European Union vs Microsoft, Opera - The war continues

It is known that the European Commission(EC) is considering forcing Microsoft to bundle rival browsers alongside IE in the Windows OS. It is likely that this is based on a complaint filed by Opera which condemned Microsoft for browser monopoly and urged Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards.

In an interview with The Register, Hakon Wium Lie, Opera Software CTO, outlined 2 possible options in his view that could work if EC makes it mandatory for Microsoft to deliver browsers of user's choice. He suggested that either:

  • An Automatic Update download agent to get user's preference before the browser gets installed, (or)
  • Display the available range of browsers and get user preference to run a specific browser.

Lie said that he believed only a legal ruling will enforce genuine web standards on IE. The new IE 8 RC1 has two rendering engines, one to view sites built using current web standards and another to view legacy sites built for the non-standards compliant versions of Microsoft's browser. IE 8 also requires a tag to be included in the websites so they can instruct the browser what to do. According to Lie, this will require other browser makers like Opera to include separate rendering engines and code to replicate the behavior of IE 8 for web sites which will make the browsers complex and slow. Further development will also be slow as only Microsoft has access to the code for its rendering engines.

Every OS, including Linux, ships with a default browser and it's the users choice to install any other browser. Users may use the default browser to download and install their other favorite browsers. But, it looks like Opera wants that choice to be given to the users in regard to Browsers, as if the users currently don't have an option to install other browsers at all. Certainly, many people will end up using the default browser installed in the OS, but this doesn't mean that they are not allowed to download and install other browsers.

This is the similar scenario with Microsoft Windows. Internet Explorer comes installed by default, and users who wish to use Internet Explorer can continue using so, and, users who wish to download Firefox or Chrome or Opera, can install those too.

How different is Apple Mac OS X? Safari comes installed by default and users still have the freedom to download and install their other favorite browsers. The same is with Ubuntu Linux, where Firefox comes installed by default.

Well, one possible solution for Microsoft as Opera suggests, would be to suggest users other browsers. But, why should Microsoft who owns its OS do so? It's different when OEM vendors give a choice to the users. For example, Dell can provide a suitable interface to the user allowing him to install his favorite browser, but I don't think it is Microsoft's job to suggest user a competitor's product than its own product. Microsoft has already clarified that computer users and OEMs are free to run any web browsing software on Windows.

If the EC wins this battle, fills it's account with loads of cash and forces Microsoft to bundle competitor's browsers into its OS, what about Apple, Linux or any other OS in that regard? Will Opera file a complaint against them too?

What do you think of Opera's strategy? Is it good enough to bring peace in the browser market?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Netflix to charge for additional content?

Next Story

Slingbox Pro-HD and SlingLink Turbo review

133 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

While I personally prefer Firefox to IE, it is Microsoft's product and therefore they should not be required to include anything they do not want to include. If I were to create my own operating system or program I sure would not want the government getting involved and telling me what to include.

Now I have heard it all. This is just retarded. Its like asking Burger King to start selling Big Macs by default. I hope microsoft doesnt fold to this.

I'm not with MS or Opera, instead i want FF to be included...
MS is a monopoly and there are some billion ppl out there that don't know there is another browser or another media player and so on. Opera on the other hand is ridicullus, it's loosing share from the newcomer Google Chrome, it's Opera Mini for iPhone was rejected and makes a desparate last try to show us that is here!

Doomangel said,
I'm not with MS or Opera, instead i want FF to be included...
MS is a monopoly and there are some billion ppl out there that don't know there is another browser or another media player and so on. Opera on the other hand is ridicullus, it's loosing share from the newcomer Google Chrome, it's Opera Mini for iPhone was rejected and makes a desparate last try to show us that is here!

Firefox has got way more chance of being included than Opera has, Opera's market share is tiny so the attention it gets is also tiny despite te fact it launched the complaint.

They need to sue the EU for lost money on making windows N editions, yes they lost money because they made something no one in the EU buys.

I hope the EU does this across the board for all Operating Systems sold within their borders. OSX, Win, Linux... any and all should be forced to do this.

It really seems like Opera isn't getting the downloads they want or expected and their crying and trying to force MS to install it for them.

Guess they could just make a little tool to download the latest install for Firefox, Google or Opera. If they go that route, they should do so without any default selected and have the order of options be random each time. Don't want someone crying over another option being listed over theirs.

But really, what are the sales figures for the "N" versions of Windows in the EU? Does the buying public even give a ****?

I say that MS should make a special version of Windows 7 that excludes all browsers, including theirs and sell it over in the EU. I also don't understand that if MS does include other browsers as an option, why EU could fine MS at at that point since they would not be non competitive.

I don't see a problem with including other browsers. Memory is not a problem in todays world, and the average user at least knows how to uninstall desired browsers if they wish to.

The only reason Microsoft would not want this is because they know most users do not know of other browsers, and would love to keep it that way. If Microsoft had confidence in their browser they would not fear this challenge. Yet they do, very much so apparently.

So I guess even Microsoft thinks IE sucks. Interesting.

thenonhacker said,
Enjoy your wishful thinking.

Oh BTW, Opera sucks. Firefox FTW!


1. Wishful? It was pretty logical reasoning, and if you'd like to disprove it I'm all ears. Knowledge is always an asset.
2. I don't use Opera, so...

