Microsoft: No browserless Windows 7 after all
Microsoft's proposed "ballot screen" that would let users in Europe choose which browser they want on their PC.
(Credit: Microsoft)It looks like there won't be a browserless version of Windows 7, after all.
Microsoft said late Friday that it won't ship the Windows 7 "E" version of Windows even though Europe has yet to sign off on its revised plan. The plan calls for the company to ship Windows 7 with Internet Explorer, but present a ballot screen in which users in Europe can decide whether they want Internet Explorer or another browser.
The software maker had originally proposed shipping Windows 7 in Europe without a browser at all--the so-called "E" version of the operating system. However, European regulators indicated that might not satisfy its concerns.
Microsoft announced last week that it was open to the "ballot screen," but said that it would wait to can the browserless "E" version until European regulators approved its plan.
The software maker said late Friday that it decided to ship the same version of Windows 7 for Europe after PC makers complained that having to use the browserless version of Windows 7 for a short period of time would be a pain.
"In the wake of last week's developments, as well as continuing feedback on Windows 7 E that we have received from computer manufacturers and other business partners, I'm pleased to report that we will ship the same version of Windows 7 in Europe in October that we will ship in the rest of the world," deputy general counsel Dave Heiner said in a statement.
The commission had said it "welcomed" Microsoft's move, also giving the software maker some confidence that it could ship Windows 7 with the browser included. If the commission accepts Microsoft's proposal, it will fully implement that proposed ballot screen to Windows 7 buyers in Europe.
"One reason we decided not to ship Windows 7 'E' is concerns raised by computer manufacturers and partners," Heiner said. "Several worried about the complexity of changing the version of Windows that we ship in Europe if our ballot screen proposal is ultimately accepted by the Commission and we stop selling Windows 7 'E'. Computer manufacturers and our partners also warned that introducing Windows 7 'E', only to later replace it with a version of Windows 7 that includes IE, could confuse consumers about what version of Windows to buy with their PCs."
The move also solved a challenge for Vista users in Europe, who under the previous plan would have had to do a clean install to move to Windows 7. It also allows Microsoft to sell an "upgrade version" of Windows 7 in Europe. Microsoft had previously said it would only sell a full version of the OS, though it had said it would sell that at the upgrade price, at least for a time.
Those who pre-ordered Windows 7 "E" through a recent discount offer will get the full version, as Microsoft had promised. However, Microsoft plans to now sell Windows 7 upgrades in Europe and also offer a higher-priced full version (for those without an earlier copy of Windows)--similar to what it is doing in the rest of the world.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
And btw, that's even in the laws of the US. Look up "Sherman Act."
Maybe you should read "United States v. Microsoft", which attempted to break-up Microsoft under the Sherman Act, and was later overturned on appeal.
The subsequent settlement affirmed Microsoft's right to package IE with Windows.
This is similar to Microsoft's Genuine Advantage "spyware".
If you don't like it, don't buy it! or in case change it!
Of course the silly position of the EU was highlighted when MS said it would not ship IE. The EU got exactly what it wanted and went crying foul. They are just trying to fund thier recession off MS and Intel.
Here's the deal: if you demand that countries protect corporation's copyrights, the corporations must not create monopolies. But it seems to me that you want all the copyright laws, but none of the anti-monopoly laws. All the rights, none of the obligations.
I'd be fine with the abolition of anti-monopoly laws, if copyright laws were likewise abolished. Let Microsoft ship whatever browser they want -- and ALSO allow hackers to legally break into, modify and resell copies of those Windows without needing to hide anything they do.
Would you like that? No? How come? Why don't I have the right to make a million copies of Windows and resell them at a cheaper price than Microsoft would?
Wrong, most people who buy a computer are so technically illiterate, they couldn't really tell you what they are buying. They use whatever is in front of them, regardless of quality, in the case of Windows it is usually MS software which is extremely low quality.
But just ignore Opera, 99% of the world already does, and for good reason. Web page rendering in Opera is as bad (in different ways) as in IE7. Not talkin other features though.
