Neowin.net

ditto

I'm currently located in the EU (unfortunately) and news like this just makes me ashamed of Europe and I wish the UK could withdraw entirely.

I don't want Firefox installed on my system by default thank you very much. If I choose to install Firefox, then I will download and get it myself. I don't want it forced on me.

Last thing i would want is Firefox 3.0 installed on my system... FF 2 FTW

I think its not fair that they force MS to do this... Its like saying "yes we worked really hard to get this far and now we have to give up out market share cuz we are to good for it."

Every user is free to install what ever they want on WIndows... After all dont OEM computers have enough of the companies mainstream **** installed on it already? Lenovo anyone?

My sentiment exactly!

Stop living under your rock and install FF3! You're not even safe with FF2 anymore. They disabled the phising filter to try and get people like you to upgrade.


Getting back on topic, even though I use FF3, it's absolutely ridiculous that the EU are doing this! It's Microsoft's OS, and they have the right to put their own programs on it, just like Apple have the same right to stick their programs in Mac OS X!

If the EU is gonna force this, then bundle Firefox with both Windows and Mac OS X, it'll make them both better!

NEXT UP:

EU may force Microsoft to bundle Adobe Photoshop with Windows.
Microsoft may also be required to disable certain unspecified MS Paint software code if a user chooses a competing graphics program.

lol.

Last thing I want is IE installed on my system :}

So buy a mac, hey look at that you have choices, what a crazy idea.

That's actually not right you absolutely have no choice but to install Internet Explorer. It's not a choice. And this is honestly what started this stupid browser fight.

You should be able to not install IE when you install Windows. Or at least be able to remove it and make components of Windows requiring it work with another browser (like the help of Windows). This would be a far better move than requiring Firefox to be bundled with Windows.

I run Mac, Linux, and Windows. Yeah, you are right, i have a ton of choice. Let me go play Left4Dead on my mac... errr.. on my linux box.... errrr..... guess I'm stuck with my Windows machine and therefore stuck with IE.

This comment is stupid. How the hell are you supposed to browse the internet if you don't even have a browser to begin with? Oh right, because every single person who buys a new computer just happens to have an installer of an internet browser right on a thumb drive. I forgot about that.

If you don't like IE, then just don't use it. Christ lord, it's not rocket science.

I want the same!

But you *do* want that IE garbage forced onto you, huh?

Now I'm not trying to defend Firefox (I'm using Opera myself), but it certainly would be a great deal better than IE, so I'm all for the EU kicking MS' ass if they continue forcing crap on people's PCs without giving an alternative.

Also, let's not forget that most people aren't technically minded at all and don't know how to download and install a new browser and are thus forced to make do with the IE crap - and that's exactly what MS speculates on.
Oh, and for the record - I am also located in the EU, *fortunately*, and news like this make me proud of Europe and that it shows MS that it can't do whatsoever it wants.

This has been done before, and Microsoft found ways around it. Device operating systems are melting into the background, Microsoft is becoming an irrelevance. Vista and undoubtedly Windows 7 has bloated out of all proportion. Windows NT4.0 and then 2000 was Microsoft's high points. People will find Firefox, through friends and family. Microsoft need to work on improving their bloatware than be distracted by legal battles (which is why they have lost their way).

So credible!

Ha ha boho throws around the word "irrelevance" so much that that's what his posts seem to have become.

If i were MS, this would be high on my priority list when presenting their case to the EU. If the EU is all about fair competition, then Apple should be forced to do the same thing.

+1 and what about linux!, it should also follow the same rules!

I don't think you really understand "Linux" in this context . . .

Actually in Vista and Windows 7 Windows/Microsoft Update is an independent program and does not rely on the browser to function. This would only affect new machines so XP is in the clear here.

Afaik, most linux distributions already come with two or more browsers installed by default, with the additional ones only one checkbox away from the installation, all of which you can choose while installing the OS.

