Opera: Microsoft's 'minor tweak' of Windows 7 not enough


Recommended Posts

Computerworld - Opera Software, the Norwegian browser maker that sparked an antitrust investigation into Microsoft business practices in Europe, remains dissatisfied with its rival's move to dump IE8 from Windows 7.

Last week, Microsoft shared a bit of technical information about how it is stripping IE8 from Windows 7 to create the "E" editions for the European Union market.

"The only functional difference is that the Internet Explorer 8 component is not available," said Arik Cohen, a Microsoft program manager in a Q&A on the company's Windows blog. "This is the same component that your users can turn off in the 'Turn Windows features on and off' control panel in the Windows 7 RC build."

All other parts of IE will remain in the E editions, said Cohen, "since they are part of the Windows core."

The "Turn Windows features on and off" feature refers to the kill switch option Microsoft added to Windows 7 in March. Then, Microsoft managers confirmed that the new operating system would offer user settings for disabling, but not deleting, a host of bundled applications, including IE8. "If a feature is deselected, it is not available for use," said Jack Mayo, a program manager on the Windows team. "This means the files (binaries and data) are not loaded by the operating system and not available to users on the computer."

Files are not actually deleted from the PC, however, so users can later reactivate the disabled applications, said Mayo.

Flipping a switch to simply make IE8 unavailable is not enough for Opera, the browser builder that complained to EU regulators in late 2007. Its complaint led the government's antitrust agency to charge Microsoft in January with shielding IE from competition.

"Microsoft's minor technical tweak will not restore browser competition on the desktop," said Hakon Wium Lie, Opera's chief technology officer, in an e-mail today.

Opera has previously expressed dissatisfaction with Microsoft's decision to dump IE8 from Windows 7. In June, when Microsoft announced the E editions, Lie was skeptical, even though it was unclear at the time exactly what part of the browser would be removed. "The rendering engine will remain," Lie argued then. "Who knows what Windows Update would do? You could wake up in the morning and see all of IE8 there again."

Microsoft may have felt forced to leave parts of IE within Windows, since some of the OS's functionality, particularly Windows Update, likely depends on those components.

A month ago, Microsoft acknowledged that its unilateral move might not satisfy critics, including EU officials. "Our decision to only offer IE separately from Windows 7 in Europe cannot, of course, preclude the possibility of alternative approaches emerging through Commission processes," Dave Heiner, Microsoft's deputy counsel, said on June 11.

While the EU has not yet ruled -- Microsoft dropped an oral hearing slated for early June because of scheduling conflicts -- but Lie said that as far as Opera is concerned, turning off IE but leaving bits and pieces in Windows 7 isn't enough. "At Opera, we'd like to give users access to more browsers, not fewer," he said.

Opera wants the EU to order Microsoft to insert a ballot screen into Windows; the screen would offer users several browser choices that would then either be activated -- if all were pre-installed on the machine -- or downloaded and installed.

Regulators also have hinted that the ballot screen is its preferred solution. "A potential remedy ... and which would not require Microsoft to provide Windows to end-users without a browser, would be to allow consumers to choose from different web browsers presented to them through a 'ballot screen' in Windows," the European Commission said in a June 12 statement.

Nor has Microsoft publicly disclosed what, if any, incentives it's held out to European computer makers to continue to install IE8 on new PCs. Last month, Mozilla said that that was critical to figuring out whether Windows 7E would level the playing field. "It's impossible to evaluate what [Microsoft's proposal] means unless and until Microsoft describes -- completely and with specificity -- all the incentives and disincentives applicable to Windows OEMs," said John Lilly, Mozilla's CEO. "Without this, it's impossible to tell if Microsoft is giving something with one hand and taking it away with the other."

Microsoft's Cohen also claimed that the "vast majority" of applications work on Windows 7 E, including programs that use Windows' embedded browser components, including Trident, IE's layout engine.

Original Article

i really hope this doesnt happen

if windows is shipped with a third party browser, people will hold MS responsible for its failures

and opera has tons of rendering issues

and then everyone browser on the planets gonna want into that ballot screen, so theyd have to choose one of the significant browsers, IE chrome/opera/IE?

It would be funny if Microsoft does as they request and puts a ballot screen for browser selection in the installation process but doesn't list Opera as a choice.

Anyways, Opera should make a product worth using and (more) people will use it. It's that simple. They don't need to get the EU to do their dirty work for them.