The statement makes me laugh not because your wrong, but because of the standards thing. How often do I hear standard uttered. But it seams such a small portion of the market actually use the *official* standard they use this standard or that standard. But not the official standards. Its like .mkv files *its the standard* although almost no media extender can use it. But its the *standard*
So its funny that Opera is based on *Standards compliance* but does not work because everyone else codes for something else.
Does that not seam so odd?
The EU is the largest economy in the world - it knocked the US from the top spot in 2007. If Microsoft stopped selling their products in the EU, they would lose such insane amounts of revenue that they might as well kiss their business goodbye, because there would be a mass exodus of shareholders. MS will bend over backwards to comply (and they did).
Second, EU does not equal Europe. There are plenty of European countries outside the EU, outside the control of the EC regulatory body. Some clueless people have argued that the EU is doing this to give "their" products a competitive edge, but Opera is a Norwegian product and Norway is not a member of the EU. Needless to say, the EC is not keen on running errands on behalf of countries outside the Union, any more than the US would be to promote a Mexican browser.
Third, while this particular ruling is a bit silly (browser wars are so 1990's), the EC is doing a lot of things that have proven very beneficial for consumers by keeping companies on their toes and making sure that competition is alive and well. For example, the EU is years ahead of the US when it comes to 3G rollout and fast broadband penetration, and with much lower prices for these services, simply because the carriers are forced into cutthroat competition that keeps the technology cutting edge and the prices low. In the US, you're stuck with lazy giants like AT&T who rolled out 3G five years after the rest of the world, and you have to pay through the nose for crappy 10Mbit cable broadband that's considered antique in the EU.
A free market without regulations stagnates, and ironically you end up in a Soviet Union type situation where services are outdated, expensive and crappy. The only difference is that the monopoly is held by a single corporate giant instead of the government.
As for Europeans being stupid, well, you should know... your ancestors were probably European, which makes you a part of the EU gene pool.
When is the EU going to actually do something about competition the electricity market, something that practically ALL individuals and businesses need and have to BUY from a monopoly power company every month. Maybe when they stop worrying about something that only SOME individuals and businesses need and can get for FREE from a dozen or more sources.
Do the EU do anything about the illegal acts of Seimens, BEA Systems, the Swiss & Luxembourg banks, airline frieght carrier cartels, the European pharma cartel etc - no they don't, at least not before the USA takes them to court.
But for the USA, todays Europeans would be ruled by a Nazi Third Reich and their Fascist mates and/or a Stalinist USSR.
Oh and the smart Europeans emigrated decades if not centuries years ago.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. Having dealt with both Private and government run Electrical companies. I would never go back to private.
US Average .11kw/w EU is .10 kw/h they are bang on similar.
I'm not sure what you are saying about free? As in Free electricity? If so where is that?
As for Europe been ruled by the Russians or Germans, yes the US was a big help, but there was a lot more to it then that. The war in Europe was an Axxis vs Allies even Canada which is 1/10 the population of the US had over 1 million ground troops in Europe during WW2. 730k signed up the first year (1939) WW2 was a combined effort not a singular. It is not a slight to the US, it is a recognition that there was a lot more to it that many don't remember or think about.
For every large EU company you listed off could we not list off as many or more US based companies *cough* banks that have ripped us off?
Nothing is free, and nothing is as simple as you make it out to be.
It is illegal to use one monopoly to gain a new one.
This law is suppose to preserve true competition an innovation.
Now ask yourself why Microsoft did no work on IE after they won they browser wars.
Who suffered? Customers did.
Now that we have some competition, there has been some great innovation in the browser space.
Look up "Sherman Act."
And next time, better luck at trolling.
Do you have that same post saved somewhere on your computer ready to go every time someone tries to stand up for Microsoft?
PS Better luck at trolling next time.
As far as I am concerned, the difference is that browsers for the other platforms are not tied to those platforms. IE is only available for Windows and supports technologies that are proprietary to Windows and therefore web applications that use those technologies can only be accessed on computers that are running Windows. That's where my issue with IE bundling comes from - Microsoft has exploited IE to lock parts of the Internet to Windows.