Don't worry, if most of the people posting here had dynamite for brains, they would not have enough to blow their hat off. Microsoft are reaping what they have sown :-)

Last edited by boho on 27 Jan 2009 - 10:39

Bloatware, lol.

apple should definitely have to do the same - totally an unfair advantage if not
why don't MS have some sort of IE Lite installed that is very basic but allows u 2 download any browser u like - including the full version of inet explorer - which would of course replace said IE Lite if installed?

then no need for doubling up browsers if u don't want to!

MS fought last time when they were told they were not allowed to include a Media Player with windows, they lost.

Exactly. No to double standards.

Exactly. OR.... "I want OS X on my PC. It's not fair that only the people who buy the Mac can use OS X. I mean, really. Apple has a 100% monopoly on OS X, and that's just not right."

Actually, it is. It's their OS. The issue isn't whether OS X should or should not be allowed to run on other hardware. In fact, OS X really isn't the issue here. Its position in the market is completely different from Microsoft's.

I respectfully disagree.

You stated, The issue isn't whether OS X should or should not be allowed to run on other hardware.
I know that's not the issue here, however when you load any OS, it's on your hardware that you paid for. Should Apple be forced to offer a Vista or Windows 7 install when you buy your computer?

Its position in the market is completely different from Microsoft's.


This I know. How about this... Apple has a commanding lead in market share in the MP3 market. Should they be forced to bundle a different program to manage your music, because after all... that would only be fair... right?

Apple actively prevents you (iPod database hash) from doing so.

Can I move my Zune content to a Mac if I wanted to switch? I assume all it takes is plugging it in and downloading the Zune software . . .

You are obviously not seeing the analogy being made.

Of course he's not, you can't use Apple in any negative way, it breaks the reality LTD lives in.

lol

and SierraSonic... good point

I think LTD has a mac monitor on his computer that sweeps Neowin every 5 seconds for any mention of Mac, OSX etc... when it finds something it alerts him so he can log on to defend it's honour!
If it's a slow day then he'll trawl off to some Mac fanboy site to pick up some news (???) to post here and claim it's just for lively discussion and to be honest i for one am getting pretty bored of it now.

LTD real name Jobs? :p

"I am an Apple fanboy, and Apple should not be sued."

Exactly. I want to yell "VTEC JUST KICKED IN YO!!!!!" when I drive my Toyota. Why can only Honda users do that? That is ridiculous!

That's quite impossible. The European market is a big chunk of market share that they'd be stupid to give up and couldn't afford to give up.

I think Europe probably needs windows more than Microsoft needs them. If they were to pull out of the market, then there'd be a huge backlash against the EU for this

This, so everyone saying, OMG stop selling MS products in the EU, lol at you.

I doubt that, lol.

These people don't realise how big Europe is, do they?

Population of Europe = 731million.
Population of European Union countries = 491million.
Population of USA = 305 million.

All you've shown is that a group of countries in across the ocean have a bigger population than the US. Population does not equal computer usage, and the numbers are generally not close enough to use this as some sort of "estimation". China for instance has a 1.33 billion population, with only 253 million using the internet as of 2008. (source)

Also, you're comparing how big Europe is, shouldn't you compare it to the rest of the world instead of just the US?

I'm not arguing that Europe is indeed a good amount of users, but that the stuff you're throwing out there doesn't exactly answer any kind of questions.

Last edited by dead.cell on 27 Jan 2009 - 14:53

the EU has the highest GDP in the world. From 2 years ago it became "the" largest economy in the world. Microsoft pulling out of the EU would be financial suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_(nominal)

Whatever fines they have to pay will pale in comparison to the losses of pulling out of the EU.

+1, the EU would collapse. better yet, shut down ALL updates to Europe for windows...how's them apples?

+2 Idiots just want some of dem M$$$$$.

A quick fix to their failing economies: Take the money from someone else!

Yeah, obviously the EU would collapse, instead of it switching to Linux and OS X, and Microsoft collapsing...
This is all hypothetical anyways, Microsoft would never be that stupid.

Well it must be a big enough market, or I'm quite sure MS would have pulled out after the billions they were fined a ocuple of years ago.

It's nothing more than to extort more money from them.

I strongly support this.

Then watch as the EU switches to Mac's or Linux.