Edited by trag3dy

Of course your dissatisfied Opera, your little whining didn't work like you wanted it to. It is not the marketshare leaders job to promote competitors products. Period.

On a counter note, what happens to all the IE-based browsers out there that rely on having the trident engine on all Windows machines to even run correctly. Opera should not beable to dictate that a required component of its competitors operation just be deleted from the machine. I am sure the developers of Maxthon, Avant, TheWorld browser, Slimbrowser, and countless others would not be very happy.

How about Opera stops bitching and actually makes a good product? that might help them more.

I have never SEEN Opera on a computer (other then Adobe including it in apps) and most people I know that bought cell phones that come with Opera Mobile have ripped it off of their phone.

Firefox has risen, Opera hasn't because it blows, not because of Microsoft.

This is just ridiculous. Opera whines constantly. The only thing in their mind that would make things fair for them is to bundle Opera with Windows... ROFL Wasn't bundling a browser with Windows an issue not all that long ago? ;) The ballot screen is ridiculous in my opinion. How can the EU force Microsoft to bundle other companies software with Windows? They would be expected to provide some support for that.

Also, completely removing IE just isn't an option. There are applications that use bits of that. Should Microsoft break all of this compatibility even if IE doesn't appear as a browser when it's disabled? So stupid...

And Opera doesn't make a good browser. They can't compete. THAT is their issue, not that IE was bundled with Windows... They need to just go away IMO.

And for the record, I don't use IE, nor am I an IE fan...

How about Opera stops bitching and actually makes a good product? that might help them more.

I have never SEEN Opera on a computer (other then Adobe including it in apps) and most people I know that bought cell phones that come with Opera Mobile have ripped it off of their phone.

Firefox has risen, Opera hasn't because it blows, not because of Microsoft.

Exactly. + 100...

so how about a Ballot Screen with Internet Explorer, Fire Fox, Safari & Chrome.....those are the major browsers aren't they??

Sounds like a good idea to me. Microsoft can't offer ALL of the browsers to users in any event. I say they just offer the major market leaders. Opera hasn't broken 1% market share, have they?? Why should they even be offered?

Opera does make a good browser, but they're whining like little beotches.

Hm... I tried Opera and really didn't like it at all. Things were rendered weird, it was clunky... I just am not a fan at all.

+1 on their whining... LOL

Opera can shut up and go to hell.

It would be funny if Microsoft does as they request and puts a ballot screen for browser selection in the installation process but doesn't list Opera as a choice.

It would be funny and sad when Opera continues to complain. The game being played here is that Opera wants free advertising. It looks like they won't stop whinging until they get it. Face it, they don't give a rat's *** about "fair competition" or "standards support". This is starting to remind me of the SCO. :rolleyes:

Anyways, Opera should make a product worth using and (more) people will use it. It's that simple.

Opera also stated in another article that they can't afford advertising either. Even if they made a good browser, which they don't IMO, they'd still be bitching because they can't afford to do business like everyone else.

On a counter note, what happens to all the IE-based browsers out there that rely on having the trident engine on all Windows machines to even run correctly.

Those will continue to work as the Trident engine is still in there and parts of Windows uses it.

Opera is already installed (with out being an option by the way) by Adobe and their creative suit/dreamweaver and maybe other of their apps. And still cant get market share. That alone should tell them its their product, not another companies fault.

No other company sneaks their browser into your computer.

Opera is already installed (with out being an option by the way) by Adobe and their creative suit/dreamweaver and maybe other of their apps. And still cant get market share. That alone should tell them its their product, not another companies fault.

No other company sneaks their browser into your computer.

Didn't Apple try doing that? :p

Why doesn't Opera make their own damn operating system and then they can do what they want?

It's Microsoft's operating system. They can bundle w/e the hell they want in it.

I agree, I always enjoyed having IE as a browser, even though it's not the browser of my choice, it's nice to have something to fall back on. Maybe IE became a little to big to be just bundled with Windows, and would a more minimal, simple, feature-poor (is that a word?) browser be a better implementation. Because, in my opinion, an OS needs a browser as one of the basic available tools, compared to tools as wordpad and paint. How else would I download Firefox?:(

Why it's not enough? They removed it because you (Opera) complained to the EU that they have a higher market share in browser because the browser (Internet Explorer) bundled with the operating system. They (Microsoft) removed the bundled browser from the operating system, and you still complaining?

Suck it up, and go work on your browser already; Make it better, so people would be at least interested in it.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!