PDA

View Full Version : Europe to get Windows 7 sans browser



Dragonbite
June 11th, 2009, 06:18 PM
How come Europeans are the lucky ones to get Windows without Internet Explorer?


Europe to get Windows 7 sans browser
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10262630-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)
Microsoft plans to remove Internet Explorer from the versions of Windows 7 that it ships in Europe, CNET News has learned.

Reacting to antitrust concerns expressed by European regulators, Microsoft plans to offer a version in Europe that has the browser removed. Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers, according to a confidential memo that was sent to PC makers and seen by CNET News.

Of course, that doesn't mean Microsoft does not have a "deal" with to make it look like they were complying while secretly forcing computer makers to include it?

omar8
June 11th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Ooops didn't read it properly. Anyway, I would rather IE than any other browser. I will install Google Chrome and thats that. All this will do is end up having Firefox and opera and google chrome all installed at the same time so that companies like Dell make maximum profit. Also, many computers already come with Firefox installed by default anyway, I know both my dell laptops did.

benj1
June 11th, 2009, 06:50 PM
i thought the plan was to bundle other browsers with windows.
what are we supposed to do now? go out and buy netscape navigator, how 1995.

i note they will be removing media player aswell.

Exershio
June 11th, 2009, 07:00 PM
Hmm, so how will I go to http://getfirefox.com to download a new browser then?

billgoldberg
June 11th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Hmm, so how will I go to http://getfirefox.com to download a new browser then?

Yes, it will ship without a browser ...

Off course there will be a browser installed, it might just not be IE.

CJ Master
June 11th, 2009, 07:42 PM
Remember the days of Windows 95/8 where they actually gave you links to the other competing browsers? Maybe it'll be like that.

omar8
June 11th, 2009, 08:13 PM
The ideal solution would be to put like 5 installers on the desktop, one for firefox, one for chrome, one for safari, one for opera and one for IE. :)

kamitsukai
June 11th, 2009, 08:54 PM
The ideal solution would be to put like 5 installers on the desktop, one for firefox, one for chrome, one for safari, one for opera and one for IE. :)

that will never happen it will just confuse the end user...

some exec in dell or hp/ other PC builder's will decide which one to install and do it

zolookas
June 11th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Hmm, so how will I go to http://getfirefox.com to download a new browser then?

You can always use command line ftp client (yes, in Windows).
Open command prompt. Type:

ftp ftp.mozilla.orgThen login with user "anonymous" and any password
you can use ls and cd commands there to navigate, you will probably want to go here:

cd /pub/firefox/releases/latest/win32now cd to your language directory, for example:
cd en-USand then download it
get "Firefox 3.0.10.exe"Then wait for download to finish and finally type
quit
You should now have Firefox 3.0.10.exe file in your current directory.

gn2
June 11th, 2009, 09:02 PM
How come Europeans are the lucky ones to get Windows without Internet Explorer?

Because the EU hauled Microsoft over the coals?

spoons
June 11th, 2009, 09:10 PM
Because the EU hauled Microsoft over the coals?

And got a stack load of money off them too, remember...

aysiu
June 11th, 2009, 09:13 PM
I'm not a fan of this idea.

Microsoft should have every right to have its own browser in Windows by default.

If anything, the EU should force Microsoft to make it easy to remove Internet Explorer. The fact that you have to keep IE installed to get Windows updates is ridiculous. Can you imagine if Ubuntu got updates through Firefox instead of Update Manager or simple apt-get?

MikeTheC
June 11th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Oh, cry me a river folks. I am so sick and tired of hearing all the complaints and everything else. If you think you and/or others are getting screwed by Microsoft's products, why do you continue to allow them power over society and relevance in your life?

I only wish that Windows 7 PCs were shipped totally sans browser, with detailed instructions on how to go about acquiring a browser of their choosing. Maybe that'd get a bunch of people to quit using the thing who shouldn't be using them in the first place.

gn2
June 11th, 2009, 09:30 PM
And got a stack load of money off them too, remember...

Indeed, $1.4 billion.

We took a tidy sum away from Intel too, $1.5 billion.

alexcckll
June 11th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Oh, cry me a river folks. I am so sick and tired of hearing all the complaints and everything else. If you think you and/or others are getting screwed by Microsoft's products, why do you continue to allow them power over society and relevance in your life?

I only wish that Windows 7 PCs were shipped totally sans browser, with detailed instructions on how to go about acquiring a browser of their choosing. Maybe that'd get a bunch of people to quit using the thing who shouldn't be using them in the first place.
I think we're giggling at M$ more than crying about it...

stmiller
June 11th, 2009, 09:50 PM
You can uninstall IE in Windows 7. In the control panel where you remove windows components.

That will make the computer immediately 400x more secure.

I plan on doing this for family members. :)

Closed_Port
June 11th, 2009, 09:59 PM
I'm not a fan of this idea.

Microsoft should have every right to have its own browser in Windows by default.

Why? Why shouldn't OEM's be able to sell windows with an other browser?

aysiu
June 11th, 2009, 10:26 PM
Why? Why shouldn't OEM's be able to sell windows with an other browser?
Well, I'm not saying Microsoft should have a right to force OEMs to keep Internet Explorer on default installations.

I'm saying no one should be able to force Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer from Windows.

Closed_Port
June 11th, 2009, 10:32 PM
Well, I'm not saying Microsoft should have a right to force OEMs to keep Internet Explorer on default installations.

Well, if I understand it correctly, that's exactly what's happening. Because of antitrust concerns MS will make it possible for OEMs in Europe to ship windows without IE and with an other browser. Seems pretty sensible to me.

Ms_Angel_D
June 11th, 2009, 10:36 PM
I kinda have a problem with somebody telling them they can't put their own products inside their own product.

To me it's kinda like saying You can sell your own cups and you can sell your own lemonade but you can sell the lemonade already inside the cup.

But on the other side of the coin it does make things interesting in light of Mozilla's new Build Your Own Browser Program (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10261716-16.html). I'm sure people will now start to see loads of pre-built OEM machines with OEM branded browsers.

mcduck
June 11th, 2009, 10:40 PM
I can only hope this ends better than the "Windows XP without Media Player"-thing, which resulted in special XP version that had no Media Player included, but was in reality pretty much impossible to find anywhere, and even if you managed to find one it costed more than the normal XP box.. :P

Actually I pretty much expect all OEMs to include IE in their setups anyway, as if Microsoft is able to find any way to "encourage" OEM's to do that without getting too much troubles they will definitely do it..

aysiu
June 11th, 2009, 10:57 PM
Well, if I understand it correctly, that's exactly what's happening. Because of antitrust concerns MS will make it possible for OEMs in Europe to ship windows without IE and with an other browser. Seems pretty sensible to me.
But if Microsoft simply makes IE easy to remove, then why would it have to ship Windows without IE? Why couldn't OEMs just remove IE themselves?

meeples
June 11th, 2009, 10:59 PM
this isnt really that appropriate but it made me lol.


windows vista is very tasty indeed.

MellonCollie
June 11th, 2009, 11:01 PM
The fact that you have to keep IE installed to get Windows updates is ridiculous.


You don't need Internet Explorer for Windows Update in Vista and 7. The Windows Update control panel applet still uses the Trident HTML rendering engine though, but they'll never remove that from Windows due to the amount of apps that use it.

Closed_Port
June 11th, 2009, 11:06 PM
But if Microsoft simply makes IE easy to remove, then why would it have to ship Windows without IE? Why couldn't OEMs just remove IE themselves?
I'm not an expert, but iirc OEMs weren't allowed to remove IE.
But I don't really understand your point: What would be the benefit of making it easy to remove IE (I haven't used Windows 7, so I don't really know if it's hard to remove) and the OEMs removing it themselves or MS offering a version with IE already removed?

benj1
June 12th, 2009, 12:01 AM
i reckon theyve done it so when people buy it off the self with no browser, everyone complains to the EU for forcing microsoft to remove IE, at which point microsoft can ride in and rebundle IE, therefore saving people from the nasty EU.
remember no ruling has been made on this, has any legal action actually gone ahead ?