Microsoft would've lost 1/2 its revenue in the blink of an eye.

Provide a link not force feed it into the OS and the end user. This is getting really out of hand.

The most MS should do is add links to FF and Opera in the Welcome area or w/e it's called in Win7 where they have their Windows Live apps linked.

Click on one of those and the installer is downloaded without starting IE, simple stuff. But forcing them to install other apps from the start? This is like adding more junk on top of the other junk OEMs install already.

No thanks.

But why stop at browsers? How about IM clients, mail clients, image editors, OpenOffice, development tools, games, virtualization software, video editors - I know, why don't they just take Download.com and put it in the setup!!

Joking aside, the issue with this is now who supports the software? If browser X comes pre-installed, isn't it now Microsoft's problem if that software crashes, or has a security hole?

Last edited by JonathanMarston on 27 Jan 2009 - 19:43

I was about to post something similiar. I'd be ****ed with EU or UE or whatever the hell the acronym is, with all the things they impose on MS, bundling firefox is just stupid. Then they might want to start bundling itunes next.

Yes, must be terribly hard to remember a two letter acronym that's in the article title.

Read article it is about adding both browsers so people have a choice not just flicking IE for firefox.

Read tht already.. It still doesn't make sense..

Yeah cause the Mozilla Foundation is totally European am i right?

Yeah, what is the fair way to decide? And I agree with previous posters with the big question of if MS assumes the responsibility by any security holes in their competitors product.

Most everyone knows how to get Firefox on their system. Even my less tech savvy friends are using it. I don't think it is having any problems with market penetration.

Its ALL OF THEM , Multiple Choice , read all the links on the main news

The only thing MS should so is add the option to d/l them like it does for it's Windows Live apps. Since Win7 doesn't come with Mail etc, they give you a link when you first start up, just add FF/Opera or w/e else to that window.

When users click that link, just download the installer for that directly without starting IE, or add-in a program/package manager type system which I think MS is looking at doing already (there was another article posted last week?)

They shouldn't be forced to install anything though.

You are trumping the free choice! You are proposing giving some unfair handicap to some of the multi-million corporations (like Mozilla Corp.) while shunning other browser makers.

With multiple choice, you then get the (surprisingly important) issue of what order do they appear in, and how minor can the browsers be?

What does this have to do with Web Browsers??????

That's what the EU is going to force next; it's only fair if they follow the same guidelines for software.

Only it would not apply to licenses already purchased

They can't afford to not sell in the EU, you're deluded if you think they can...

Dang, im european and even i think that's complete stupidity.
If i were Microsoft, i would never agree.

Firefox doesn'r support w3c standards.
Firefox doesn't support XSL.
Giving multibillion dollar Mozilla Corporation another handicap is trumping competition and free choice.

As a regular user of both Internet Explorer and Firefox, I can only assume that your knowledge of Internet Explorer is outdated.

The real problem as far as I'm concerned is the existing IE6 user base. Any action that the EU take isn't going to change that one bit. IE7 is lot easier to deal with in comparison and IE8 a lot better still.

And as for upcoming web standards, HTML 5 and XHTML 5 are where it's at, not XHTML 2 and below.

Firefox displays web pages very similar (if not identical) to Chrome, Safari and Opera. There is always some need to change your code a little bit to make it cross-browser compatible (minus Internet Explorer), but to make it work in Internet Explorer, it requires much more pain and much more effort (we have to develop for Internet Explorer 6 and 7 because most people still use them).

Firefox includes support for many CSS 3 atrributes and is very standards-compliant.

Also, you can't say it's more profit for the Mozilla Corporation as any profit made by that corporation goes straight back into their Mozilla products, so how does it matter if it's more profit? It would just make their products even better, surely? That statement about the profit is true and the Mozilla Foundation make sure of this.

So please, do your research if you don't believe me.