So , Some people want MS to be forced to supply other competitors products on their products... which would mean if its coming with MS product, MS should offer support for it as well.... STUPID!!! MS should not have to put anything but their own product on their own product. And if they add other stuff to it, they will most likely also be the ones to have to handle most of any technical difficulties which could arise from those other products not working correctly.
This is nothing MS should have to even think about. The EU is stupid. MS needs to just say , "F OFF" for once and take a stance. Yes, a business is there to make money, but also show some dignity. If they pass this, I'd just say screw off EU and have ya learn a lesson of telling me what to do with my product. I'm sure MS could do just fine for a bit without selling some new windows versions in Europe. They would go crawling back after a year or so with no working good OS....
This is like saying ALL car makers have to start using each others parts, that way its fair for everyone to sell a car or at least a part. Or, its like saying Mcdonalds sells more frys, so now they have to start offering Burger Kings frys so that BK can get some business. GAAWD THIS LOGIC IS SO STUPID IT HURTS TO THINK ABOUT.

I don't agree with the idea that MS has a web browser monopoly. I'm not sure I agree that MS has any kind of monopoly anymore. Majority of market is not the same as having a monopoly.

If only Microsoft support all standards, it breaks all the statement of opera about this complaint.

From a developer view i would agree with opera, what microsoft its doing its harming everyone bundling a browser in which it promotes its own thing vs standards set and accepted by everyone makes work harder for us, Harm the consumers in general and bring a more unfair advantage to the competition.

eilegz said,
If only Microsoft support all standards, it breaks all the statement of opera about this complaint.

From a developer view i would agree with opera, what microsoft its doing its harming everyone bundling a browser in which it promotes its own thing vs standards set and accepted by everyone makes work harder for us, Harm the consumers in general and bring a more unfair advantage to the competition.


+1

I can't believe there are so many angry people here about Opera doing this. First of all, they are not wining, they're just doing business. Get this complaint through and business may soar in Europe. Don't get it through and things remain the same. Opera has all to win and nothing to lose.

Practical considerations on how it should be done is not so important, just find a way to make the consumer actively make a decision about which browsers they want to use.

Also it is a service to the public, most people should be much better of using Firefox or Opera.

Finally it ads pressure on Microsoft to provide a better browser than their current misserable version.

So don't be angry, no reason I think

This is retarded. How is this any different from other software? They include Windows Media Player, Paint, and Outlook Express too, so the people who are not tech savvy enough to use another browser will also use that software by default, so then MS has to include VLC, Gimp and Thunderbird too right?

Oh and MS also includes their own firewall? Monopoly, i tell you! Let them include Comodo and Zonealarm too. Oh and MS also includes their own defragmentation software! Microsoft also should be forced to include Acronis and O&O software!

How can MS be so shameless taking other companies market share? Tsk tsk MS.

Opera is so ****ing stupid. Lets say they get their way. People who use IE will continue to use IE. People who use Firefox will continue to use firefox. They will not change just cause they are handed a choice. Its absurd. Opera's market share would never go up. ALSO, I would like to see opera try this with Apple and see what happens.. Im sure Apple would ask them to go **** Themselves. lol good luck opera.

This is really pointless to be honest, why would the EU want to have IE removed. I was talking about this a while ago during one of my podcasts, if they had it removed it would: 1. Cause system issues, Windows is tightly integrated with the Trident Engine, which is the backbone for IE. 2. A lot of people don't use alternative browsers, if it's removed, those people wouldn't be access to the internet because they think IT IS the internet (which isn't true.)

It's incredibly pitiful of Opera to try and gain marketshare this way. Here's an idea. Build a browser than people actually want and then they will take the 10 seconds to fire up the "default" browser (Be it IE or Safari) and download it. People aren't interested in doing that so Opera wants the EU to force them. What a desperate last attempt to survive.

Try doing what Microsoft does - INNOVATE. Make a browser people actually want. Have some self-respect.

LTD said,
Place the bar low enough and everyone does.


It wouldn't matter if they did because if other companies really wanted to be competitive, they would have already made huge advancements like Microsoft has.

LTD said,
Place the bar low enough and everyone does.

Oh, and your company innovated by using an open-source OS core that other people built for free?

Microsoft, IE, and "innovate" do not sit well together. They really haven't done anything with their browser that proves it to be better than the rest. In fact, IE7 seemed to be much more of a catch up game for them.

Now, if you want to talk about other Microsoft products, then sure, the word innovate may indeed work. Office is absolutely wonderful, and Windows 7... well, you've seen all the articles. People want it.

kyller said,
LOL I don't want Opera in my PC... can I have this choice? It's my PC!

You cannot. Currently only IE is allowed to install on your PC, even if you don't use it...

Turn all the way back, the whole "battle" isn't about FF or Chrome, Safari,Opera,IE and so on. It is about the web standards. It is about open source rendering engines such as mozilla's and webkit(safari, chrome) and closed source engines like ie's one. MS should give the ability to choose the installation of your preffered Browser during the installation of the OS, jusk like every respectable linux Distro. Apple should give the same option as well.

Doomangel said,
Turn all the way back, the whole "battle" isn't about FF or Chrome, Safari,Opera,IE and so on. It is about the web standards. It is about open source rendering engines such as mozilla's and webkit(safari, chrome) and closed source engines like ie's one. MS should give the ability to choose the installation of your preffered Browser during the installation of the OS, jusk like every respectable linux Distro. Apple should give the same option as well.

A court of law is no place to attempt to force standards that are not legal issues. If Opera wants to promote web standards, they should do just that instead of whining to a government about it.

