Internet Explorer is now an optional feature in Windows 7

Along with various other changes that are to be reflected in Windows 7 RC, here is a big change that is not in the list. From Windows 7 build 7048, Internet Explorer(IE) is an optional Windows feature and can be installed/uninstalled from Windows 7. This will be a welcoming (and surprising) news, especially to European Union and Opera who have accused Microsoft for not giving consumers a genuine choice of Web browsers.

If IE is upgraded to version 8 in Vista (from version 7), users do get an option to uninstall IE 8, but not IE 7. IE 7 remains an integral component of Windows Vista which cannot be removed.

To uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows 7:

  • Go to Control Panel
  • Open Programs
  • Click Turn Windows features on or off
  • Deselect Internet Explorer 8


For more info visit here

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Exclusive: Windows Vista SP2 RC released to general public

Next Story

The Windows Live team wants your wish lists

104 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This changes nothing because the majority of the users will not uninstall IE. If there was an option during install with two radio buttons, that would actually educate users that there are better, more standards compliant browsers. I don't see how an option hidden in Windows features is going to help web developers. IE will still retain maximum user share. Website devs will still have to code exceptions just for it.

THIS is why I don't use Opera as a matter of principle. I don't see HOW this is gonna help them with firefox and chrome being so popular unless they can convince some friendly OEMs to bundle it with windows.

This is all bull----. uninstall IE, and it will delete Iexplore.exe. The rest of IE is heavily integrated into the O/S, nothing is going to remove all that code. I remember when Microsoft said that Window95 would not run without Internet Explorer. Someone put the Judge up to telling Microsoft to bring in a PC. and delete Iexplore.exe - surprise surprise, the O/S worked just fine.

It's kinda obvious, right?

You don't have to use it.

The program itself barely consumes anything.

You can easily set a new default browser.

And here's the kicker: It's a click away when you DO need it. Imagine that.

Internet Explorer is useful for if you ever design a website and need to see if your site works in Internet Explorer. I'd keep it, I'd just never use it as my primary browser.

Opera will be having a party now, only to realize later they still have a tiny marketshare and will forever.

Yay for all the clueless people who have a grudge against Microsoft.
This changes, um, absolutely nothing. You still need the trident engine (or any default HTML renderer) included with the OS to have the basic control and render abilities many, MANY 3rd party software uses.

And, Most of the market share comes with default installs by users who don't know or wouldn't care to replace IE with anything else, So it changes nothing in the "anti-competitive" clause. Including other browsers also isn't an option, Because its just as anti-competitive.

But as you pointed out - it changes things in the 'market share' issue; something me and other web developers are tremendously happy over.

It was despicable that Internet Explorer, in the state it was in before version 8, was the market leader. Now the majority of users use a web browser which cannot render websites to web standards, when all of the other major browsers do.

chaosblade said,
And, Most of the market share comes with default installs by users who don't know or wouldn't care to replace IE with anything else, So it changes nothing in the "anti-competitive" clause. Including other browsers also isn't an option, Because its just as anti-competitive.

That's not quite right. Now, if they really wanted to, a third-party browser maker could pay an OEM to include their browser and remove Internet Explorer. While it was possible in the past for OEMs to include a third-party browser with the operating system, Internet Explorer was always included. If Internet Explorer is removed, a third-party browser can become the "default" browser - at least, for that particular OEM setup.

Will it actually happen, and will it actually make a difference? I wouldn't really think so, but it's possible. We'll have to wait and see.

This isn't new. You've always been able to 'remove' Internet Explorer. However, as Microsoft has unfortunately had to explain over and over again, IE is built into the OS. If you want IE to disappear that's fine but some components will always remain.

This hasn't changed since Windows XP. In fact, the "turn on/off Windows feature" is no different than Add/Remove Windows Components in XP.

Oh well, this illusion will calm some people down who simply don't understand IE or how simple it is to install another browser and make IE disappear. It's always been incredibly easy.

This is certainly a step in the right direction. Well done, Microsoft! Although as mentioned earlier, it still keeps the Internet Explorer folder in the Program Files area. Has anyone tested to see what happens when the Internet Explorer folder is deleted? If so, what happens?

Sweet, but at a time when this would be good, it really isnt anymore. Most companies use Internet Explorer and some sites and written to work only with IE. So it will stay on my computer just in case I need it. Doesnt take up that much space.

