Browserless Windows 7 refuses to go gracefully
Microsoft says it doesn't plan to ever ship a browserless "E" version of Windows 7, though that's still the version being offered by many of its European online stores.
(Credit: CNET News)With its plans now centered on creating a ballot screen where users can choose which browsers to install, Microsoft has no plans to ever ship the browserless "E" versions of Windows 7.
Curiously, though, the "E" versions are still listed for sale on several versions of Microsoft's European online store. Nor did the software maker have a clear explanation of why those versions are still listed, weeks after the company said that it would ship the same version globally.
Although the UK site seems to have it right, many of the non-English sites, including Spanish, Dutch, and German versions, list only the "E" or "N" versions of the operating system. As it did with Vista, Microsoft does plan to continue selling an "N" version in Europe, which has the media player removed.
"Microsoft is working to refresh its international online store sites, just like retailers are now," the software maker said in a statement. The fact that the "E" versions were still listed was first noted by enthusiast site AeroXP.
In any case, Microsoft is being clear that it has no plans to ship a browserless version--those that preorder the "E" version will get the standard version.
As first reported by CNET News, Microsoft told computer makers in June that it planned to ship Windows 7 without a browser in Europe to try to address regulators' issues. However, both competitors and regulators expressed concerns with that plan. Ultimately, Microsoft reversed itself and said it was open to the "ballot screen" idea where consumers can choose which browsers they wish to install.
Earlier this week, Microsoft said that it would end on September 1 an offer to European buyers to get the full version of Windows 7 for the upgrade price, a relic of the browserless plan in which Microsoft said it would sell only the full version of the operating system.
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. 
If the idiotic beaurocrats in the EU insist that Microsoft remove all that code, 95% of all Internet-aware applications will stop working. Way to go protecting the consumer!
It is simply a DOUBLE STANDARD, and anyone who says otherwise or tries to justify it with the 'Microsoft is a monopoly!' BS needs a good slap to the face to wake them up into the real world.
Read Serge's explanation. It's quite clear.
MS tried to make it seem like IE was REQUIRED to be used, and tried to tie system components directly to IE to force it's use. This included Windows update, etc. And IE was not standards compliant.
This stifled competition. So IE was punished for PAST ACTIONS. They subsequently "broke off" IE from Windows, but the damage was done to their reputation.
Apple does no such thing and never did. Safari is a stand alone application, and though it ships with the OS, it can be removed, never used, and no part of the system will stop working. Safari is also standards compliant and is based on WebKit, the same foundation that drives other browsers.
Only ignorance can equate the two.
IE is a part of Windows only as much as Safari is a part of OS X. OS X uses WebKit, Windows uses Trident, but here are no significant architectural differences between the two.
Apple should be forced to ship OS X without Safari, and be fined for illegally using its iPod monopoly to stifle competition from other manufacturers.
You've taken simple corporate business competition between Apple and Microsoft and turned it into your own rabid emotional obsession. What did Microsoft do, kill your cat? Do you even have a rational reason for your blatently unreasonable posts besides the fact that you own a Mac. You've lost your objectivety and your relevence. Even other Mac users have shown objections to you and your tactics. Seek help and go away.
+1
Opera might be better than IE, but compared to Firefox, Chrome, Safari and others, it sucks
I never said it was the best. I said it was better than IE. As far as Firefox it is becoming clunky, and Chrome is well I love google but I do not want everything to be googlized.
In order of preference..
1. Firefox
2. Chrome/Opera
3. Safari
4. Internet Explorer
You don't have a solution. You think you're just penalizing the EU or even Microsoft. History has shown that this kind of "Scorched Earth policy" idealology usually ends up penalizing the wrong people. You could count your own Systems Administrator position as one potential victim.
Microsoft keeps on getting fines, and it's better to get rid of the fines early.
Just a joke. Jeez.
Stop being such MS troll. My personal preferences in browser are Firefox and Flock browsers. Safari, Chrome and Opera work just fine too.
Excellent point
Secondly, it?s absolutely crazy to conclude that MS should have to include their competitors products in their own. Imagine for a second that when I want to buy a car where XM is the only option should the car company then be forced to include Sirrus? Nope, either I live with it or I go find another car or I find a way to install a third party radio on my own.
This leads to my third point, ANYONE who cares enough to not want IE installed on their pc has the option of finding and alternative. On their own. Its been a while since I?ve used IE but for me it is a requirement as some of the systems that I support REQUIRE IE 6 etc. These are in some case multimillion dollar pieces of equipment so that require three and four 9?s of up time, so a recode is out of the question. For my personal usage Opera is more than sufficient (loads of other benefits which I won?t get into here) it?s not perfect but it works.
The EU is simply interested in throwing its weight around as the browser doesn?t hold the weight that it once did.
2. When buying a PC specify browser you want or have someone download one for you
3. As far as older people they can learn.
- by MichaelEHarmon August 29, 2009 1:37 PM PDT
- So many of you are missing the point. I can't believe you're all arguing about this when you don't understand the details.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(48 Comments)The problem is that Microsoft designed Windows to REQUIRE IE for certain OS functions to work. This includes OS updates. These are things that really shouldn't require a specific web browser, or really any web browser. Imagine not being able to install security updates and service pack updates. That's what would happen if you completely removed IE from Windows XP, and Microsoft intentionally designed it that way.
Sure you could install Firefox or Safari and use them for web browsing. The thing is that Microsoft designed Windows to use their web browser for things that should really be part of the OS instead of requiring a web browser that was originally designed to load web pages!!! They did it to prevent their customers from removing it. This equates to a higher percentage of users using IE (it's installed already and easy to find) and therefore making Microsoft more money from internet advertising. These free web browsers make money for their companies by directing users to ad support search engines. Also it gives Microsoft, already a monopoly, the power to render standards compliance a moot point. This gives MS the power to hurt their competitors on the internet as much as it does on the desktop. It's underhanded abuse of power to gain more power.
Understand?
Michael