Will they apologize to Microsoft and reimburse them when Opera tanks anyway? They're just lazy money-grubbers.

forcing MS to "bundle" other vendors software is just silly. next lawsuit i see is someone from the open source community taking MS to court saying that ubuntu should be bundled with windows

dimithrak said,
thats just stupid. How in the world can that happen?

obviously force Microsoft to have their install discs setup a dual-boot and install a linux disto from the net lol

Welcome to Linux - Made by the consumer! I hope you enjoy your stay.
I think that if people want the masses to stop using IE, code all your websites to break in IE!
Force Microsoft to use web standards or force its users to change browsers.

I do find this to be ridiculous, with Terabyte hard drives coming to more pc's is it really that big a deal to have IE included in the OS. I did until today use opera, but I just finally got sick of it's stupid quirks and conceded that I'd use Firefox on my mac with mouse gestures extension installed, as that was the only thing keepin me on opera

opera may as well start doing there on OS , if they are went to bundle there rubish softwares that badly

what a BS .

microsoft should be free to do whatever they went with windows ,it is there property , not opera s' property .

If Opera wants to make a stance in the market, they need to give a better product. And I am not one who can back that statement up, as for I've never used the browser. Look at Apple, their stance in the market has increased dramatically over the last two years because their browser is something that users like. Users already have the option to switch browsers and Microsoft even allows consumers to change their default browser in Windows itself. If they want a bigger user base, they need to market their product more. Anti-trust issues like these are simply a waste of time, when the EU can focus on more important issues.

If you haven't used Opera why do you say it's poor quality?
Personally I've been using Opera 10 for the last few weeks and all I can say is that it's the fastest, more complete browser I've had the opportunity to use. Test it first, then talk about it.

Lechio said,
If you haven't used Opera why do you say it's poor quality?
Personally I've been using Opera 10 for the last few weeks and all I can say is that it's the fastest, more complete browser I've had the opportunity to use. Test it first, then talk about it. :)


The reason I say that is because the statistics are there, and they don't favor consumer demand.

I have never had any major problems coding. If i code something for IE7 i am 98% sure it will work in FF. Same in reverse.
Why because i take the time to understand each browsers qwerks

However when i code in firefox and get it working 100% in both IE, FF and safari you can bet your last pound that the POS opera will break it to god knows when!

If IE was such a big player why are so many people starting to use a FREE alternative called firefox....... Opera stop whining and shut up
What i think they should do is stick with mobile browsers

However get this
I bought a win mob phone and it came loaded with opera on it! So wtf they moaning at!!!!!

Yep - anyone who has written substantial amounts of markup know the issues and therefore can avoid them or sort them with relatively little hassle.

Also a lot of people who think Opera is always correct need to stop being so narrow minded - as its definitely not true from experience. Last year I had a major headache with Opera not working right (actually breaking a page and its scroll bars) Several experienced html/css writers could not find a "soltuion" and we all agreed it was a major flaw in Opera and it required major rewrites to get it to work properly!

I've been creating websites for the past five years. I'm following the wc3 standards and it works always well in IE7/8. It's for firefox, and especially for all the Webkit browsers (Chrome, Opera...) that I have problems and that I need to put tricks in my code for it to work.

quentez said,
I've been creating websites for the past five years. I'm following the wc3 standards and it works always well in IE7/8. It's for firefox, and especially for all the Webkit browsers (Chrome, Opera...) that I have problems and that I need to put tricks in my code for it to work.

Opera uses Presto as its engine.
You say you are a Web developer, then you should be happy to know that Opera is the most standards compliant Web browser that currently exists.
Checkout this page: http://www.opera.com/browser/next/



Oh, your post was just supposed to be a joke, i see it now.

Lechio said,
Opera uses Presto as its engine.
You say you are a Web developer, then you should be happy to know that Opera is the most standards compliant browser that currently exists.
Checkout this page: http://www.opera.com/browser/next/

Oh, your post was just supposed to be a joke, i see it now.

I don't really see the statistics of a web browser that hardly anyone uses as something to make anyone feel one way or another.

GreyWolfSC said,
I don't really see the statistics of a web browser that hardly anyone uses as something to make anyone feel one way or another.

Say what?
We are talking about Web standards here. Opera is a Web Browser that fully respects Web standards. IE is a "Web" browser that doesn't follow them.

Maybe some people would like to see something new, like a "WebMS" where you can only access it if you have a browser/OS provided by MS. But that would be something completely different from the World Wide Web, and the software used to access information on this network would not be called a "Web Browser".

Lechio said,
Opera uses Presto as its engine.
You say you are a Web developer, then you should be happy to know that Opera is the most standards compliant Web browser that currently exists.
Checkout this page: http://www.opera.com/browser/next/



Oh, your post was just supposed to be a joke, i see it now.


since when is passing acid 3 a definitive proof of following the entire set of standards? oh it is not, i see, well done you

Lechio said,
Say what?
We are talking about Web standards here. Opera is a Web Browser that fully respects Web standards. IE is a "Web" browser that doesn't follow them.

Maybe some people would like to see something new, like a "WebMS" where you can only access it if you have a browser/OS provided by MS. But that would be something completely different from the World Wide Web, and the software used to access information on this network would not be called a "Web Browser".

I can view any page in IE just fine. Stop being an Opera shill and maybe people will apply more weight to your arguments.

XerXis said,
since when is passing acid 3 a definitive proof of following the entire set of standards? oh it is not, i see, well done you

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.