Not many companies are really doing that anymore, unless it's an older web app, most newer ones work just fine in any browser

techbeck said,
Sweet, but at a time when this would be good, it really isnt anymore. Most companies use Internet Explorer and some sites and written to work only with IE. So it will stay on my computer just in case I need it. Doesnt take up that much space.

techbeck said,
Sweet, but at a time when this would be good, it really isnt anymore. Most companies use Internet Explorer and some sites and written to work only with IE. So it will stay on my computer just in case I need it. Doesnt take up that much space.

At least it's giving users choice. They don't have to uninstall it.

They could add in the win7 installer which browser you want to installl

Apple safari
Firefox
Internet Explorer 8
Opera
other - url:

Not hard to do and would resolve the issue of complying the European law.

its not the job of Microsoft to promote other companies browsers, considering they have their own, what about Apple asking users which browser they want to install? Safari, Firefox, Opera other

......how about noooo?

If you have to advertise competitors then the world has gone mad.

Should the installer give a list of every alternative to every program upon install. Maybe just a huge list of everything. And maybe Apple should give the option if you want to use Windows upon first run?

artfuldodga said,
its not the job of Microsoft to promote other companies browsers, considering they have their own, what about Apple asking users which browser they want to install? Safari, Firefox, Opera other

Actually they should do as well. Also it is not promoting any browser as such but giving the user a choice.... something that MS failed to do and got fined for it...

krustylicious said,
They could add in the win7 installer which browser you want to installl

Apple safari
Firefox
Internet Explorer 8
Opera
other - url:

Not hard to do and would resolve the issue of complying the European law.


That's very anticompetitive.

And how exactly would they let you download those easily? With windows update? PUTTING THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE UNCONFIRMED BY MICROSOFT ON WINDOWS UPDATE SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER HAPPEN. creating a seperate way to download applications that microsoft doesn't make..doesn't control...and doesn't profit from IS NOT MICROSOFT'S JOB.

That said, removing IE will just encourage OEMs to pre-install the Firefox version that gets them $0.0011 a first-run and is much easier to make crappy tool bars for without giving non-experinced users IE as an option. WHOOO!

krustylicious said,
They could add in the win7 installer which browser you want to installl

Apple safari
Firefox
Internet Explorer 8
Opera
other - url:

Not hard to do and would resolve the issue of complying the European law.


and who would decide which browser should be on the list? There are a lot more than the ones you just said, should microsoft include them all? If not, i'll start programming a ****ty browser right now and go to court to complain ms didn't include it on their list. With a bit of luck it will make me rich

Hey, when you go into McDonald's, you should see:

Burger King Whooper
McDonald's Big Mac
Wendy's Square Burger (idk)
etc.

But you dont. They're a competing business, they can't promote the competition. Same with Microsoft and the other browsers.

Rolith said,
And how exactly would they let you download those easily?


An FTP link works just as easily for downloading as an HTTP link.

Rolith said,
That said, removing IE will just encourage OEMs to pre-install the Firefox version that gets them $0.0011 a first-run and is much easier to make crappy tool bars for without giving non-experinced users IE as an option. WHOOO!

Which is excellent as it is these non-experienced users who think Internet Explorer is the only option and still use Internet Explorer 6 or 7, making it a pain for us web developers. Yes, thanks Microsoft!

andrewbares said,
Hey, when you go into McDonald's, you should see:

Burger King Whooper
McDonald's Big Mac
Wendy's Square Burger (idk)
etc.

But you dont. They're a competing business, they can't promote the competition. Same with Microsoft and the other browsers.

When you walk into a McDonald's, you know you're going for a McDonald's menu. When you buy a new computer, there's still a good chance that, unless you walked into an Apple store, it has Windows on it. (Only in the past year or so has Dell begun to offer systems loaded with Linux, but it's a pretty slim part of their line-up.) The problem is that many people began to associate Windows, the operating system, with a computer - period. It's also hard enough to get a system that isn't running Windows (unless you buy an Apple).

So here's the thing that could be better about your analogy - McDonald's isn't a restaurant-building company. Microsoft, for better or for worse, makes the most widely used operating system on the planet. Software makers design software within Windows. If McDonald's were a restaurant-building company, and they happened to build some 90% of restaurants in the world, and then they stuck their menu, kitchen, and services into every building that they built, you'd have a good analogy. By bundling Internet Explorer (and also making it non-removable), that is essentially what Microsoft did in the software world.

roadwarrior said,
An FTP link works just as easily for downloading as an HTTP link.