I never said Internet Explorer 7 and 8 weren't better, but you obviously don't know anything about web developing. You can't just develop for the latest browser version, using the latest language. X/HTML 5 is the future, yes, but not the current standard. Internet Explorer doesn't even support the current standard, so do you really expect them to support future possible standards anytime soon? Also, Internet Explorer 6 needs to still be thought about when designing a website because unfortunately, too many people still use it! Both 6 and 7 are poor at rendering web pages, unless the user develops specifically for Internet Explorer (making their site incompatible with every other major browser) or unless they make two versions of their website.

If Microsoft were to bundle Firefox with windows for puposes of "standards", who fixes the flaws in the browser.

Mozilla or Microsoft!!!!!

Yes it's hard, but you get used to it. You can quite easily produce sites for other browsers + IE7. IE6 is just a PITA though.

We shouldn't have to do that though. Microsoft have made that mess and made it so it has to be "other browsers + IE7". You can't deny that, surely?

Also, it is best to still go through the pain of trying to develop for Internet Explorer 6 because around 20% of Internet users still use that. I bet you, if you've created a website which uses CSS opacity, transparent PNGs and CSS 2.1 standards, it will be more of a pain to develop for Internet Explorer 6 and 7 and strictly validate your code than you think.

If you strictly validate your code, I can guarantee it will work in every other major browser with only minor tweaks (if any) needed.

IE7/8 is a decent browser. I quite happily flip between IE7/8 and Firefox and barely notice the difference. Some things work better in one, some in the other.

If you were a web developer, developing decent websites, then you'd see there is a big difference between the rendering in Internet Explorer 7 and 8.

Internet Explorer 8 is acceptable if you are only using CSS 2.1

That isn't the only reason why people are against the budling of Internet Explorer in with Windows though, it's because many still use Internet Explorer 6 and 7, which are rubbish at rendering webpages. It's not just what people will use in the future. If more people know about other browsers then that will convince people on older computers still using these older versions of Internet Explorer which cannot render webpages properly (unless the user has specifically developed a version of their website for Internet Explorer as well as the version for every other major web browser

Many people do not know there is a different choice (as all they know of is Internet Explorer. Some don't even know what a web browser is, they just think Internet Explorer is the Internet).

That to me is a prime example of Microsoft's web browser dominance and the average user should be given the chance of knowing there are alternatives (to Internet Explorer 6, which many of them use) which can actually render webpages.

The same argument goes: If they want to install Internet Explorer, they could just go ahead and download it.

You may be able to install Firefox, when you want, but the majority of other users do not know it exists.

Many people do not know there is a different choice (as all they know of is Internet Explorer. Some don't even know what a web browser is, they just think Internet Explorer is the Internet).

That to me is a prime example of Microsoft's web browser dominance and the average user should be given the chance of knowing there are alternatives (to Internet Explorer 6, which many of them use) which can actually render webpages.

At least give many of the average user a choice of other browsers aswell (as they do not yet know they exist).

The same argument goes: If they want to install Internet Explorer, they could just go ahead and download it when they want!

You may say the average user wouldn't care that Internet Explorer 6 and 7 cannot render webpages properly (and that Internet Exploter 8 hasn't got any CSS 3 support), but I can assure you, the developers creating these websites care!

Many people will still use Internet Explorer 6 and 7 for ages, even after Internet Explorer 8 is released.

Unfortunately they haven't been forced to remove it and so users have not got a way to be given a completely fair chance of which browser they would like to use (there will be ways).

Instead they now have a choice of a browser which does not work very well (one which doesn't support any CSS 3 but most of CSS 2.1) or Firefox.

I bet the user will go with the one they are used to

Maybe you should read some of my replies to people above.

The reason why they should remove Internet Explorer is simple -

Microsoft have made it so the majority of Internet users are using a browser which does not work properly (Internet Explorer 6 and 7 do not fully support CSS 2.1 and do not support XHTML).

The average user does not know there are alternatives and therefore it is bad for us developers who have to go through the pain of trying to support browsers which do not render webpages as they should be rendered (Internet Explorer 6 and 7)

Microsoft already essentially 'forced' many of the average user to use Internet Explorer 6 and 7 (both browsers which cannot render webpages properly unless the developer has specifically targeted Internet Explorer) by bundling it into Windows. Many of the average user now think Internet Explorer is the only option. (Some do not even know what Internet Explorer is, they just think it is the Internet).