MellonCollie
June 12th, 2009, 12:16 AM
i reckon theyve done it so when people buy it off the self with no browser, everyone complains to the EU for forcing microsoft to remove IE

I doubt it. I'd say that the vast majority of people who buy Windows off-the-shelf would be aware of this (minor) issue. It's usually geeks who buy their OSs retail.

CharmyBee
June 12th, 2009, 12:19 AM
Remember the days of Windows 95/8 where they actually gave you links to the other competing browsers? Maybe it'll be like that.

That's not what it was like. ISP's media (Disks or CDs) usually shipped with either IE or Netscape, and physically was how most people got them.

drawkcab
June 12th, 2009, 01:04 AM
If you told me I could dump windows media player and IE in win7, I might actually try it.

stmiller
June 12th, 2009, 03:03 AM
If you told me I could dump windows media player and IE in win7, I might actually try it.

You can. :)

MikeTheC
June 12th, 2009, 03:09 AM
this isnt really that appropriate but it made me lol.


windows vista is very tasty indeed.

Spaceeba. (Or how-the-heck ever that's transliterated...)

hanzomon4
June 12th, 2009, 03:37 AM
This is dumb. What are people who buy the Win7 box suppose to do? EU you suck, an OS without a browser is hardly an OS at all

CharmyBee
June 12th, 2009, 03:43 AM
This is dumb. What are people who buy the Win7 box suppose to do? EU you suck, an OS without a browser is hardly an OS at all

You seem to forget that an OS without a browser (especially integrated), is what many people wanted to see for a long time. Windows 95 didn't come with any. Linux didn't come with any, either.

It's not like you can't get Firefox physically.

jonian_g
June 12th, 2009, 04:04 AM
Broesers make money. If IE is preinstalled in 90% of computers then microsoft will make more money from their competitors.
That's anticompetitive. And in EU is against the laws.

jonian_g
June 12th, 2009, 04:09 AM
This is dumb. What are people who buy the Win7 box suppose to do? EU you suck, an OS without a browser is hardly an OS at all

Better that the US that is doing all the big companies blowjobs.

lykwydchykyn
June 12th, 2009, 04:46 AM
So, let me get this straight:
-You are an OEM selling PCs with Windows
-You have the option to ship Windows with IE, or Windows with an alternative browser that --even these days-- is not going to work with a lot of websites.
-You want you customers to be happy

Anyone want to guess exactly how many OEMs are going to ship non-IE Windows?

hanzomon4
June 12th, 2009, 04:55 AM
You seem to forget that an OS without a browser (especially integrated), is what many people wanted to see for a long time. Windows 95 didn't come with any. Linux didn't come with any, either.

It's not like you can't get Firefox physically.

Who cares what people wanted in the 90s a browser is essential today.


Broesers make money. If IE is preinstalled in 90% of computers then microsoft will make more money from their competitors.
That's anticompetitive. And in EU is against the laws.

So what! MS makes windows they can include whatever browser they want. OEMS having a choice? yeah sure it's their systems, they paid for windows they can put whatever browser they want.

But no browser, how is anybody gonna make money? I've never seen a boxed copy of firefox and even if one exist it's a. Not easier to get then downloading it b. I'm sure it cost money and c. Ubuntu/firefox OSX/Safari, are they going to lose browsers too?


Better that the US that is doing all the big companies blowjobs.

Umm relevance? Funny as hell, I'll give you that.

papangul
June 12th, 2009, 06:46 AM
How are people supposed to install a browser on Windows 7. EU should have directed MS to provide a menu for installing any one of the five popular browsers on first boot.Like google chrome offers a choice of search engines on first run.

MikeTheC
June 12th, 2009, 06:56 AM
If European OEMs sell customers computers without browsers instead of trying to either push their own agenda or make up users' minds for them, I fail to see how this is a bad thing (except for the OEMs themselves, I suppose).

I, for one, would love to see fewer people having computers. It'd mean we'd have fewer idiots to deal with.

jocheem67
June 12th, 2009, 07:28 AM
The main IT-website in Holland is reporting on this thing extensively...there are as many people against the bundling - thing as there are in favor.

But the argument "that MS has the right to make their own product and include whatever they want" doen't apply here anymore. MS is a monopolist and that in Europe brings some responsibilities/rules. Actually the European laws state that every company should have a fair chance to get into the market. Concerning the MS/IE thing this is a big problem for mozilla and in fact opera ( they started the complaints ). They just cannot compete with a bundled IE.
So here's where "Europe" warns MS to give the other companies a chance...

In what form?? There's nothing decisive yet, it might be the oem's that make the choice what initial browser to use. It might be a "wget" kind of program that give the costumers the options on what browser to download...
There are user-friendly options enough to think of.

Bottom-line is that equal competiting is good for trade in general, and that's where MS has to comply.

Nothing wrong with that. That capitalism in general needs rules, is something that's a more or less well accepted idea right now.
It's well-known that to become the biggest MS has not always played openly and frankly.





I, for one, would love to see fewer people having computers. It'd mean we'd have fewer idiots to deal with.

Are you serious?? Please don't be an elitist...I am very happy to help my old folks as they are in fact learning now to use the computer...it's an amazing thing. My father is 80.
He would be very happy if I tried to learn developing film myself, building a dark room..( he is a photographer )
In fact I've got his old Hasselblad, a very complicated thing to use.

Every age has it's own abilities, I would never call him or others an idiot for not knowing how to use the IT...

dspari1
June 12th, 2009, 07:46 AM
This ruling doesn't make sense anymore since the damage is already done. It would have made sense in the old days when browsers were still commercially viable, but the day that Microsoft included it for free was the day that the commercial browser industry died on the PC market.

Since the governments of the world didn't do anything to save the browser industry, it's too little too late to do anything about it now.

Browsers on the PC today are free, and not including one is more of a disservice to the people than it is a punishment to Microsoft. Moreover, Firefox, our flagship open source browser, will guarantee that browsers remain free. Thus I repeat, this ruling doesn't make sense anymore since the damage to the commercial browser industry is already done.

Now if Europe (or any government for that matter) was really serious into crushing the monopoly, they would have to introduce much tougher regulations and incentives.

Examples:
1. All new Government and Public School computers with the included operating system must go out to bid, and the lowest bidder wins.

2. Huge tax incentives for companies to make or port their commercial software to an alternative operating systems.

3. Huge tax incentives for hardware manufactures to make drivers for an alternate operating system.

4. Huge tax incentives for OEM (Dell, HP, IBM, Gateway, Asus, etc) to offer an alternate operating system in all of their models offered.

hanzomon4
June 12th, 2009, 08:41 AM
Bottom line: HOW ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSE TO GET A BROWSER IF THEIR OS DOES NOT HAVE A WAY TO DOWNLOAD ONE

4th guy
June 12th, 2009, 09:01 AM
Bottom line: HOW ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSE TO GET A BROWSER IF THEIR OS DOES NOT HAVE A WAY TO DOWNLOAD ONE
A browser is just an interface over the established protocols. As far as I know, all transfer protocols are not hard-coded into the browsers themselves.

jocheem67
June 12th, 2009, 09:03 AM
CD with browsers, very oldskool. FTP, wget,not really the bottomline imho.

Actually it's official now, sort of:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10262630-56.html

JanDM
June 12th, 2009, 09:37 AM
Bottom line: HOW ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSE TO GET A BROWSER IF THEIR OS DOES NOT HAVE A WAY TO DOWNLOAD ONE
Computer makers will of course ship some browser.

Point is that now they can choose which one :)

quinnten83
June 12th, 2009, 09:42 AM
You can always use command line ftp client (yes, in Windows).
Open command prompt. Type:

ftp ftp.mozilla.orgThen login with user "anonymous" and any password
you can use ls and cd commands there to navigate, you will probably want to go here:

cd /pub/firefox/releases/latest/win32now cd to your language directory, for example:
cd en-USand then download it
get "Firefox 3.0.10.exe"Then wait for download to finish and finally type
quit
You should now have Firefox 3.0.10.exe file in your current directory.