... if you apply the logic they should allow browser choice they should also give ftp control choice. Maybe I dont wan't to use windows built in ftp controls? - see how ridiculous this gets???

Also [joke] I do not like the preinstalled calculator, calendar, notepad, paint, defrag.... command promt, file handling, desktop preferences??? etc. please remove all these. (after all there are alternatives) Oh wait then we dont have an OS left.

@mmck -

You couldn't be more ridiculous in your analogies.

The "preinstalled calculator, calendar, notepad, paint, defrag.... command promt, file handling, desktop preferences" and FTP control do not hinder developers and make a developer's life hell does it? Internet Explorer does. I don't have time to develop my website to work in Internet Explorer, whilst I am at uni and have a part-time job. It works in every other browser though and it is a big pain.

That's te difference here. Also, file handling, desktop preferences, etc are not programs, they are built-in parts of the operating system which are fundamental to the operating system functioning properly. They should not be changed or removed.

Programs such as the Calculator, Notepad, Paint and Disk Defragmenter are programs which add features to the operating system. I'm sure many, if not all, can be removed if the user wishes.

Holy Crap =)

I never expected this on the way RC..

I always thought something like this would only happen if the European Union did tremendous pressure over MS for Windows 8, but not at this stage..

But this is good news to all the people complaining about IE integration on Windows..

I wonder if European Union will now still advance with it's case..

I'm surprised, I really am, I never expected this.. After 15 years using MS products this is a first for me..

i presume the introduction of LCIE in IE8, iexplore.exe is now just a shell passing instructions to the trident engine, so there's no problem in removing it.

Good, its a load of ****.
Thought I would give it a try since its hit the big 8 but it doesnt come close to firefox. There is no "decent" ad-blocking and I've had it crash on me 10 times in 10 minutes just by viewing Neowin. Firefox, no problems so I'm using that now. Uninstalled, do not want.

Julius Caro said,
and it took them how many years?


not many, "removing" ie was always possible with windows, not with windows vista.

with the level of integration between IE and Windows Explorer i'm not surprised. IE6 was the last version to have a tight integration (something i enjoyed by the way). but on IE7 you could no longer do something like open up "My Computer" and type "google.com" into the address bar and have the windows explorer window magically become a IE window. My guess is that they further seperated the two with IE8, it just took time and effort.

I love Windows Media Center.

You can hook up your laptop to Cable and use your laptop as a DVR. Then you can put your recorded shows straight onto your Zune to watch on the go!

It's a great program, I think.

Chris-Gonzales said,
How can people not like media center? Much better then that apple TV crap (No DVR, so, why the name "apple tv" :rolleyes:

lol I know right? Why call something tv if you can't really watch tv

Because many applications rely on the Trident/IE engine, I'm going to jump in and say that yeah, it probably just hides it. Same thing as in XP. But I don't know... all I know is that it would be suicide to do it any other way.

No. The _application_ Internet Explorer can be removed, it's not just hidden. Trident and IE are not the same thing. Trident is probably still there but it is used to display other things too like the help and support windows for instance. Fact of the matter is that the application IE that uses Trident can be removed. [< snipped > - CalumJR] [Please do not troll in the news comments.]

Holy crap.

Reading the linked article, iexplore.exe is removed, but not much more. OS references to IE is also removed. So it's not just "hidden", it can't be ran since the executable is no longer there. But it's also not completely removed, since MSHTML.DLL is still there.

And that's how it should be done. Otherwise tons of third party stuff outside their control will break. Things like Steam using the IE rendering engine, and probably hundreds of more pieces of software.

I guess MSHTML.dll is also used by the OS itself. I believe some control panel elements are just webpages. So it's okay that the renderer stays there, actually.

lets hope they do the same with windows media player... but either way, i hope this allows for even less bloat though yeah, it seems some files are left behind

artfuldodga said,
lets hope they do the same with windows media player

I don't think Media Players matter so much. Everyone is pretty aware of choice. Many Winamp fans and lots of people have iPods so they get roped into iTunes.

Its funny how having Media Player installed with Windows - but allowing users to use other programs, is considered unfair, however Apple focing you to download, install, and use another program for your iPod is completely reasoanble.