So Microsoft should open source active-x? Would that make you happy?
The fluctuations of market share prove that "Microsoft has exploited IE to lock parts of the Internet to Windows."
Sorry its late but...SAFARI COMES WITH MAC OS!!!! FIREFOX COMES WITH RED HAT!!!!! ITS ALL THE SAME!!! YOU CAN USE FIREFOX, SAFARI, etc on any Microsoft OS. Im using Safari to write this comment. Also, Im not trolling...unless you mean that by sharing my person opinion is trolling.
A Monopoly is defined as:
Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
Pronunciation: \m?-?nä-p(?-)l?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mo·nop·o·lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monop?lion, from mon- + p?lein to sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
Last time I checked MS does not have the OS market in its tightly clinched fist as Im sure none of you are responding from a Windows OS. If you can install a browser from any other maker, you can not call it a monopoly because that is out side of the definition. Im sure you can say that Dodge has the market cornered in Pickup trucks, but Im sure Ford would argue with you on that. What you are all refering too is an Oligopoly.
An Ologopoy is a "market situation in which there may be many independent buyers and many independent sellers but competition is imperfect because of product differentiation, geographical fragmentation of the market, or some similar condition. The theory was developed almost simultaneously by the American economist Edward Hastings Chamberlin in his Theory of Monopolistic Competition (1933) and by the British economist Joan Robinson in her Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933)"(www.britanica.com) Think Power Plants. If what you are saying is in anyway a monopoly you would see no other availible products or substatutes.
Just wanted to leave you with a quote from Senator George Hoar co-author of the Sherman Act of 1890:
According to Senator George Hoar, an author of the bill, any company that "got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could" would not be in violation of the act.
Go suck it! @t8 and JoeF2
Other than that, this is exactly what I said they must do. No copy that tries to convince anyone that IE8 is necessary in any way, or that it is default, or that it is already installed and the others are optional, etc.
But they should have check boxes under each one, and a single "Install Checked Browser(s)" making it clear that you can install as many as you want and try them out.
There are plenty of people who do not realize they can have more than one installed, use different ones for different reasons, etc.
IE has been using it for years.
So has FF so has Opera.
Who cares.
Why not put their browser first? It's THEIR FREAKING SOFTWARE. I mean, come on now... get a clue! How else would list them? Aphabetical? Popularity? Ikramerica--2008's choice first?
Let's just say they put Chrome first. Then you'll be complaining that Firefox wasn't listed first. Put Firefox first and you slight Chrome fans. Safari? Same thing.
Just goes to prove you can't please everyone... there's always going to be someone who wants to complain.
And that's true even in the US. Look up "Sherman Act."
And better luck trolling next time...
BUt seriously it doesnt make sense to me to force MS to quit installing its software while there are much more obvious anti-competitive actions done by Apple. App store itself is a disaster in my opinion. ( Ofcourse I has benefits with no doubt . But it should be up to developer where to sell the software )
As for the iPhone App Store, sure that whole thing is dubious to begin with and the FCC is actually looking into it right now (they beat the EC to it). The whole idea of Apple dictating which 3rd party software you can and can't have is ridiculous. They must either open up the App Store to any and all submitted software, or open the iPhone to other stores. The whole iPod/iTunes bi-directional lock-in thing is something the EC has started to question lately, given Apple's crushing dominance in the portable music player world (again, it would be a non-issue if their market share was negligible).
That's just the way it is. Go after the big fish.
Regardless of your opinions of MS, the bottom line is they have been getting away with antitrust issues for years. The legal world had little to no understanding of software and operating systems back in the 80s, so precedents were hard to come by. They got away with a lot in the 80's and 90's, but since the Netscape battles, the legal world have finally come to understand the implications of MS activities, and the antitrust issues their methods of doing business create. But, even when found guilty they are just fined large sums of money... which for MS are not large at all.