Windows File browser supports ftp protocol by default.
So If the european union forces windows to add links to the 5 most common browser on the desktop for download, that would be the best.
Also it is not just about the default IE browser, it's also about the complete integration of IE into windows, to the point that you lose functionality if you remove IE.

JanDM
June 12th, 2009, 09:49 AM
And they abuse their IE/Windows monopoly by introducing their own version of many specs. IE8 starts to get better (finally), but still doesnt support SVG, canvas, etc. Its slow JS-speed is still holding back companies like Google because they want to push Silverlight. Without Firefox, Windows users would still be on IE6.

Very good move imho.

Giant Speck
June 12th, 2009, 09:53 AM
Spaceeba. (Or how-the-heck ever that's transliterated...)

Spasibo :)

mc4100
June 12th, 2009, 11:54 AM
You can uninstall IE in Windows 7. In the control panel where you remove windows components.

That will make the computer immediately 400x more secure.

I plan on doing this for family members. :)

Is it a real, bona-fide uninstall though? In the past you could remove IE but the trident engine, and all its security holes, still remained behind -- it continued to be useful for rendering mail in outlook express (which is called something else now ... windows mail?)

bryncoles
June 12th, 2009, 12:09 PM
i have links to the microsoft announcement and the EC response!

We all know that Microsoft has been found to unfairly bundle IE with windows, this promoting anti-competitive behaviour.

So, Mircosoft in response announced that to comply with the EC ruling, they would offer Windows 7 without IE (http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx)

Europe in responses said "No, no, no., that's not right." (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272)

They have not been told to offer a browserless version. they have been told to offer a choice of browsers. Europe is keen to prevent a 'media centre' disaster, an so wants to force the inclusion of a variety of browsers. Microsoft seems to want to undermine the decision by implementing a result (no-browser version) which no-one would want, and which ultimately would result in no change to the status quo.

Hallvor
June 12th, 2009, 12:31 PM
i have links to the microsoft announcement and the EC response!

We all know that Microsoft has been found to unfairly bundle IE with windows, this promoting anti-competitive behaviour.

So, Mircosoft in response announced that to comply with the EC ruling, they would offer Windows 7 without IE (http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx)

Europe in responses said "No, no, no., that's not right." (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272)

They have not been told to offer a browserless version. they have been told to offer a choice of browsers. Europe is keen to prevent a 'media centre' disaster, an so wants to force the inclusion of a variety of browsers. Microsoft seems to want to undermine the decision by implementing a result (no-browser version) which no-one would want, and which ultimately would result in no change to the status quo.

+1 and QFT! You are absolutely right! The EU never asked Microsoft to offer a browserless version. Microsoft is just whining.

Giant Speck
June 12th, 2009, 12:34 PM
I think it'd be hilarious if Microsoft cut off distribution of Windows to Europe altogether.

bryncoles
June 12th, 2009, 12:38 PM
also, I just noticed this in Micosoft's blog post:


We have also emphasized that because Windows is an open platform, including a feature in Windows does not prevent competitors from offering competing products..

Microsoft must have a different understanding of the term 'open platform'...

gn2
June 12th, 2009, 01:05 PM
I think it'd be hilarious if Microsoft cut off distribution of Windows to Europe altogether.

I think that would be fantastic.

Bring it on.

Dragonbite
June 12th, 2009, 01:39 PM
Is it a real, bona-fide uninstall though? In the past you could remove IE but the trident engine, and all its security holes, still remained behind -- it continued to be useful for rendering mail in outlook express (which is called something else now ... windows mail?)

I wouldn't be surprised if it is sort-of like this.


i have links to the microsoft announcement and the EC response!

We all know that Microsoft has been found to unfairly bundle IE with windows, this promoting anti-competitive behaviour.

So, Mircosoft in response announced that to comply with the EC ruling, they would offer Windows 7 without IE (http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx)

Europe in responses said "No, no, no., that's not right." (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272)

They have not been told to offer a browserless version. they have been told to offer a choice of browsers. Europe is keen to prevent a 'media centre' disaster, an so wants to force the inclusion of a variety of browsers. Microsoft seems to want to undermine the decision by implementing a result (no-browser version) which no-one would want, and which ultimately would result in no change to the status quo.

Why does this sound like a move my 4 year old would do if she isn't getting her way?! ;)

Barrucadu
June 12th, 2009, 01:42 PM
"We can't give you only our browser? Fine! We won't give you any! Nyaa!"

:P

racerraul
June 12th, 2009, 02:16 PM
You can uninstall IE in Windows 7. In the control panel where you remove windows components.

That will make the computer immediately 400x more secure.

I plan on doing this for family members. :)

Bingo!
Although in my exp... people that shouldn't own a PC will still find ways to screw it all up because they download and run everything under the sun.

bakedbeans4life
June 12th, 2009, 02:19 PM
I think it'd be hilarious if Microsoft cut off distribution of Windows to Europe altogether.

The fact Microsoft have not pursued this course of action pretty much confirms that Microsoft needs the European market more than Europe needs Microsoft's products.

Microsoft may be entrenched, but do you honestly think Europe would crumble if those from Redmond pulled the plug?

I hear many Microsofties utter similar comments to the one above, it will never happen. Europe is one of Microsoft's most profitable markets.

Dragonbite
June 12th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Microsoft could also handle this by just selling Vista (with IE bundled in it).

Although, if Windows 7 can not have IE bundled in it, and Windows 7 is virtually a Vista SP3... does that mean Vista can also remove the browser?

Giant Speck
June 12th, 2009, 02:36 PM
I hear many Microsofties utter similar comments to the one above, it will never happen. Europe is one of Microsoft's most profitable markets.

Note I didn't say "I hope" or "Microsoft should" pull the plug on Europe. I just said it'd be hilarious. And considering how childish Microsoft is acting with this whole browser issue right now, it wouldn't exactly be surprising.

Frak
June 12th, 2009, 03:13 PM
Note I didn't say "I hope" or "Microsoft should" pull the plug on Europe. I just said it'd be hilarious. And considering how childish Microsoft is acting with this whole browser issue right now, it wouldn't exactly be surprising.
They seem to be acting like a 5 year old right now. "Well, you don't want it. Wyaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! NO BROWSER 4 U!!!!1! But, but but but but, it haz to hav teh browser? Wyaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! NO WINDOWS 4 U!!!!1!"

I'm sorry, but this is seriously how they are sounding in my mind.

meeples
June 12th, 2009, 03:28 PM
They seem to be acting like a 5 year old right now. "Well, you don't want it. Wyaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! NO BROWSER 4 U!!!!1! But, but but but but, it haz to hav teh browser? Wyaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! NO WINDOWS 4 U!!!!1!"

I'm sorry, but this is seriously how they are sounding in my mind.

im just waiting for the EU to put them on the naughty step.

papangul
June 12th, 2009, 03:39 PM
They seem to be acting like a 5 year old right now.

There is a subtle but big difference. 5 year olds act out of their innocence but MS's behaviour is consistent with this fact that is well known all along:

Micro$oft is evil

mark12356
June 12th, 2009, 03:41 PM
I've got to say that apart from what appears to be a general antipathy towards Microsoft, I can't see why anyone is pleased by this.

Cars without tyres anyone? After all, there's an active aftermarket. Why should we be forced to accept the manufacturer's choice?

Mark

gn2
June 12th, 2009, 04:23 PM
Cars without tyres anyone? After all, there's an active aftermarket. Why should we be forced to accept the manufacturer's choice?

But you can change tyres to ones you prefer without it stopping the car from working.

Chame_Wizard
June 12th, 2009, 04:31 PM
IE?Windows?what is that?:popcorn:

LowSky
June 12th, 2009, 04:34 PM
I miss the old days when an operating system had nothing, and you had to install everything you needed. It was such a simplier time in computer history. Just look at all the extras we get with Ubuntu, if it was in Microsoft's shoes, Ubuntu couldn't include Firefox or openoffice and so on.