If removing this completely uninstalls the engine and everything else - no doubt people will unintall it then complain other programs don't work.

I personally couldn't care less - as a web developer I have 5 browsers installed - and IE having the greatest share I obviously use it even if my default browser is Firefox.

artfuldodga said,
lets hope they do the same with windows media player... but either way, i hope this allows for even less bloat though yeah, it seems some files are left behind

Just buy Windows N.
You'll be first to buy it.

artfuldodga said,
lets hope they do the same with windows media player... but either way, i hope this allows for even less bloat though yeah, it seems some files are left behind

Some files will probably need to left behind so other applications can still use its rendering engine (Trident).

wow, MS is doing so many things right this time with Win7, it's almost frightening. This must be a first in the history of MS.
Makes you wonder what happened so that they changed their stance regarding finally listening to their customers and coming down from their high horse.

I'm starting to suspect it's the change of product leadership. Or pressure from competition. Well, it's at least *something*, because MS hasn't been known to listen to their customer base like this, even when it hurts a bit to themselves.

vacs said,
wow, MS is doing so many things right this time with Win7, it's almost frightening. This must be a first in the history of MS.
Makes you wonder what happened so that they changed their stance regarding finally listening to their customers and coming down from their high horse.

First time in history? You could 'remove' Internet Explorer in the Add/Remove components applet in Windows XP.

vacs said,
wow, MS is doing so many things right this time with Win7, it's almost frightening. This must be a first in the history of MS.
Makes you wonder what happened so that they changed their stance regarding finally listening to their customers and coming down from their high horse.

Personal and consumer market is growing faster and larger then business/commercial computing so they need to focus on it if they wish to stay in the game with a reasonable foot hold they have gained.

Digix said,

Personal and consumer market is growing faster and larger then business/commercial computing so they need to focus on it if they wish to stay in the game with a reasonable foot hold they have gained.

This has lead to Microsoft having to play by standards and not dictate to the world how its gonna be - which is a good thing!

virtorio said,
First time in history? You could 'remove' Internet Explorer in the Add/Remove components applet in Windows XP.

All that did was to hide the program, not remove it.

Good! maybe this will make the EU shutup and opera, mozilla and google will eat their hats because no one will ever bother to do this.

Beastage said,
Good! maybe this will make the EU shutup and opera, mozilla and google will eat their hats because no one will ever bother to do this.

Strongly agree with that. Those companies just sue their competitors and claim the market is unfair, rather than doing something meaningful to attract customers.

GraphiteCube said,
Strongly agree with that. Those companies just sue their competitors and claim the market is unfair, rather than doing something meaningful to attract customers.

It was unfair and the refusal of Microsoft to update ie6 for years and years has harmed the internet.

Also the refusal to comply with w3 standards is another bugbear and will last for years to come even with ie8.....

GraphiteCube said,
Strongly agree with that. Those companies just sue their competitors and claim the market is unfair, rather than doing something meaningful to attract customers.

Microsoft makes the operating system that all of the competitors build upon. That arguably gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over them already, but the real unfair advantage comes in the fact that on every single new computer that's running Windows (and that's a huge majority), Internet Explorer is there and ready to use. There are a good number of people who don't go out of their way to download new software - they just use what comes with the computer (this is also true for Apple users and Safari). It's easy to forget that because FireFox is seemingly so well-known today, but you need to remember that there was a time when the only browsers that were known were Netscape and Internet Explorer. The bundling of Internet Explorer to Windows effectively killed Netscape.

If you want to argue that Apple is being unfair, you're out of your mind. You see, the competition extends beyond a browser having to gain enough attention that someone will go out of their way to download and install it. It also needs to work well. Internet Explorer did not work well, and nobody should be arguing against that. It was the least standards-compliant piece of garbage in existence. But something interesting happened: because so many people were using Internet Explorer, websites began to code specifically to Internet Explorer's quirks. (Which makes sense - if a page doesn't display correctly on a person's computer, they're more likely to blame the webpage maintainers than the internet browser, especially if a huge company like Microsoft is the one making that browser.)

Do you realize how dangerous that situation then becomes? It effectively means that Microsoft is creating the rules that its competitors are supposed to be competing on. That is incredibly unfair, and that's what lead to this. Apple may bundle Safari, giving Safari a slightly unfair advantage over competitors on the Apple platform, but Apple has nowhere near enough marketshare such that Safari would begin to define the rules of the internet.