When successful, the Acid3 test displays a gradually increasing percentage counter with colored rectangles in the background. The percentage displayed is based on the number of sub-tests passed. It is not representing an actual percentage of conformance as the test does not keep track on how many of the test were actually started (100 is asumed). In addition to these the browser also has to render the page exactly like the reference page is rendered in the same browser. Like the text of the Acid2 test the text of the reference rendering is not a bitmap in order to allow for certain differences in font rendering.

IE continues to fail it miserably, IE8 can only score around 20. IE is not a Web browser that complies to Web standards, are you trying to deny that?

GreyWolfSC said,
I can view any page in IE just fine.

Who said you couldn't?

GreyWolfSC said,
Stop being an Opera shill and maybe people will apply more weight to your arguments.

I'm not a being an "Opera shill". I use Opera, alongside Konqueror (KHTML that originated WebKit), Firefox, lynx, (...), even IE (for testing purposes only).

Now stop being an IE "shill" will you? :)


Lechio said,
IE continues to fail it miserably, IE8 can only score around 20. IE is not a Web browser that complies to Web standards, are you trying to deny that?

Stop being ridiculous. You're applying insanely high standards that no released browser reaches - every browser is not compliant in some ways. IE is behind, yes, but it is improving.

Kirkburn said,
Stop being ridiculous. You're applying insanely high standards that no released browser reaches - every browser is not compliant in some ways. IE is behind, yes, but it is improving.

That's a lie there.
WebKit based browsers pass it (tested it with Midori gets 100/100).
Opera 10 gets a 100/100, you can say that it's a pre-release "not out" but it will be final pretty soon.

Sure, IE is improving from what it was, no doubt about it. It just isn't enought. And there is no will to do so.
Stop being ridiculous now and get some substance to your arguments instead of going personal.

Lechio said,
Opera uses Presto as its engine.
You say you are a Web developer, then you should be happy to know that Opera is the most standards compliant Web browser that currently exists.
Checkout this page: http://www.opera.com/browser/next/

Oh, your post was just supposed to be a joke, i see it now.

Safari 4 gets 100/100 as well. Besides a sideaffect of all that extra rendering has really slowed Presto down, it's slower than Firefox and Chrome now rather than just Firefox.

Chrome is faster, but bare bones. Opera still the fastest full featured browser. Safari is pointless to run in PC. Opera slower than Firefox? hahahahahahahahaha. very funny. Firefox takes forever to start and tends to crash. Sure I used Firefox before using IE, but I use Opera as my primary web browser for just browsing. Firefox/Flock for Shopping and IE for shopping places that don't run right in Firefox/Flock. That and mouse gestures in Opera are second to none. Even with the mousegestures.org plugin for Mozilla, is far better in Opera. Chrome would be helpful with a mouse gesture and so far only Opera has the forward button for browsing thru pages. Really useful for picture pages. (using Opera 10 Beta)

thealexweb said,
Safari 4 gets 100/100 as well.

Take a look at my post, I also referenced Midori (WebKit based).

thealexweb said,
Besides a sideaffect of all that extra rendering has really slowed Presto down, it's slower than Firefox and Chrome now rather than just Firefox.

No it didn't. Opera 10 got even faster with the improvements to its engine. It's a lot faster than Firefox on my system, that I can assure you.

Well, that's great and all for Opera. However, until it becomes a delight to use it, it will still run behind the rest.

Mouse gestures seem to give mixed feelings. Those that have tried them either fell in love or couldn't be bothered. Great features generally get replicated to other browsers. The speed dial and gestures are available through addons for Firefox, but it seems to be Opera users who enjoy using Firefox enough to pull basically the one or two things they liked from Opera. They do not fundamentally change the browsing experience though, and using that alone to argue that it is better than all the rest seems petty.

The only reason why the Firefox's addon feature gets so much attention is that it allows for many many multiple features and tools designed around whatever you do. No, it's not Mozilla's work, but we're talking about options available for the browser. If Opera had those kinds of options, or even Chrome (which may soon), then yes, I would switch in a heartbeat.

Is this an original article? Or from somewhere else? The comparison to Linux is (as it usually is in the case of "bundled" apps) wrong.

Every OS, including Linux, ships with a default browser and it's the users choice to install any other browser...

...The same is with Ubuntu Linux, where Firefox comes installed by default.
...

If the EC wins this battle, fills it's account with loads of cash and forces Microsoft to bundle competitor's browsers into its OS, what about Apple, Linux or any other OS in that regard? Will Opera file a complaint against them too?

In Linux, there are separate points that make this comparison invalid.
  • The browsers provided are 3rd party already, and are standards-compliant. They are not supplied as deviations to the standard to encourage vendor lock-in.
  • The distros already install alternatives, such as Epiphany or Konqueror in your typical install such as from Ubuntu/Kubuntu or Fedora or such.
  • What is pre-selected for install is optional and can be completely removed from the system.
You see, the situation with Microsoft IE is not like "Linux" at all.

In Windows, users have a choice as to what browser to install and use. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a market for alternate browsers.

If they're going to force things on one group, then those rules should apply to all, or none.

iamwhoiam said,
In Windows, users have a choice as to what browser to install and use. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a market for alternate browsers.

If they're going to force things on one group, then those rules should apply to all, or none.


You must not have read my post.

In Linux, there are already only third-party browsers installed. Not so in Windows.
In Linux, any of the installed browsers can be completely deselected and removed. Not so in Windows.