Most of the average users also do not know that Internet Explorer 6 and 7 can't render webpages properly. Microsoft act like it does

But you quite happily except Internet Explorer 6 or 7 being installed on your computer (it will have been in the past)? A browser which does not work properly.

Why? Because it is made by Microsoft, who also make the operating system?

You do realize that despite Internet Explorer's lack of standards support, its rendering engine is still widely used in the shell and bundled Windows apps?

Help and Support is one example. The reports from Problem Reports and Solutions are another.

edit: this is assuming you're advocating the removal of IE, not just a simple bundling of Firefox.

I understand that completely and that has not been part of my discussion (apart from a little bit ago, a few comments down, whilst I was moving up the page, replying to people, where I talked about Microsoft implementing Internet Explorer that deep into Windows that it cannot be removed).

Whilst I am aware of this, I have said I'd ideally like the removal of Internet Explorer and the user given a fair choice between any browser, not just Internet Explorer and Firefox (there would be ways if Internet Explorer could be removed officially - unfortunately, that will not happen).

Last edited by cJr. on 28 Jan 2009 - 05:51

Exactly!

I agree that installing just Firefox is not the way to go, but neither is having just Internet Explorer on Windows by default.

They need to think of another way.

Maybe using a program like Windows Update to let the user pick their browser. I believe that is the best way.

Most of the average users do not know other browsers exist. They therefore use the default which is installed on Windows (Internet Explorer) and then our (web developers) webpages are not shown properly to the user (unless we go through the pain and somehow find the time to specifically develop for Internet Explorer 6 or 7).

Please, do not be so ignorant.

Sorry cJr but I disagree with you, the choice should always be with the consumer and not the government.

btw, I do develop web sites and I know what a pain IE can be, but, why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to bundle its own browser with its own OS?

The user cannot make a choice if they know nothing about technology and do not even know there is a choice. A lot of the average users do not even know what a web browser is and believe Internet Explorer is the Internet. They do not know there are alternatives.

The reason why I believe Microsoft shouldn't be able to include their own browser in their own operating system is because they have made such a mess already. It is their own fault. They do not deserve to be allowed to.

They have made it so Internet Explorer cannot officially be removed. They have also made it (albeit unintentionally) so the majority of Internet users use a browser which us developers have to specifically target and go through pain and a lot of extra time to support, when our websites already work in every other major web browser (when we develop to strict standards).

That's why I believe they should not be allowed to include it in with Windows as they have already been irresponsible enough and have created this mess.

I think this would be the best solution if it comes to it. Bundling the actual installers for other browsers on the installation media is just asking for problems.

In fact this solution would solve all the "problems" the EU and Opera are claiming while showing that it's really just a storm in a teacup.

Other = ?

I believe this may be a better solution than just installing Firefox, as long as Microsoft explain that Firefox and the others support web standards (where they do) and which ones support certain CSS 3 features, bascially explaining to the user that a lot of websites may not display correctly in Internet Explorer.

I do not see Microsoft admitting to this and doing this, therefore, the EU should force it.

It serves Microsoft right for not keeping up with web development languages.

Please do write that letter!

Please do not write that letter.

Please read my other replies on this news story for reasons why Microsoft are being treated like this and for why they deserve it (making it so the majority of Internet users use a browser which does not work properly).

Many users do not know of the alternatives and that disadvantages us web developers immensely, Please read my other replies in this news story for reasons why.

You have no idea how much that makes you sound like a crybaby do you.

It's like saying that MS should bundle Python with windows because a Linux user who may have to use Windows (crazy I know) would be disadvantaged.

No it isn't the same. You are obviously very naive.

Everybody, no matter what operating system they are using is able to access your website, if they have an Internet connection and nothing is blocked.

That means it makes sense to be able to create your website once and have that displayed exactly the same as how you made it in every browser.