The EU making Microsoft do this is so idiotic and going to confuse customers. What they should have done is not allow Windows to be preinstalled on new computers, and make Vendors give consumers a choice at purchase.

siimo
June 12th, 2009, 07:58 PM
also, I just noticed this in Micosoft's blog post:

.

Microsoft must have a different understanding of the term 'open platform'...

I think they are referring to iphone here. ;)

CarpKing
June 12th, 2009, 08:24 PM
The EU making Microsoft do this is so idiotic and going to confuse customers. What they should have done is not allow Windows to be preinstalled on new computers, and make Vendors give consumers a choice at purchase.

Agreed. Microsoft's deals with hardware vendors (not to mention their abuse of patents) are far more anti-competitive than including a web browser. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's a quasi-governmental institution out there willing to stand up to Microsoft, but they go about it in a way that won't change much. "Cars without tires" indeed; the web browser has become the most important software in the OS for desktop systems. How are you supposed to download IE or Firefox without at least one browser installed by default?

Closed_Port
June 12th, 2009, 08:50 PM
Agreed. Microsoft's deals with hardware vendors (not to mention their abuse of patents) are far more anti-competitive than including a web browser. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's a quasi-governmental institution out there willing to stand up to Microsoft, but they go about it in a way that won't change much. "Cars without tires" indeed; the web browser has become the most important software in the OS for desktop systems. How are you supposed to download IE or Firefox without at least one browser installed by default?
It has already been posted here several times, but I'm going to repeat it:
The EU doesn't want MS to ship Windows to consumers without a browser. It wants MS to offer consumers a choice of several browsers

Offering Windows without a browser is Microsoft's idea.

bakedbeans4life
June 12th, 2009, 09:23 PM
It has already been posted here several times, but I'm going to repeat it:
The EU doesn't want MS to ship Windows to consumers without a browser. It wants MS to offer consumers a choice of several browsers

Offering Windows without a browser is Microsoft's idea.

With the control Microsoft wields over the OEM channels it will be interesting which OEM defies their paymaster and installs an alternative.

Microsoft wants to tell the EU "Look, we told you no-one will buy OUR operating sytem with OUR browser ripped out. Now do you understand? Pretty please with a 100 million euro brib....donation to be divided amongst yourselves, at your discretion."

benj1
June 12th, 2009, 09:39 PM
With the control Microsoft wields over the OEM channels it will be interesting which OEM defies their paymaster and installs an alternative.


thats the problem with monopolies, thats why the EU keeps taking them to court every 6 months.

Dharmachakra
June 12th, 2009, 09:48 PM
Except that, by definition, Microsoft is not a monopoly. I can see why they'd be pissed about this.

But as long as they keep the ability to update (as they obviously will) I really don't have a problem with it.

Now the question is what kind of choice are they going to offer. Firefox will obviously be one... what about Opera, Chrome, Safari (ha), and other browsers like Flock, etc...

aysiu
June 12th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Except that, by definition, Microsoft is not a monopoly. They are not a total monopoly, but they are an effective or virtual monopoly.

zekopeko
June 12th, 2009, 10:14 PM
Except that, by definition, Microsoft is not a monopoly. I can see why they'd be pissed about this.

But as long as they keep the ability to update (as they obviously will) I really don't have a problem with it.

Now the question is what kind of choice are they going to offer. Firefox will obviously be one... what about Opera, Chrome, Safari (ha), and other browsers like Flock, etc...

semantically a monopoly would be only one company on the market providing particular services/products.

legally a monopoly is a company that has more then 80% of a particular market. so MS is definitely one.

cmat
June 12th, 2009, 10:23 PM
All they needed to do was provide a way to cleanly remove IE so the user has choice for their default browser. They just went way too far.

zekopeko
June 12th, 2009, 10:23 PM
Agreed. Microsoft's deals with hardware vendors (not to mention their abuse of patents) are far more anti-competitive than including a web browser. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's a quasi-governmental institution out there willing to stand up to Microsoft, but they go about it in a way that won't change much. "Cars without tires" indeed; the web browser has become the most important software in the OS for desktop systems. How are you supposed to download IE or Firefox without at least one browser installed by default?

what abuse of patents? the only patent abuse i can think of is a patent troll company that has patents but isn't creating a product with it. instead they attack rich companies (like Microsoft) for money. the other abuse would be if a company sues it's main competitor for using it's patents while holding a virtual monopoly and not licensing said patent as to stifle competition. i think that the last one isn't legal but i could be wrong.

and i'm amazed with this little gem:


Cars without tires" indeed; the web browser has become the most important software in the OS for desktop systems. How are you supposed to download IE or Firefox without at least one browser installed by default?

open firefox and go to the addons manager. the first toolbar button say Get Addons. So like it's a problem to provide a simple interface with big buttons that say: Install Firefox, Install Opera etc. The browser can be on the disc or it can be downloaded. The internet is more then just what you see when you open a browser.
Try this: open a terminal and paste this


wget http://mozilla.mirror.ac.za/firefox/releases/3.5b4/linux-i686/en-US/firefox-3.5b4.tar.bz2

Voila! Firefox! and you didn't even have to open a browser.

meeples
June 12th, 2009, 10:25 PM
Except that, by definition, Microsoft is not a monopoly. I can see why they'd be pissed about this.

But as long as they keep the ability to update (as they obviously will) I really don't have a problem with it.

Now the question is what kind of choice are they going to offer. Firefox will obviously be one... what about Opera, Chrome, Safari (ha), and other browsers like Flock, etc...


yea technically there not a monopoly,

but look: they have made sure there operating system is installed on like 99%(obv not technically accurate) of computers sold around the world, and with doing that they have the opportunity to preinstall all there own software on it, so the 60% or more people who use there operating system dont know how to change that or that they even have another option.

there not by definition a monopoly no, but they are basically forcing the market to buy there products, because whether we delete windows and replace it or not, we've still payed for it.

and there still making money from it.


tbh. if microsoft was not shaping the market like that, i'd probably use there products because there products are actually very good. well most of them. with the major exception of IE. windows 7 looks like a good operating system and im actually pretty eager to try it. but because of microsofts aproach to getting people to use it, i refuse to buy it.


im actually very glad the EU are standing against microsoft. just shows the difference between the Eu and The US government tbh.

bakedbeans4life
June 12th, 2009, 10:48 PM
Microsofties of the world unite, did I hear that cry?

benj1
June 12th, 2009, 11:18 PM
yea technically there not a monopoly,


they are a monopoly, the amount of influence they have over OEMs is proof of that, they don't need 100% of the market to be a monopoly (thats something they would say).
if i controlled the entire worldwide biscuit industry, with my only competition being little granny smith, who bakes biscuits for the local WI cake sale, do i not have a monopoly?

Dharmachakra
June 12th, 2009, 11:25 PM
they are a monopoly, the amount of influence they have over OEMs is proof of that, they don't need 100% of the market to be a monopoly (thats something they would say).
if i controlled the entire worldwide biscuit industry, with my only competition being little granny smith, who bakes biscuits for the local WI cake sale, do i not have a monopoly?

Technically, no. Effectively, yes. There's a difference that needs to be recognized.

Just to be fair, the point behind that comment was to poke fun at the EU's monopoly laws.

benj1
June 13th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Technically, no. Effectively, yes. There's a difference that needs to be recognized.

Just to be fair, the point behind that comment was to poke fun at the EU's monopoly laws.

im no lawyer, but i can't believe that EU monopoly law defines a monopoly as 100% control, judging by the ammount of mergers that are blocked for competition reasons, plus in practice its impossible for anyone company to have a monopoly over a market, so if they do define it as such, they don't rely on that definition for enforcing any laws.

my understanding of a monopoly, is a company who is large enough, to have undue influence on their customer.
a quick look at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) gives the same definition

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition.