What "rules" would need to apply to Linux? If you are talking about the bulleted items in the article above, then they already apply, leaving you without a point.

in linux you choose them when installing , on Windows you only can choose after having everything installed

what they want its during the install process to choose a diferent browser , on XP i only use IE to do the updates , on vista i only used IE to get Firefox for example i didnt used it anymore after getting another browser

If this news article is original content, it should be marked as editorial. All what it expresses is the authors uninformed opinion and its partiality towards we know who. It in fact should be marked as "rant".

Thank you for such a poor, uninformed, distorted "article". I would like my 5 minutes back now, if you please.

Lechio said,
If this news article is original content, it should be marked as editorial. All what it expresses is the authors uninformed opinion and its partiality towards we know who. It in fact should be marked as "rant".

Thank you for such a poor, uninformed, distorted "article". I would like my 5 minutes back now, if you please.


The issue is *not* about compliance with Web standards. This is supposedly a strictly anti-trust issue (but in reality about the poor market share of Opera compared to other browsers and IE in particular). If standards-compliance meant *anything* in terms of browser market share, neither IE or Firefox would rule the roost; Safari would. Safari losing ground to Google Chrome (which is not as standards-compliant as even IE) severely trainwrecks the argument that standards-compliance means diddly to users. It may mean a lot to Web *developers*, but not even to all of them, and even among developers, the battle over standards-compliance has devolved into the worst sort of fanboyism. Whoever phrased this as anything other than the latest round in the trade conflict of EU vs. US needs to go back to the beginning of these trade battles (not anti-trust battles) and do some research. (For some additional light reading on this, I would add the minutes of the latest World Economic Forum in Davos, where the sort favored among the attendees is US-bashing.)

PGHammer said,
The issue is *not* about compliance with Web standards. This is supposedly a strictly anti-trust issue (but in reality about the poor market share of Opera compared to other browsers and IE in particular). If standards-compliance meant *anything* in terms of browser market share, neither IE or Firefox would rule the roost; Safari would. Safari losing ground to Google Chrome (which is not as standards-compliant as even IE) severely trainwrecks the argument that standards-compliance means diddly to users. It may mean a lot to Web *developers*, but not even to all of them, and even among developers, the battle over standards-compliance has devolved into the worst sort of fanboyism. Whoever phrased this as anything other than the latest round in the trade conflict of EU vs. US needs to go back to the beginning of these trade battles (not anti-trust battles) and do some research. (For some additional light reading on this, I would add the minutes of the latest World Economic Forum in Davos, where the sort favored among the attendees is US-bashing.)

So it is your opinion that this has nothing to do with the company Microsoft, but it's more the case of EU vs US?

You should know that relations between both are not at stake here. Those are pretty good. Sure there will be people that try do mislead others into trying to think otherwise, because that will give them the strength needed to defend their own interests, so they talk like you. It would be appropriate to say ISWYDT.

You should be reminded that Microsoft has faced numerous anti-trust cases in the US and has lost most of them.

It's their operating system, let them do what they want with it. If Opera was better, it may be able to increase it's market share via migration.

That's the problem though, as it is with most companies that can't get a decent user base, even by giving their software away for free. There's not that many users of Opera, so like most companies, Opera complains to some antitrust people that they can barely penetrate the market because of Microsoft. They never ever take in to consideration that they may have low market share because their software simply sucks. (Yes, IMO, Opera sucks)

It was the same with Symantec. They just wanted to recompile last years anti-virus source, slap a new interface on top of it and call it a new version. They couldn't do that with PatchGuard in place so they whined about it. The EU forced Microsoft to make some consessions on that as well. Never mind that almost every other damn security vendor had no problems producing security software for Vista.

Google whined about the default search in IE7 being Live Search and sued over it, yet every single alternate browser has Google set as the default search provider.

It seems like it's the norm in this day and age, that when software sucks or fails to gain the market share a company thinks it should, blame Microsoft for it and demand damages of some sort.

is there someone web developer here?
if all are here normal people who dont make web just use them, then they dont have any problem for IE integrating or not. Because its we who need to do hard work like make changes in our 100% web standard supported code to just make it compatible with 12% web standard compliant browser of their choice. Its a huge pain if u are a web developer.
and about browser choice? IE is still captured 75% market, so we dont have a chance to ignore it.
so you can say only 25% of people are known to other alternative browsers, and is that a pretty amount of market share?

tareqf1 said,
is there someone web developer here?
if all are here normal people who dont make web just use them, then they dont have any problem for IE integrating or not. Because its we who need to do hard work like make changes in our 100% web standard supported code to just make it compatible with 12% web standard compliant browser of their choice. Its a huge pain if u are a web developer.
and about browser choice? IE is still captured 75% market, so we dont have a chance to ignore it.
so you can say only 25% of people are known to other alternative browsers, and is that a pretty amount of market share?


i'm a web developer, and since ie7 it became easy to make standard websites that look good on every browser and validate. I don't know what you are doing, but if you are still spending most of your time making sure your site looks the same everywhere, then you are doing it wrong

XerXis said,
i'm a web developer, and since ie7 it became easy to make standard websites that look good on every browser and validate. I don't know what you are doing, but if you are still spending most of your time making sure your site looks the same everywhere, then you are doing it wrong

No he's not, have you even tried IE8 RC1? It was easy to make it look the same in IE7 but IE8 renders a huge amount of pages incorrectly even though they are coded correctly and display just fine in all other browsers. The only one to blame here is Microsoft.

NGPixel said,
No he's not, have you even tried IE8 RC1? It was easy to make it look the same in IE7 but IE8 renders a huge amount of pages incorrectly even though they are coded correctly and display just fine in all other browsers. The only one to blame here is Microsoft.


i've had some bugs in ie beta2 builds, however, ie8 rc1 seems to render all my pages fine, could you give some examples?