It doesn't make sense to to be able to create your website once and have that displayed exactly the same as how you made it (with a few minor changes) in every other major web browser except Internet Explorer, meaning you have to go through the pain and somehow find time to make it work in Internet Explorer 6 and 7, sometimes, essentially creating a whole new version of your website!

This is what happens if you develop to strict standards. Internet Explorer is the one who breaks these standards. Believe me, I know, I develop to strict standards.

Also, I never said anything about bundling anything into any operating system so I don't even know what you comment is getting at!?

I said Internet Explorer should be removed. I did say bundling Firefox would be a better idea than just leaving Internet Explorer, but I never said it's the best idea.

I suggest you read properly and do you research.

I'm not very naive and yes I do have Firefox installed on my system, for the puposes of testing.

I did read it properly and I have done research.

Gimme a template, and I'll gladly join in. I just don't have time to write a letter though.

LMAO!

Standards compliance? I honestly believe that when 80+% of the market uses a certain thing *it* becomes the standard, not some arbitrary "standards" thought up by some small group if people who think they know what is best for everyone, such as the W3C. I respect the W3C, mind you, but how can something be the 'standard' when only a fraction of folks are actually using it?

That's a whole other discussion for another day.

Indeed. I just think maybe if everyone left Microsoft alone, they'd get more done. ^_^

It can become the standard because every other single major browser out there supports it (with some minor issues).

Internet Explorer doesn't because Microsoft are too stubborn. That is their fault.

To Athernar:

Whilst I agree with some of your points, most users do not know of the alternatives to Internet Explorer and that disadvatages us web developers greatly.

That's all part of my point cJr, even if you did present the user with a run-once app in place of the intenet button that selects a default browser, they'll just pick IE; Partly because of name, partly because of the fact it's what they're used to, and maybe a little bit of trust with Microsoft they don't have with Mozilla or Opera.

The only real case here in my opinion is making sure that Microsoft supports the standards and doesn't try to replace them. IE8 will at least make sure there (Going forward) won't be any need for multiple layouts and etc.

I don't really think that IE's poor standards support has anything to do with stubborness in particular, more to do with the fact they IE team was foolishly disbanded after IE6 went final.

Finally, somebody speaks sense

I agree with everything you have said here. I am just impatient and even though Internet Explorer 8 is moving in the right direction, people who would like to use CSS transparency in their webpages (a CSS 3 attribute) still have to use a separate stylesheet for Internet Explorer (if they also like to validate their webpages, which really should be done for many reasons). The reason for having to include a separate stylesheet is because Internet Explorer (8-)'s way of supporting transparency (through the use of the 'filter' tag) causes a parsing error in the validator which cannot be corrected unless we use a separate stylesheet for that code (using conditional comments). Every other major browser, including Firefox now, supports CSS transparency through the use of the CSS 3 'opacity' attribute, which validates perfectly (there is now no need for '-moz' at the beginning in Firefox for this attribute).

That is however, not too much of a major issue and I do agree with your comment. I just wish Internet Explorer didn't have the highest market share because of things like this and because it disadvantages us web developers greatly.

I guess I am just very bitter because of that

God no! I *like* IE7/8, WMP11/12, and WLM! Though it would be nice if the Roxio suite was included...

I hope your joking about replacing with those apps rakeshishere.

seriously? winamp? nowadays?

Of course not. Apple can do no wrong these days, it seems. That'll change eventually...I hope.

ya except not everyone cares about "free" alternatives. I for one would never again use firefox, open office, or gimp after trying the REAL alternatives (IE7/8, Office, Photoshop).

Rofl it's obvious you never used any of the program listed.

While open office might lack some features a big corporation needs for the average user at home it's as good as Word.

Gimp might lack some features a pro needs but for the average user wanting to alter his digital photo or for the web designer it's far than enough.

As for Firefox versus IE7/8 it's a matter of taste.

And it's not about free alternative only. There's a lot of good products out there for under 50$ that can do the job for the average user but lack the exposure of big corporation expensive software. It would just be logical for an OS maker in a competitive market to promote the products people can get for their OS. You know like MS promote 3rd party 360 games if there's a possibility they sell some systems.

Last edited by LaP on 27 Jan 2009 - 16:13

Define the average user.