Frak
June 13th, 2009, 12:23 AM
Well, I do have some legal knowledge of "Monopolies". For one, many anti-trust cases are on companies that own less than 40% of the market. "Well, Frak, how can that be a monopoly?" Well, one company holds 30% of the market, but all the other companies own close to or less than 1%. This gives the monopoly the advantage to easily undercut the competition and either let the business go under or sell to the monopoly and become part of its chain. Secondly, the company has to be doing something bad. Microsoft uses a non-standards compliant browser, done. Thirdly, they have to be doing something to supress competition (the undercutting I explained above). Next, in the United States, there isn't (IIRC) a set amount of market share that constitutes a monopoly. Finally, not every company can be considered a monopoly. You can't sue the NFL for being a monopoly, because, well, it's unfeasable to have more than one Football League.

I'm pretty sure it's the same in the EU. There is no set amount of market share the company has to have to be considered a monopoly.

benj1
June 13th, 2009, 12:32 AM
Well, I do have some legal knowledge of "Monopolies". For one, many anti-trust cases are on companies that own less than 40% of the market. "Well, Frak, how can that be a monopoly?" Well, one company holds 30% of the market, but all the other companies own close to or less than 1%. This gives the monopoly the advantage to easily undercut the competition and either let the business go under or sell to the monopoly and become part of its chain. Secondly, the company has to be doing something bad. Microsoft uses a non-standards compliant browser, done. Thirdly, they have to be doing something to supress competition (the undercutting I explained above). Next, in the United States, there isn't (IIRC) a set amount of market share that constitutes a monopoly. Finally, not every company can be considered a monopoly. You can't sue the NFL for being a monopoly, because, well, it's unfeasable to have more than one Football League.

I'm pretty sure it's the same in the EU. There is no set amount of market share the company has to have to be considered a monopoly.

well put, thats how i thought it worked in the EU too

Dharmachakra
June 13th, 2009, 12:38 AM
im no lawyer, but i can't believe that EU monopoly law defines a monopoly as 100% control, judging by the ammount of mergers that are blocked for competition reasons, plus in practice its impossible for anyone company to have a monopoly over a market, so if they do define it as such, they don't rely on that definition for enforcing any laws.


That's not what I was going for. The EU has ruled with firms controlling only 35% of the market.

And that definition is very different from the definition taught in AP Macro/Microeconomics and posted on economist.com, either way, I'm not trying to argue.

EDIT: Wiki says the 35% figure is actually 40%.

gn2
June 13th, 2009, 12:41 AM
EU regs

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/competition/firms/l26061_en.htm

UK regs

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/about_us/index.htm

benj1
June 13th, 2009, 01:20 AM
That's not what I was going for. The EU has ruled with firms controlling only 35% of the market.

And that definition is very different from the definition taught in AP Macro/Microeconomics and posted on economist.com, either way, I'm not trying to argue.

EDIT: Wiki says the 35% figure is actually 40%.

i admittedly can't find the economist definition, and i am ware there is a definition of a monopoly as 100% of the market, but ive never come across it in used in economics, or any other area of business studies. It isn't a very helpful definition, afterall how many private companies have 100% control over a market?

geoken
June 13th, 2009, 03:07 AM
The people saying MS's move is childish are confusing me.

Isn't just stripping the browser the easiest solution? This isn't a case of "I'm taking my ball with me". It's a case of "Great, now we have to maintain a list of 'the most popular browsers' while every browser that falls off that list is engaged in a perpetual lawsuit with us".

Forcing MS to maintain a list of browsers doesn't solve the original problem. MS is still in a monopoly position and this browser list they posses will be attacked by everyone who isn't on it. Why couldn't Flock sue MS for keeping them off the list? Why can't Maxthon sue them? What's to stop the various ad-inclusive Firefox variants from suing them?

If MS broke the law by bundling a browser, then the most direct solution is to not bundle a browser. The most direct solution is not to create a list of browsers (which will itself be constantly under legal attack) and maintain the ftp links in that list while writing an application to serve as a front end for said list.

Frak
June 13th, 2009, 03:10 AM
The people saying MS's move is childish are confusing me.

Isn't just stripping the browser the easiest solution? This isn't a case of "I'm taking my ball with me". It's a case of "Great, now we have to maintain a list of 'the most popular browsers' while every browser that falls off that list is engaged in a perpetual lawsuit with us".

Forcing MS to maintain a list of browsers doesn't solve the original problem. MS is still in a monopoly position and this browser list they posses will be attacked by everyone who isn't on it. Why couldn't Flock sue MS for keeping them off the list? Why can't Maxthon sue them? What's to stop the various ad-inclusive Firefox variants from suing them?

If MS broke the law by bundling a browser, then the most direct solution is to not bundle a browser. The most direct solution is not to create a list of browsers (which will itself be constantly under legal attack) and maintain the ftp links in that list while writing an application to serve as a front end for said list.
They had an alternative that they failed to follow: Make Internet Explorer fully standards compliant. Well, they didn't want to, so the EU says they can't use their already non-standard one.

Microsoft will include a browser of some sort on the platform. It would be suicide not to do so.

geoken
June 13th, 2009, 03:21 AM
They had an alternative that they failed to follow: Make Internet Explorer fully standards compliant. Well, they didn't want to, so the EU says they can't use their already non-standard one.


Internet Explorer is fully standards compliant. It fully complies with CSS2 and HTML 4.

Frak
June 13th, 2009, 03:37 AM
Internet Explorer is fully standards compliant. It fully complies with CSS2 and HTML 4.
Though, it doesn't work that way by default. Default is "Quirks mode". Besides, HTML 4 isn't the standard, XHTML is the new standard. IE still does not as of today support XHTML.

geoken
June 13th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Though, it doesn't work that way by default. Default is "Quirks mode". Besides, HTML 4 isn't the standard, XHTML is the new standard. IE still does not as of today support XHTML.

Wrong and Wrong. The amount of disinformation in this thread is staggering.

IE8 only defaults to quirks mode if you don't specify a doctype, or specify and older doctype. My page is set to XHTML Strict. IE8 renders it perfectly and does so in standards mode.

CharmyBee
June 13th, 2009, 04:00 AM
Besides, HTML 4 isn't the standard, XHTML is the new standard. IE still does not as of today support XHTML.
Then it's not really standard. What makes HTML4 less of a standard? Is the old table tag still illegal? What about the use of frames? I guess those aren't standards either but almost every browser supports them. "Web standards" elitists tick me off. Web pages are designed for information. They aren't necessarily made for certain ways a web site 'should' be made.

CarpKing
June 13th, 2009, 04:12 AM
what abuse of patents?

I'm mainly thinking of they way they use their catalog of mystery patents to spread fear about Linux adoption.


So like it's a problem to provide a simple interface with big buttons that say: Install Firefox, Install Opera etc. The browser can be on the disc or it can be downloaded. The internet is more then just what you see when you open a browser.


To most people, that's exactly what the Internet is. I also can't imagine that including the browser on the disc wouldn't count as bundling, and sticking links on the desktop presents a similar issue (who decides which browsers they should link to?).

None of this addresses the main point of my post, which was that Microsoft's deals with OEMs are really the bigger problem for competition, but the only issue they get taken to court for is their web browser.

benj1
June 13th, 2009, 01:58 PM
Internet Explorer is fully standards compliant. It fully complies with CSS2 and HTML 4.

i guess the wikipedia entry is wrong then

JanDM
June 13th, 2009, 02:21 PM
My page is set to XHTML Strict. IE8 renders it perfectly and does so in standards mode.
No, IE does not support XHTML.

It parses XHTML as HTML (text/html), while other browsers support the application/xhtml+xml mime type. XHTML is based on XML, so that means very strict error handling (HTML parsers try to make the best of it, compliant XML parsers *must* stop parsing). You are now just serving your XHTML as text/html, you cannot use the real X(HT)ML features like namespaces, faster parsing, strict error handling, etc. Source here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption)

Try serving your XHTML files with application/xhtml+xml MIME type. You will see that most browsers will correctly parse it as XML (with strict error handling, etc.). IE will just show you a download dialog.