Im glad that by default IE8 renders in standards mode. And i think it's a good idea if you need to use IE8 in non standards mode then ya use a tag, but to do that i dunno why you would want to lol.
I take it that for lan sites it will render in non-standards mode by default?

And IMO if MS are forced to do so i would hope that apple are forced to as well

Antaris said,
Thats very ignorant of you...

People who still use IE assume that IE is internet and internet is IE. So basically they are classified as fools.

Come back to me and say when they really improve the browser to web standards

rakeshishere said,
People who still use IE assume that IE is internet and internet is IE. So basically they are classified as fools.

Come back to me and say when they really improve the browser to web standards


So you'd classify ~60+% of the world's internet users as fools?

Get down from your pedastool and realise you're a tool.

Antaris said,

So you'd classify ~60+% of the world's internet users as fools?

Get down from your pedastool and realise you're a tool.

I don't agree that all Internet Explorer users think that, but a lot of them do. We really need to educate users in the alternatives and this is one way

That's what I've done. Every friend and family member I've done some sort of work for, I've given them the option of Firefox with a couple of key addons. So far, they are all using it. What I found more incredible was my grandmother and stepfather (not the most computer literate) making comments about it too.

Now, I can't say that necessarily means Firefox > IE exactly, but that people given an option will choose what they like.

However, we must remember that a lot of these people using IE are doing so because their business is designed around it. Their versions of Windows are more than likely customized. Hell, my college still has what appears to be IE6 running on all the PCs (which is common). Also, a lot of people don't see a reason to switch. Much of the whole,"I just use it to check email so..." mentality, which is absolutely fine. Which browser you use is only as important as you make it out to be. For me though, it's important.

And if you want my personal opinion, IE sucks. But I suppose I'm just ignorant as well.

It's a bit of a weak argument on Opera's part. You don't need to include a tag, its optional, to make your site render how IE7 renders it. All I can see happening here, is Opera is struggling to make headway (and by headway, we mean money) into the market, holding what appears to be around 2%. Shame really, Opera is a good browser, but they don't need an extra rendering engine, Presto does a good job as it is, and they don't specifically need another engine to replicate IE8. It's non-sensical. If Trident in IE8 is more standards compliant, then wouldn't they be unecessarily creating more work in replicating it?

The EU will jump on this because they can somewhat levy control on what Microsoft can do in the European marketplace, not to mention that Opera is made by an EU company.

It's all crap really, sure Microsoft does bundle IE with Windows, like Apple does with Safari on OS X. "But they are abusing their position in the market, blah blah blah". In reality, Microsoft (like most businesses) may have used dirty tactics to help them along their way, but its the quality of the products and their use in the market that seals the deal. IE7 was a huge step up for Microsoft, it was only at this point did other browser vendors go "Hey, the sleeping bear has woken up again". Imagine what it would be like if Microsoft delivered Windows without a web experience? People would moan.

Maybe they could release an XP N-like edition of Windows 7 without it, we saw how well those sold.

Lechio said,
That's a very ignorant/uninformed statement/opinion coming from you...


Yes, because you of all people like to make unbiased statements...

Lechio said,
That's a very ignorant/uninformed statement/opinion coming from you...


Yes, because you of all people like to make unbiased statements...

Antaris said,
Yes, because you of all people like to make unbiased statements...

Oh. What do you mean by that?

I've commented on your statement, which I think is very untrue and out of touch with reality.
We'd expect a MVC to have a more informed opinion instead of expressing those untruthful, uninformed, accusative "arguments" where you base your opinion upon.

You even justify the use of "dirty tactics" to push some product to the consumer. Come on... Grow some conscience and sense of rightness will you?

.... what part of my comments where "untrue and out of touch with reality". Simply saying that doesn't make it so....

I think if MS is forced to bundle 3rd party browsers or any other 3rd party product then those companies need to pay MS for the cost. MS could drop the price of the OS by $30.00 and the 3rd party whiners can pay MS $30.00 per copy.

I agree - if they want Microsoft to bundle the software they should pay for it.

To be honest the "browser monopoly" was a bigger problem 5 years ago... now its a fair playing field, IE/Microsoft doesn't even have a Monopoly anymore.

So then we end up with 7+ie/-wmp, 7+ie/+wmp, 7-ie-wmp, 7-ie+wmp... oh and if they then bring out 5 versions of 7 with each of these options we end up with no less than 20 magical choices to confuse the unknowing section of the market - those who when they go will be sold "This copy has WMP and IE like you are used to", whilst the technically able are quite capable of changing if they so wish.

So who would buy these ridiculous products apart from moaning Opera Staff?

I think I will file a suit they remove the microsoft calculator next.

I think if MS is forced to bundle 3rd party browsers or any other 3rd party product then those companies need to pay MS for the cost. MS could drop the price of the OS by $30.00 and the 3rd party whiners can pay MS $30.00 per copy.

No, if they can't produce a viable product that people actually want, then they should go out of business. Having IE, WMP, or any other bundled app in the OS does not preclude a user from choosing something else to do the job. If that were the case, FF, Safari, Chrome, and even Opera wouldn't have any market in the Windows world.

no one is complaining against safari (in osx) and firefox (in ubuntu) since they follow the web standards if IE was doing the same no one would look at it as a problem. But they are using their monopoly to force(u need ie to validate windows, to update etc) users to use one buggy browser

I can validate just fine with Firefox, and I never go update through the site, it automatically updates itself through the Windows Update interface.