OO does one (and only one) thing that Word does not; spit out clean PDF documents from Word files (and that's the ONLY thing I use OO for).

Besides, OO doesn't do e-mail at all (and that is the single biggest thing, other than than Word, that I use Office 2007 for). To be quite blunt, I have not found a single e-mail program, other than Evolution or KMail, to be the equal of Outlook as a POP3 mail client (which says quite a bit about Outlook, actually, since POIP3 has been said to be a weakeness). Consider that neither Evolution of KMail is available for Windows.

Sometimes, it's not the BIG things that cause folks to choose one application over another.

yeah, i know, firefox is so crappy

At least unlike IE you can actually remove it from your system

but without IE how can you download firefox?
from another computer who downloaded it from IE?

If "many" people do not know there are other choices out there then they should take responsibility for themselves and learn a little about computers. Or, Microsoft's competitors could fight -fairly- for marketshare. Having the EU force it on your customers just demonstrates what lack of demand there really is for an alternative.

Let the people decide. Find more important things to worry about EU.

One word :AOL.

iexplorer is some sort of AOL, less evil but still evil.

EU is trying to FORCE to windows to lets the people can choose which browser they want to install, IT IS NOT THE SAME TO SAY THEY WILL FORCE TO INSTALL FIREFOX. So i think this measure is pretty cool, if you are pleased to, then you can't install firefox (or another browser) but iexplorer, or if you want then you can install firefox as a default browser.

It's not about the other users needing to learn and know more about computers (which I agree they should) or about "demand for an alternative", it's about us web developers and how the majority of Internet users (people who use Internet Explorer 6 and 7) aren't able to see our websites how they are meant to be shown, yet they show perfectly (or perfectly with very minor changes) in every other major browser. Even with Internet Explorer 8, users cannot see things like opacity (unless we use Microsoft's filter attribute which causes a parsing error in validation - meaning we cannot validate our websites) or selection.

As users cannot see our websites how we intend them to see them, it is only fair to us web developers for Microsoft to be forced to install a web browser that does display them as we intend (or for them to give the user a choice).

LOL!!!!

Before you say that IE can't do opacity, you might actually want to check those "facts".



Problem solved. It works really well.

Last edited by iamwhoiam on 28 Jan 2009 - 04:21

LOL!!!!

No it does not work really well at all and it is not problem solved!

Please do not try and make out like you know things when you obviously do not!

The 'filter' attribute used exactly the way you used it (the only way) gives a parsing error on the W3C's Markup Validator! There is no way around this parsing error unless you use a stylesheet specifically for Internet Explorer and use conditional comments on that - like I have done.

This obviously refers to my earlier point that we have to still specifically develop for Internet Explorer; even Internet Explorer 8, when we do not have to change much (if anything) to get our websites working in every other major browser.

Maybe you should check your "facts" before you make a fool out of yourself and try to make a fool out of others! I always check my facts and if you are an intelligent web designer, you will know it is best for web standards to always validate!

(EDIT: I've just noticed, I even said this in the comment of mine you quoted. Why not read properly in future before trying (and failing) to sound like a smart-ass?)


Last edited by cJr. on 28 Jan 2009 - 03:24

Your kidding right? It's not like its hard to support standards compliant browsers. It's hard to support browsers that AREN'T standard-compliant and buggy (IE 7, IE 6, etc).

Besides, obviously you'd have the ability to choose Internet Explorer over Firefox. In fact, they'd probably have IE installed by default and Firefox as an option to "switch to" without having to download it.

Have you ever worked in IT at a large company? Usually many of the web apps are long-standing and/or developed by a third-party and would be costly to upgrade or have upgraded to use "standards". The world of corporate intranets is totally different from the Internet...

Besides, we aren't talking about IE7 and IE6 here. If the EU does force MS to do something like this, it will be with Windows 7, which means IE8 - which has very good CSS 2.1 suppport. As for CSS3 - is that even finalized yet?

I think Jonathan was talking from a Tech Support point of view.

Corporations have enough issues to deal with without having to provide support for yet another web browser.