And XHTML is not necessarily newer or better than HTML. They are working hard on HTML 5 (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html) which will bring many cool features like <canvas> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)) (already supported in the real browsers, not IE) and <video> (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#video) (supported by Firefox 3.5 and newer Webkit builds). In fact, XHTML was hot a few years ago, nowadays many experts abandon it in favor of HTML5 (source 1 (http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml), source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Criticism)).

Point is, IE will support only 'static' content (HTML, CSS). For dynamic content MS wants to push Silverlight instead of JS and SVG to tie users to Windows (because an open application platform will break their vendor lockin). That's the real reason why JS is still slow in IE8, why MS still supports JScript (their own JS version), and why they won't support SVG.

geoken
June 13th, 2009, 03:21 PM
i guess the wikipedia entry is wrong then

No, it's completely correct. I'm not sure which wikipedia your reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IE8


At the time of its release, Internet Explorer 8 had more complete support for the W3C CSS 2.1 recommendation than the latest stable releases of the Mozilla Firefox and Opera web browsers,[41] and during its development Microsoft contributed over 7,000 tests for inclusion in the CSS 2.1 testsuite.[42] IE8 fully supports CSS 2.1 Paged media (including the @page CSS rule and the left, right and first page selectors), supports the DOM: Storage, Cross Document Messaging (XDM) and the Selectors APIs. IE8 also adds cross-domain communication via the XDomainRequest object, that exposes a programming model similar to XMLHttpRequest. IE8 includes an enhanced and standardized DOM, that brings it in line with implementations in other browsers. Attributes and properties in DOM objects are now handled differently, and the behavior of the getAttribute, setAttribute and removeAttribute modifiers have been changed to match the behavior of other browsers.[27] Internet Explorer 8 also supports the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) specification for enhanced accessibility in Ajax-based rich Internet applications.

Closed_Port
June 13th, 2009, 03:36 PM
Forcing MS to maintain a list of browsers doesn't solve the original problem.

Nobody said that MS has to maintain a list of browser. I don't know where you got that from? The European Commission found that MS abused its monopoly and it's up to the European Commission to prescribe the remedy for this, not to MS.



MS is still in a monopoly position and this browser list they posses will be attacked by everyone who isn't on it.

Thy don't posses a browser list and fixing the monopoly position is not what this is about but making sure that this monopoly position is not abused.

benj1
June 13th, 2009, 03:46 PM
No, it's completely correct. I'm not sure which wikipedia your reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IE8

from the same page


Presently, IE8 fails the Acid3 test with a score of 20/100.

unless my understanding of the test is wrong.

for fairness, from the firefox page

Firefox 3.0 does not pass the Acid3 test; it scores 72/100 and does not render the image correctly. Firefox 3.6 alpha scores 94/100 and renders the image correctly except for the wrong favicon.

MikeTheC
June 13th, 2009, 03:47 PM
Then it's not really standard. What makes HTML4 less of a standard? Is the old table tag still illegal? What about the use of frames? I guess those aren't standards either but almost every browser supports them. "Web standards" elitists tick me off. Web pages are designed for information. They aren't necessarily made for certain ways a web site 'should' be made.
MikeTheC http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa269/luv_tahoe/misc/smiley_into_heart.gif frames

koleoptero
June 13th, 2009, 03:50 PM
I would pretty much like the idea of Windows 7 without IE. I'd probably install it anyway, but it feels nice to have a choice.

I also the idea of Microsoft shipping windows to the EU mentioned earlier too. Then the only way to get windows here would be to download pirated versions of them. Oh wait! Most people do that already...

Whatever they do, they will still have the largest piece of the pie in the market. The problem does not lie with Microsoft, but with companies selling computers with windows preinstalled without giving more options to their customers, and also (mostly) with the majority of computer users not caring what they use.

I seriously doubt I'll see anyone using windows 7 without IE 7 here in Greece.

jonian_g
June 13th, 2009, 03:52 PM
from the same page


unless my understanding of the test is wrong.

for fairness, from the firefox page

And Opera 10 beta passes the acid3 test 100/100!

jonian_g
June 13th, 2009, 03:57 PM
I would pretty much like the idea of Windows 7 without IE. I'd probably install it anyway, but it feels nice to have a choice.

I also the idea of Microsoft shipping windows to the EU mentioned earlier too. Then the only way to get windows here would be to download pirated versions of them. Oh wait! Most people do that already...

Whatever they do, they will still have the largest piece of the pie in the market. The problem does not lie with Microsoft, but with companies selling computers with windows preinstalled without giving more options to their customers, and also (mostly) with the majority of computer users not caring what they use.

I seriously doubt I'll see anyone using windows 7 without IE 7 here in Greece.

I've read somewhere, but I'm not sure, that having computers without an os preinstalled is on EU agenda.

geoken
June 13th, 2009, 04:16 PM
from the same page


unless my understanding of the test is wrong.

for fairness, from the firefox page

Your understanding of the test is wrong. Acid 3 tesst several non-standardized CSS3 selectors/properties.

geoken
June 13th, 2009, 04:20 PM
Nobody said that MS has to maintain a list of browser. I don't know where you got that from? The European Commission found that MS abused its monopoly and it's up to the European Commission to prescribe the remedy for this, not to MS.


Thy don't posses a browser list and fixing the monopoly position is not what this is about but making sure that this monopoly position is not abused.

MS is illegally bundling. They have two options, stop bundling or bundle others. They chose the first option and the EU disagreed with them. In other words the EU is telling them the method they need to use to fix the illegal bundling issue is to bundle others.

jonian_g
June 13th, 2009, 04:27 PM
This is a very informative article about the case:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090612102503443

geoken
June 13th, 2009, 04:39 PM
No, IE does not support XHTML.
It parses XHTML as HTML (text/html), while other browsers support the application/xhtml+xml mime type. XHTML is based on XML, so that means very strict error handling (HTML parsers try to make the best of it, compliant XML parsers *must* stop parsing). You are now just serving your XHTML as text/html, you cannot use the real X(HT)ML features like namespaces, faster parsing, strict error handling, etc. Source here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption)

Try serving your XHTML files with application/xhtml+xml MIME type. You will see that most browsers will correctly parse it as XML (with strict error handling, etc.). IE will just show you a download dialog.



IE8 introduced a lot of namespace support.






Point is, IE will support only 'static' content (HTML, CSS). For dynamic content MS wants to push Silverlight instead of JS and SVG to tie users to Windows (because an open application platform will break their vendor lockin). That's the real reason why JS is still slow in IE8, why MS still supports JScript (their own JS version), and why they won't support SVG.

While I agree with what you say here, I think the W3C is as much to blame. We're finally in a position where MS is being legally forced to be standards compliant and it's pretty much useless because all the cool things other browsers are supporting aren't technically standards because the W3C moves like a snail on barbiturates. I'm sure you've seen the proposed roadmaps for CSS3 and HTML5.

Closed_Port
June 13th, 2009, 05:00 PM
MS is illegally bundling. They have two options, stop bundling or bundle others. They chose the first option and the EU disagreed with them.
No, they have one option:
Do what those who found them to do something illegal determine to remedy the situation.



In other words the EU is telling them the method they need to use to fix the illegal bundling issue is to bundle others.
Oh, come on, that playing silly semantic games with the word bundling. What the EC thinks will remedy the situation is giving the users choice, not annoying users by not shipping without a browser. I don't know what's supposed to be so evil about this.

twright
June 13th, 2009, 05:03 PM
No, IE does not support XHTML.

It parses XHTML as HTML (text/html), while other browsers support the application/xhtml+xml mime type. XHTML is based on XML, so that means very strict error handling (HTML parsers try to make the best of it, compliant XML parsers *must* stop parsing). You are now just serving your XHTML as text/html, you cannot use the real X(HT)ML features like namespaces, faster parsing, strict error handling, etc. Source here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption)

Try serving your XHTML files with application/xhtml+xml MIME type. You will see that most browsers will correctly parse it as XML (with strict error handling, etc.). IE will just show you a download dialog.