Who said that you need to follow standards to put a browser in your OS?

neoraptor said,
But they are using their monopoly to force(u need ie to validate windows, to update etc) users to use one buggy browser

No you don't.

yes you are absolutely right
just for IE we are suffering huge disadvantage in the web world.
the web could be a better place if we just remove the IE.
the recent release of IE8 just shows that they have no intention to follow standard and force us to code and use their bull**** browsers.

tareqf1 said,
yes you are absolutely right
just for IE we are suffering huge disadvantage in the web world.
the web could be a better place if we just remove the IE.
the recent release of IE8 just shows that they have no intention to follow standard and force us to code and use their bull**** browsers.

Your comment just shows that you know nothing.

IE 8 also requires a tag to be included in the websites so they can instruct the browser what to do.

erm, no it doesn't, unless you consider the doctype as a special tag ;). IE8 can be instructed to render in IE7 mode, however, that shouldn't be a problem for opera. By the way, all browsers have a quirks mode, so that doesn't make it stand apart from the rest.

To make my point, if a doctype is present IE will use that doctype instead of quirks mode, this is normal behavior and the same is done by firefox, opera, safari, ...

An Automatic Update download agent to get user's preference before the browser gets installed

This would be the preffered method if the EU finds against Microsoft. I don't particularly want to find Opera and Firefox installed by default.

Or or... They could let the user decide what browser he wants installed on his OS at the time of install. Instead of bundling their own choice and forcing it to the consumer. Either way they go, it will be a better solution than the current one.

the "current one" being microsoft NOT having to support third party browsers? What happens if FireFox or Opera stops working, you realize there's no way to actually CALL the firefox/Opera forums...and Microsoft should NOT have to issue 0 day patches for software they don't own, profit from, or control via THEIR upgrade software, this is a joke.

Microsoft doesn't have to support software that does not belong to them.
Firefox or Opera are perfectly capable of doing that on their own.

Oh, and the package manager option, why isn't that implemented in Windows? Let's see that getting done. In a package manager you can install/remove/update any software. That includes third-party software too. Solution there.

It's not that there aren't the means it's because the current situation is "convenient".

Package management is probbly one of the worst things about linux. It's defiantly written FOR developers BY developers with developers in mind. Full stop. implying that a package manager of thrid party software is the way to go about things is kind of dizzying. another "built in tool" for accessing third party software that Microsoft can't possibly control. Dangerous, stupid, and easily exploitable, as Linux users would know if they had enough software being written for it that it'd be a problem.

As for microsoft not having to support thrid party software, what is going to happen when the next Firefox exploit gets revealed, and Microsoft doesn't have practical resources to issue the patch to their download version (I'm going to guess they'll want oversight over the code that they're promising is safe to the consumer at first install)? Suddenly thousands of systems are infected / compromised and it's "microsoft's fault" because they couldn't issue a "simple patch" except, Microsoft has to account for an infinite number of variables for their own products much less ones they have no control of the development for.

And if the consumer trashes their FF install? try getting someone computer illiterate to find the "windows start up" screen again if they turn it off. now frustrate them more by saying they wont be able to go to their new grand kid's pictures without downloading and patching a new piece of software that WILL HAVE TO have several warnings about third party nature of them.

My bet? they'll click nice old IE.

Rolith said,
Package management is probbly one of the worst things about linux. It's defiantly written FOR developers BY developers with developers in mind. Full stop. implying that a package manager of thrid party software is the way to go about things is kind of dizzying. another "built in tool" for accessing third party software that Microsoft can't possibly control. Dangerous, stupid, and easily exploitable, as Linux users would know if they had enough software being written for it that it'd be a problem.

As for microsoft not having to support thrid party software, what is going to happen when the next Firefox exploit gets revealed, and Microsoft doesn't have practical resources to issue the patch to their download version (I'm going to guess they'll want oversight over the code that they're promising is safe to the consumer at first install)? Suddenly thousands of systems are infected / compromised and it's "microsoft's fault" because they couldn't issue a "simple patch" except, Microsoft has to account for an infinite number of variables for their own products much less ones they have no control of the development for.

And if the consumer trashes their FF install? try getting someone computer illiterate to find the "windows start up" screen again if they turn it off. now frustrate them more by saying they wont be able to go to their new grand kid's pictures without downloading and patching a new piece of software that WILL HAVE TO have several warnings about third party nature of them.

My bet? they'll click nice old IE.

Actually Linux got more programs than in Windows, the only thing that is better in Windows is gaming, everything else is much better in Linux OS.
Interface Windows 7 cant beat KDE 4.1
Even KDE 4.1 use less resoruces than aero and is much prettier.
Also package managment well is quite easy to use, just search what u want and install it, better yet just use a simple word like "antivirus" and u will get a list of antivirus avaible....... yes thats hard.......

@Rolith
Have you ever used a package manager before? It's a point-and-click install. You select what software you want to install and it automatically installs it for you. Hardly something oriented for the "developers". And yes those are written by software developers as you would expect it to be for any other software, right...?

MS doesn't have to control the repositories for the software. And they shouldn't limit people to use only their own repositories. It's up to the user to choose what he wants to use. If it's only Microsoft (and their buddies) software fine, if the user decides to get its software from elsewhere (like GNU open source software) great. To lock it down would be a worst solution and even a "Dangerous" one.

Again, Microsoft does not have to provide support to third-party software. Like it isn't doing now for software made by Adobe for instance.
To imply that they do have to provide support for something that they don't make is erroneous and misleading to the uninformed.

