do it yourself. Get an install package, unpack it, note the components down. Unregister the same components in your Windows installation and remove them. Easy as pie.
Yes, you'd lose your 'web view' in folders and if you removed everything, the OCX as well (and thus things like the help file in cheap software or the media browser in Winamp). But it didn't make Windows any less functional, effectively.
If the EU is going to interfere with a private company's operations in the name of choice, then they need to enforce real choice, and not just try to bolster a Norwegian company's coffers.
G
Garrovick
Guest
How about the EU just banning Windows all all together?
There are obviously well versed computer programmers in the EU.
The EU should stop the go after the "fine dollar" silliness and get it's own OS.
And any one else who doesn't like what MS does, use Linux or OSX. Ubuntu like me.
There are obviously well versed computer programmers in the EU.
The EU should stop the go after the "fine dollar" silliness and get it's own OS.
And any one else who doesn't like what MS does, use Linux or OSX. Ubuntu like me.
Why do people keep missing the fucking point.
Anti-competitive behavior is against the law in most western countries.
Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices and that broke the law.
Now when you break the law you're subjected to sanction for it.
That wouldn't work. It's not as if Windows is completely crappy; strip out all the junk and you're left with a reasonable operating system. It could be better on quite a few fronts, yes. But it's still more usable and user-friendly then any Linux you can name. And has way more software available then OS-X. So most people will still want Windows. Trying to ban Windows itself is an exercise in futility.
But the sanctions for anti-competitive behavior shouldn't be further (arguably worse) anti-competitive behavior.