I'll ask this again, if MS bundle FF with windows, who supports FF? Mozilla or MS!!!!

Last edited by neo158 on 28 Jan 2009 - 08:22

Exactly. The main issue with what the EU is suggesting is support. It would force IT staffs to support IE and FF (help desk calls, security patches, etc) and would require Microsoft to provide support for FF (if a piece of software comes with the OS, Microsoft is obligated to support it).

So, what happens if a security hole is found in FireFox (as much as people like to pretend it can't happen, it can, and does)? Now MS has a problem - the default install of their OS has a security hole in a piece of software that they have no control over! And, when the patch is released by Mozilla, the IT staff at the corporations now have to manage testing and deployment of patches for both IE and FF.

Hey, it's a valid tactic to get their economies going again. Just legally steal the money from someone else!

Apparently their last chunk of M$$$$$ ran out.

No, Opera are a bunch of whiney ass cry babies. "Our broswer isn't doing so well, so let's go to the EU and say it's Microsoft's fault."

Yeah! That way when you install Windows you can't get to the Internet at all! Ultimate security!

Uhm, the last time I checked, I was free to choose any browser that I wanted to use with Windows. Just because IE is there does not mean I'm "forced" to use it.

Exactly. I am a proud Firefox user and that didn't come on my machine. Sounds to me like the EU is playing to the lowest common denominator that can't understand how to install software on their own...

MS is not a monopoly, it has a controlling share of the world's OS market, being a monopoly would require that it has exclusive control.

Sure, MS at its start used monopolistic policies with OEM's, but that is long gone now, since major OEM's are offering alternative OS'es with their PCs.

When MS starts forcing computer makers not to bundle competitive software to its own, come back again and say its a monopoly.

That's a pitty that you think forcing something on people is the way things should be done. And before you say it, Microsoft isn't forcing IE on people either. Just because IE is the default browser out of the box, does not preclude anyone from downloading, installing, and using a different browser.

The whole Windows N fiasco was becase Real complained that they were losing market share on their piece-o-sh*t player. Now there'll be yet another version of Windows that I as a consumer will have to help absorb the cost of simplybecause Opera's market share is like %1. FF, Safari, Chrome, and others (besided Opera) have done really well without being forced on anyone.

You may like or love FF, and more power to you, but the general consumer wants a PC that works when they get it home and not have to sit in front of it configuring options for alternate software.

This whole mess is because of Opera. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes well a lot of people are either too lazy or don't care enough to install Firefox. Then those same lazy people complain that they get virii and that websites don't work properly...

Is there actually even a way to bundle an operating system onto another operating system other than using VMWare/Virtual PC/etc (very inefficient ways)?

Surely you need a hard drive to install another operating system as well as Windows?

Copies of Windows sold separately would therefore not be able to have another operating system inside and therefore your point would be... well, pointless

As stated above, in my replies, many times, it is Microsoft's fault this ruling has happened to them.

They shouldn't have been so lazy and if they hadn't, the majority of Internet users would be using a standards-compliant browser

Last edited by cJr. on 28 Jan 2009 - 05:11

Except that bundling OSes wasn't even the point... But I was thinking more in line with something like the university I attend to does, they run Windows and Linux on the same HDD and on boot-up you would to choose which to install, simple enough. Of course it'd be absurd to force them to do that but coming from the people making this decision, anything is possible.

How exactly is it MS's fault? is it for being successful on making a product people buy? for making a non-standards browser? given it'd be better if IE was standards-compliant but it's their product they can make it however they like, just don't use it if you don't like it.

Yes, Firefox gives you viruses

If you have a decent anti-virus installed and aren't dumb, then you should be fine! It is more secure than a lot of other browsers out there and probably more secure than Internet Explorer (I do not have proof of this, but I always keep up-to-date with the latest news involving web browser security).

Firefox's phishing capabilities and filter are fantastic!

Do you even know what phishing is? From your comment, it seems you lack some knowledge on web browser security.

Last edited by cJr. on 28 Jan 2009 - 03:26

You already had that option. Where have you been all this time?