People talk about Google as a potential antitrust target also, but so far they have not used their advertising monopoly to attempt to create more monopolies in other areas of business, and force out competition. However, there are a number of issues looming for Google that will really test this in the next few years.
While the ballot may sound less than ideal, it could be a pretty good answer for Europe and indeed the rest of the world. The only thing that needs to be closely monitored are the tag lines. Sounds like a small issue, but any false advertising by MS, or any of the browsers for that matter, will just raise more arguments and legal complications. Use of words like "speed" or "faster" for example should be avoided if that browser is one of the slowest on the ballot. Same with "safer", with regards to security issues.
The ballot could and should work, but it needs to stay simple and user friendly, so that even the most ignorant user who could not care less about antitrust, and does not understand or care about browser options, finds the ballot a simple process that is not misleading.
I suppose I can credit the fact that I don't get "viruses left and right" to my lack of ignorance.
One vulnerability in IE is all it takes to get past UAC and every other bit of security software installed on your system to give the attacker full control of your system. Just one.
One vulnerability in FF is all it takes to get past... Firefox.
Unless IE in Windows 7 is handled vastly different, it still has the same vulnerabilities.
That's simply untrue. A quick check of the National Vulnerability Database reveals quite a few vulnerabilities listed for Fx that allow remote code execution. Plug-ins such as Flash and Java in Fx also pose significant vulnerabilities. These issues impact not only Windows OS's but Mac OSx and Linux as well.
I suggest you also check the Mozilla Foundation Security Advisories at:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/
There have been 18 critical vulnerabilities with Fx so far this year.
The Fx 3.5.1 update released July 16, 2009 was in response to a zero day exploit involving malicious code execution via a JIT JS flaw with TraceMonkey.
Ubuntu released a security notice on March 6, 2009 detailing CVE-2009-0772, CVE-2009-0774, CVE-2009-0776 vulnerablilities in Firefox with the possibility of arbitrary code execution.
Running IE8 in protected mode on Vista offers greater security through restricted access to processes, files, and registry keys with higher integrity levels. ActiveX controls are also restricted. DEP and ASLR offer protection against remotely executed malware. Neither Firefox or Safari offer similar protection, though Chrome does.
They call Americans dumb! lololololololol!
Seems funny that the Commission doesn't want IE bundled with the OS, yet they also don't want it to not be bundled with the OS. Catch 22
Worthless, we already knew about it, we didn't want it before and we sure as hell don't want it now.
Since education doesn't appear to be one of your strong points: Opera is a NORWEGIAN product and Norway isn't part of the EU where the EC resides. The EU has no self-interest in promoting Opera, and Opera is only one of the parties involved (Firefox/Mozilla are also in on this). It has nothing to do with loyalties, the EC fights monopolies no matter who holds them. In case you haven't missed it, the ballot screen also features Safari (American), Firefox (American) and Google Chrome (American). None of the products originate from the EU.
Sure, you can download any browser you want but most people simply don't. IE exploded in popularity when Win98 was released, this wasn't because Windows users suddenly started to love IE, it was because it was preinstalled. There are millions and millions of users who simply don't bother with downloads at all. Nearly every PC I've seen owned by people over 50 has nothing but the default stuff on them... they replace the wallpaper with some family photo and that's as far as they go in terms of modifying with the system. Introducing an active choice will make quite the difference. Many will go for the familiar IE icon on the ballot screen anyway, but some will click on something else.
- by gerrrg August 1, 2009 11:40 AM PDT
- China called; they want Microsoft to ship Windows7 with RedBrowser that filters all content and websites deemed counter to the Communist credo and state.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by SwissJay August 1, 2009 8:16 PM PDT
- LOL ;)
- Like this
-
- by The_happy_switcher August 3, 2009 8:04 AM PDT
- The year 2000 called--they want that joke telling style back.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (112 Comments)Iran left a message; they want Microsoft to ship Windows7 with AyatollahBrowser that prevents access to any website outside of Iran.
The KKK sent email; they want Microsoft to ship Windows7 with WhitePowerBrowser that locks out all content that promotes multiculturalism.