And XHTML is not necessarily newer or better than HTML. They are working hard on HTML 5 (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html) which will bring many cool features like <canvas> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_%28HTML_element%29) (already supported in the real browsers, not IE) and <video> (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#video) (supported by Firefox 3.5 and newer Webkit builds). In fact, XHTML was hot a few years ago, nowadays many experts abandon it in favor of HTML5 (source 1 (http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml), source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Criticism)).

Point is, IE will support only 'static' content (HTML, CSS). For dynamic content MS wants to push Silverlight instead of JS and SVG to tie users to Windows (because an open application platform will break their vendor lockin). That's the real reason why JS is still slow in IE8, why MS still supports JScript (their own JS version), and why they won't support SVG.
HTML5 can be served with either html or xhtml doctypes which determines the parser used so it is more a convergence than a replacement of xhtml. Anyway these days the actual language is becoming less and less relevant as it is CSS that matters, something that Internet Explorer is particually bad at.

If Microsoft were really serious about 'playing nicely' they would make the change worldwide, not just where they were legally forced to. If Microsoft were really serious they would have either discontinued IE, fixed the bugs or switched rendering engines (Webkit) long ago.

Frak
June 13th, 2009, 05:20 PM
Wrong and Wrong. The amount of disinformation in this thread is staggering.

IE8 only defaults to quirks mode if you don't specify a doctype, or specify and older doctype. My page is set to XHTML Strict. IE8 renders it perfectly and does so in standards mode.
Lying and Lying. Watch yourself. It's quirks by default and it has to be set through the options. Some people are more knowledgeable of this.

And ignored. :)

benj1
June 13th, 2009, 05:22 PM
Your understanding of the test is wrong. Acid 3 tesst several non-standardized CSS3 selectors/properties.

you are correct, does it account for 80% of the marks though?

Colonel Kilkenny
June 13th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Lying and Lying. Watch yourself. It's quirks by default and it has to be set through the options. Some people are more knowledgeable of this.

And ignored. :)

...

IE8 defaults to standards mode.
Want to ignore me too?

edit. Read: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx

JanDM
June 13th, 2009, 06:31 PM
IE8 introduced a lot of namespace support.

IE8 still cannot parse an XHTML document as XML (application/xhtml+xml header), only as malformed html (text/html) [source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Adoption)]. IE8 namespaces are therefore not XML namespaces, it looks more like HTML namespaces. That seems proprietary and something entirely different (http://annevankesteren.nl/2008/03/ie8-bad):


They introduced even more incompatible text/html parsing rules when compared to other browsers and HTML5. More valueless attributes are getting dropped (until now it was only src and href) and more incompatible namespace syntax is introduced.

Afaik, namespacecs are XML only and forbidden/invalid in HTML.


While I agree with what you say here, I think the W3C is as much to blame. We're finally in a position where MS is being legally forced to be standards compliant and it's pretty much useless because all the cool things other browsers are supporting aren't technically standards because the W3C moves like a snail on barbiturates. I'm sure you've seen the proposed roadmaps for CSS3 and HTML5.
I partly agree with you. On the other hand, SVG has been a standard for years so that can keep them busy for a few months. CSS2 and HTML4 are 10+ years old and only with IE8 they got serious about implementing it. There is also not much worth in developing standards that nobody will use because the biggest vendor stopped developing their browser (period 2001-2005?) because of their monopoly...

garikaib
June 13th, 2009, 06:43 PM
You can always use command line ftp client (yes, in Windows).
Open command prompt. Type:

ftp ftp.mozilla.orgThen login with user "anonymous" and any password
you can use ls and cd commands there to navigate, you will probably want to go here:

cd /pub/firefox/releases/latest/win32now cd to your language directory, for example:
cd en-USand then download it
get "Firefox 3.0.10.exe"Then wait for download to finish and finally type
quitYou should now have Firefox 3.0.10.exe file in your current directory.

Pardon me but how is my 65 year old granny going to do that?!

JanDM
June 13th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Your understanding of the test is wrong. Acid 3 tesst several non-standardized CSS3 selectors/properties.
Wikipedia states:


Acid3 is a test page from the Web Standards Project that checks how well a web browser follows certain web standards, especially relating to the Document Object Model and JavaScript.

CSS 3 is only used in a few tests, most tests are about DOM2, CSS2, HTML4, SVG and Ecmascript (JS). These are all standards. The number of (only) DOM Level 2 + Ecmascript tests (both have been standards for years) is already more than IE8's total score.

List of tested standards on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested) (official page (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/))

Frak
June 13th, 2009, 08:50 PM
...

IE8 defaults to standards mode.
Want to ignore me too?

edit. Read: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx
Well, looks as if Internet Explorer still doesn't support many standards that have been set for a long time, outside of just HTML and CSS.

You know, maybe I'll take that up.

twright
June 14th, 2009, 01:59 AM
Pardon me but how is my 65 year old granny going to do that?!
If only everyone's Grandmothers read Ubuntu forums / Slashdot :-). Is it just me or is the Grandmother meme getting out of control?


you are correct, does it account for 80% of the marks though?
Most probably actually except the standards would have been finalised quicker if existing ones were well supported.

phrostbyte
June 14th, 2009, 02:06 AM
I commend the EU for actually enforcing it's anti-trust trust law, but this is a pittance. Microsoft won't be affected by something like this. The goal here should be to break Microsoft's monopoly, and this is not doing enough to break Microsoft's monopoly. It's almost a joke, why target IE anymore? IE marketshare is declining by the month. We need to focus on the true monopoly product here, that is their operating system..

One way to start is to force new Windows-bundled computers to come with some paper or documentation that explains to the owner

(1) They have a right to use other operating systems
(2) That Windows, which came with their computer, is fully refundable
(3) The exact procedure in which you can receive a refund for Windows

Oh and the US DoJ should split Microsoft. I know the EU can't do this. But we should have done it 8 years ago. Split Microsoft into one company that only owns the IP of Windows, so it's harder for them do vertical product lockin, which will make it harder for them to keep monopoly simply by having products that only work with Windows.

bigboy_pdb
June 16th, 2009, 05:41 AM
That's good.

The EU is doing us all a favour because competition is good for the consumer and in order to create more competition companies must be forced to sell us less for the same price.

Now the EU can move onto other issues it deems important, such as:


Removing the browsers from all other OSes (MAC, Unix OSes etc.). They must also let people choose.
IE must be made available for all OSes. This will create more competition not only for browser providers but also anti-virus providers.
Getting Microsoft to sell windows without a Desktop. People should be able to choose what their OS is whether it be a command line, a Desktop, or an unending slide show of soft porn pictures.
Having stores sell bread without crusts. This will create more competition for grain industries.
Having automakers sell cars with different choices for seats. Options include: classic seats, stools, bicycle seats, upside down buckets, and stacked phone books.


For those of you who are satirically challenged, I was being sarcastic.

EDIT (I just changed the order of the paragraphs)

jonian_g
June 16th, 2009, 05:55 AM
That's good.

The EU is doing us all a favour because competition is good for the consumer and in order to create more competition companies must be forced to sell us less for the same price.

Now the EU can move onto other issues it deems important, such as:


Removing the browsers from all other OSes (MAC, Unix OSes etc.). They must also let people choose.
IE must be made available for all OSes. This will create more competition not only for browser providers but also anti-virus providers.
Getting Microsoft to sell windows without a Desktop. People should be able to choose what their OS is whether it be a command line, a Desktop, or an unending slide show of soft porn pictures.
Having stores sell bread without crusts. This will create more competition for grain industries.
Having automakers sell cars with different choices for seats. Options include: classic seats, stools, bicycle seats, upside down buckets, and stacked phone books.


For those of you who are satirically challenged, I was being sarcastic.

EDIT (I just changed the order of the paragraphs)

6. And permit people, that don't have a clue how markets work and what is the impact of a healthy competitive environment in goods quality, talk.

bigboy_pdb
June 16th, 2009, 06:15 AM
6. And permit people, that don't have a clue how markets work and what is the impact of a healthy competitive environment in goods quality, talk.

That's a stupid assumption. You have no clue what my background knowledge or education is.