Rolith said,
the "current one" being microsoft NOT having to support third party browsers? What happens if FireFox or Opera stops working, you realize there's no way to actually CALL the firefox/Opera forums...and Microsoft should NOT have to issue 0 day patches for software they don't own, profit from, or control via THEIR upgrade software, this is a joke.

Agreed. If MS does provide any other web browsers on their installation media (or windows updates) you better believe there will be a big red EULA that reads "MS DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS, INSTALL AT YOUR OWN RISK." Then they will probably be slapped on the wrist for that. The current system is how it should remain to be. Opera should improve their web browser and perhaps market it more if they want to increase their market share. Taking this legal route is pretty pathetic, and Opera has lost face because of it.

So Opera is forcing this absolutely retarded concept? Microsoft, just pull out of the European market and **** em all off, please!

Watters said,
So Opera is forcing this absolutely retarded concept? Microsoft, just pull out of the European market and **** em all off, please!

Yeah why not lets all cut 2 billion people out of our market. Rofl.

Besides, this has nothing to do with the EU, Opera brought this onto Microsoft, not the EU.

So Opera is forcing this absolutely retarded concept? Microsoft, just pull out of the European market and **** em all off, please!

That'll be FAR FAR worse to Microsoft's economy than letting EU be anal with them and change their OS.

Jugalator said,
That'll be FAR FAR worse to Microsoft's economy than letting EU be anal with them and change their OS.

By making it a "lesser of two evils" argument it becomes extortion.

While I don't agree with the pulling out of Europe statement, Europe does not have 2 billion people. Not even half of that...

Anyhow, I'm all for the idea of them doing this, but simply excluding Opera just to spite them lol. Call it the top three, in which Firefox, Safari, and Chrome are put up there. Microsoft could then maybe say,"Hey, when your browser passes Chrome, let us know and we'll put you on there." I believe that would heat the competition up! :P

dead.cell said,
Anyhow, I'm all for the idea of them doing this, but simply excluding Opera just to spite them lol. Call it the top three, in which Firefox, Safari, and Chrome are put up there. Microsoft could then maybe say,"Hey, when your browser passes Chrome, let us know and we'll put you on there." I believe that would heat the competition up! :P

Agreed. Opera has been around for much longer than Chrome, but its market share is much lower than Chrome's. I've used Opera before, and I still use it at school where Firefox is restricted from running. Opera's not even that great, but it's still heaps better than any version of IE. I mean, IE 8 still has ZERO support for SVG or CSS3. If MS wants to include IE 8, they better add SVG and CSS3 support.

Watters said,
So Opera is forcing this absolutely retarded concept? Microsoft, just pull out of the European market and **** em all off, please!

europe without crappy, unstable, unsecure and expensive microsoft products...*sigh* it doesn't hurt to dream :))

comparison Testing
Opera: Failed 0 tests.
Test 26 passed, but took 92ms (less than 30fps)
Test 69 passed, but took 12 attempts (less than perfect).
Total elapsed time: 2.04s

Safari 3.2 failed 26 tests
Flock 2.0.3 failed 29 tests
Chrome 1.0.154.46 failed 21 tests
Firefox 3.0.5 failed 29 tests
Avant 11.7 build 21 failed 86 tests
IE 8 RC1 failed 80 tests

Jugalator said,
That'll be FAR FAR worse to Microsoft's economy than letting EU be anal with them and change their OS.


not sure if this would be worse, just think about it. What would actually happen. If MS would release press release saying because of EU we have to pull out of European market, do you think all the people in EU would just say ok, cool. Lets just all switch to Linux. Some people barelly understand how to use Windows, if they were forced to use Linux, basically **** would hit the fan. People would basically tell EU to stop harassing MS.

nekrosoft13 said,
.. ok, cool. Lets just all switch to Linux. Some people barelly understand how to use Windows, if they were forced to use Linux, basically **** would hit the fan. People would basically tell EU to stop harassing MS.

Because you think that pointing and clicking on Linux is somehow harder than on Windows? My kids all use my PC (which runs Linux) without problems or special training on how to click to open a program.

PatrynXX said,
comparison Testing
Opera: Failed 0 tests.
Test 26 passed, but took 92ms (less than 30fps)
Test 69 passed, but took 12 attempts (less than perfect).
Total elapsed time: 2.04s

Safari 3.2 failed 26 tests
Flock 2.0.3 failed 29 tests
Chrome 1.0.154.46 failed 21 tests
Firefox 3.0.5 failed 29 tests
Avant 11.7 build 21 failed 86 tests
IE 8 RC1 failed 80 tests

Unfortunately, Opera is slow as ever. Firefox 3.2 also gets a 92 on the acid3.

PatrynXX said,
comparison Testing
Opera: Failed 0 tests.
Test 26 passed, but took 92ms (less than 30fps)
Test 69 passed, but took 12 attempts (less than perfect).
Total elapsed time: 2.04s

Safari 3.2 failed 26 tests
Flock 2.0.3 failed 29 tests
Chrome 1.0.154.46 failed 21 tests
Firefox 3.0.5 failed 29 tests
Avant 11.7 build 21 failed 86 tests
IE 8 RC1 failed 80 tests

Where the browsers sit with the Acid tests (I'm assuming that's what you ran?) really doesn't make a difference exactly. We've been pushed into thinking that these tests make a difference as to what browser you should use when it really doesn't make all too much a difference.

What really matters is how enjoyable it is to browse the internet with them.