Back when Microsoft won the browser war between it and Netscape this issue was more important. There's now a much healthier amount of competition, and standards are actively being developed and followed. Microsoft is losing it's browser market share (regardless of it being bundled with Windows) and there isn't as much of a need to force competition.

There's a significant amount of collusion between companies and there are other companies that dominate a given type of industry.

The majority of people (and that likely includes you) haven't done a significant amount of research and are whining because they read the words 'Microsoft'. I'm not standing up for questionable businesses or their practices, however, there are far more important political issues than this.

jonian_g
June 16th, 2009, 06:27 AM
That's a stupid assumption. You have no clue what my background or education is.

Back when Microsoft won the browser war between it and Netscape this issue was more important. There's now a much healthier amount of competition, and standards are actively being developed and followed. Microsoft is losing it's browser market share (regardless of it being bundled with Windows) and there isn't as much of a need to force competition.

There's a significant amount of collusion between companies and there are other companies that dominate a given type of industry.

The majority of people (and that likely includes you) haven't done a significant amount of research and are whining because they read the words 'Microsoft'. I'm not standing up for questionable businesses or their practices, however, there are far more important political issues than this.

How does this look for a research:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090612102503443

If you go two pages back I've reposted this.
I'm not talking only for software. EU is taking the matter of fair competence in every industry very seriously and is taking action. Your previous comment makes all these look redicoulous but it isn't. That shows that you haven't done your research about EU.

Other EU actions in computer industry include:
Sued Intel for anticompetitive practices.
Sued Apple for iPhones coming with a soldered battery.

It might look stupid to you but EU decides even on the max size that the tomatoes can have, but it is done to protect consumers from geneticaly transformed food.

Odemia
June 16th, 2009, 06:40 AM
It might look stupid to you but EU decides even on the max size that the tomatoes can have, but it is done to protect consumers from genetical[l]y transformed food.

I thought it was to ensure better tasting tomatoes for consumers. Everyone knows that the big tomatoes just taste watery.

matthanielcm
June 16th, 2009, 06:53 AM
I doubt it. I'd say that the vast majority of people who buy Windows off-the-shelf would be aware of this (minor) issue. It's usually geeks who buy their OSs retail.

Then there's the geeks who don't buy it at all. :rolleyes:

bigboy_pdb
June 16th, 2009, 07:14 AM
How does this look for a research:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090612102503443


This doesn't count for much. This doesn't tell me your educational background (for example whether or not you have any background in logic or critical thinking, law or any related field), or any books that you've read (the strong majority of web pages are not adequate sources). What you've posted gives me the impression that you are neither an expert nor an authority on the subject.


Your previous comment makes all these look redicoulous but it isn't.

Actually it doesn't. If anything, it indicates that one or more of their cases are meaningless, not all.

Clearly, you're emotional about that topic (which causes people to be illogical) because if you were to reread my statement, you would realize that it's stating that the unnecessary removal of a portion of a product leaves the consumer with less (EDIT: or hinders functionality).


That shows that you haven't done your research about EU.

You have no support for this conclusion.



Other EU actions in computer industry include:
Sued Intel for anticompetitive practices.
Sued Apple for iPhones coming with a soldered battery.

It might look stupid to you but EU decides even on the max size that the tomatoes can have, but it is done to protect consumers from geneticaly transformed food.


I wasn't talking about those cases. I was commenting on the one in the thread. It has nothing to do with health. The browser marked is competitive and there are free alternatives to IE for anyone who feels it's unsatisfactory. Also, this isn't a case where people are ignorant, ill informed, or being controlled. The majority of people know there are browsers other than IE.

gn2
June 16th, 2009, 07:26 AM
The majority of people know there are browsers other than IE.

Your evidence in support of this assertion is?

jonian_g
June 16th, 2009, 07:44 AM
This doesn't count for much. This doesn't tell me your educational background (for example whether or not you have any background in logic or critical thinking, law or any related field), or any books that you've read (the strong majority of web pages are not adequate sources). What you've posted gives me the impression that you are neither an expert nor an authority on the subject.

You're talking about a browser and I'm talking about markets. EU decission has as target to make the market healthier and stop ilegal practices.

As for my educational background: I have studied economics and work as a project manager in a construction company.

Groklaw is not an obscure webpage.

If you want more accurate webpages:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/overview_en.html
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/microsoft/index.html

bigboy_pdb
June 16th, 2009, 08:30 AM
Your evidence in support of this assertion is?

It's largely based on induction and reasoning.

I've seen tech and business segments on it on different news stations on Firefox (especially when it first came out because it was suggested that people use it over IE for security reasons). One of them was on CTV in the GTA (which is the most popular news cast) so it's likely that a lot of people saw it. Every person I've met knows about Firefox (and most of them aren't strong computer users).

I've talked to students in schools who use the portable version in order to use flash and people I've worked with do the same. The Churches that I've been to use it. I've seen it in businesses that I've been within.

At first I didn't think many people would have known about Firefox, but in most places I visit, I find many people seem to know about it. If it were technical users that were talking about it, I wouldn't take it to mean much, but it's the number of non-technical users that makes it seem as though there's a good number of people that are aware of Firefox.

I'm assuming MAC users know about Safari. Also, Chrome has been getting quite a bit of attention lately. In addition, there are internet advertisements for different browsers.

If 18% of people use Firefox, 4% use Safari, and 3% use other browsers (http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2009/March/browser.php), there's a good chance that the majority of people know about at least one of those browsers (because only 51% is needed for a majority).

Furthermore, based on what I stated, it's enough that a person knows there are other web browsers (in other words they don't have to know the details or even a name).

EDIT: jonian_g I won't be responding to you again because your comments indicate that you have a problem reading/understanding what I've been writing and it isn't that complicated.

Hallvor
June 16th, 2009, 10:54 AM
"[...] the unnecessary removal of a portion of a product leaves the consumer with less (EDIT: or hinders functionality)."

Removing the browser was Microsoft`s own choice, and one can hardly blame the EU for it.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272

bryncoles
June 16th, 2009, 10:59 AM
Clearly, you're emotional about that topic (which causes people to be illogical) because if you were to reread my statement, you would realize that it's stating that the unnecessary removal of a portion of a product leaves the consumer with less (EDIT: or hinders functionality).

emotional thread!

id just like to say again that it is MICROSOFT (http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx) who have decided to ship without a browser. EUROPE ("http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272) agree with you, bigboy_pdb that no browser is less choice, and is not a sensible course of action. Your statement however makes it look like you believe that it is Europe's decision to remove IE from Windows. It is not.

I'm repeating myself from on page 5!

*edit*

you're a quick one, Hallvor!

ELD
June 16th, 2009, 11:50 AM
emotional thread!

id just like to say again that it is MICROSOFT (http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx) who have decided to ship without a browser. EUROPE (http://%22http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272) agree with you, bigboy_pdb that no browser is less choice, and is not a sensible course of action. Your statement however makes it look like you believe that it is Europe's decision to remove IE from Windows. It is not.

I'm repeating myself from on page 5!

*edit*

you're a quick one, Hallvor!

Thanks for clearing that up for people, again.

It is a another stupid decision from MS not Europe. My thought is that Microsoft would rather ship without one than have a selective installer to choose one.

Giant Speck
June 16th, 2009, 12:08 PM
My thought is that Microsoft would rather ship without one than have a selective installer to choose one.

And which browsers would you want Microsoft to suggest? Leave one out and there could be a lawsuit.

I'm not defending Microsoft's decision in this case. However, the alternative to their actions looks like potentially more trouble than it's worth.

Dragonbite
June 16th, 2009, 01:12 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for people, again.

It is a another stupid decision from MS not Europe. My thought is that Microsoft would rather ship without one than have a selective installer to choose one.

I think Microsoft is thinking that if it doesn't include one, then all they have to do is get theirs back on which is much more beneficial (for them) than letting the other browsers in the doors.

And if some OEMs or even most include an other browser, chances are IE will still be the most common one.

There is some logic in their thinking, regardless of how frustrating it can be. Just gotta keep looking at it from their point of view to understand it. ;)