Be glad that these companies did what they did. You're benefitting from it, even if you are ungrateful.

Wow, where to start?

Netscape was crap compared to IE, that's why it died.

Apple is being no more or less "fair" than Microsoft because they bundle Safari the same way Windows has integrated IE in Windows. The principles are exactly the same.

You may struggle with IE and that's fine but IE does work well for a vast majority of people. To say it's a load of garbage is simply ignorant.

Apple's marketshare compared to Microsoft's is irrelevant. Apple customers use Safari to surf the web unless they go to the "trouble" of installing a competing product, same as Windows users. There's no difference at all.

That sure was interesting.

Ledgem said,
Microsoft makes the operating system that all of the competitors build upon. That arguably gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over them already, but the real unfair advantage comes in the fact that on every single new computer that's running Windows (and that's a huge majority), Internet Explorer is there and ready to use. There are a good number of people who don't go out of their way to download new software - they just use what comes with the computer (this is also true for Apple users and Safari). It's easy to forget that because FireFox is seemingly so well-known today, but you need to remember that there was a time when the only browsers that were known were Netscape and Internet Explorer. The bundling of Internet Explorer to Windows effectively killed Netscape.

If you want to argue that Apple is being unfair, you're out of your mind. You see, the competition extends beyond a browser having to gain enough attention that someone will go out of their way to download and install it. It also needs to work well. Internet Explorer did not work well, and nobody should be arguing against that. It was the least standards-compliant piece of garbage in existence. But something interesting happened: because so many people were using Internet Explorer, websites began to code specifically to Internet Explorer's quirks. (Which makes sense - if a page doesn't display correctly on a person's computer, they're more likely to blame the webpage maintainers than the internet browser, especially if a huge company like Microsoft is the one making that browser.)

Do you realize how dangerous that situation then becomes? It effectively means that Microsoft is creating the rules that its competitors are supposed to be competing on. That is incredibly unfair, and that's what lead to this. Apple may bundle Safari, giving Safari a slightly unfair advantage over competitors on the Apple platform, but Apple has nowhere near enough marketshare such that Safari would begin to define the rules of the internet.

Be glad that these companies did what they did. You're benefitting from it, even if you are ungrateful.


The standard wasn't really a standard, it was loose, so what can a company do? Stay there and wait for competitors to define a so-called standard?

BTW, Apple is bundling browser in their OS too, and something incredibly unfair happens. Safari is piece of garbage in existence: there is no way to change search engine. If you think that bundling a browser in an OS will make people think that the only way to surf the net is to use the bundled browser, people WILL also think that the only way to search the net is to use the default search engine bundled in the browser. Now, even IE lets you to choose (and even create your own) search engine by clicking the "Find more providers", what is Apple doing now? Apple is just helping Google to monopoly the search engine market. The world is ALWAYS unfair, even the one who claims themselves "don't be evil" enjoy it, becoz they ARE evil.

GraphiteCube said,
Strongly agree with that. Those companies just sue their competitors and claim the market is unfair, rather than doing something meaningful to attract customers.

Microsoft does business as a monopoly, of course companies will retaliate like they did and the EU does. fair competition is what forces innovation. If it weren't for Firefox, we'd still have IE6.

Yeah that's exactly what we want....

C_Guy said,
Wow, where to start?

Netscape was crap compared to IE, that's why it died.

Apple is being no more or less "fair" than Microsoft because they bundle Safari the same way Windows has integrated IE in Windows. The principles are exactly the same.

You may struggle with IE and that's fine but IE does work well for a vast majority of people. To say it's a load of garbage is simply ignorant.

Apple's marketshare compared to Microsoft's is irrelevant. Apple customers use Safari to surf the web unless they go to the "trouble" of installing a competing product, same as Windows users. There's no difference at all.

That sure was interesting.

@C_Guy -

Internet Explorer 6 and 7 do not support web standards and that is what the majority of Internet users use now, because Microsoft have bundled it with Windows all these years.

Safari supports all the web standards and even some of the CSS3 attributes which are in development.

There's your difference

GraphiteCube said,
The standard wasn't really a standard, it was loose, so what can a company do? Stay there and wait for competitors to define a so-called standard?

BTW, Apple is bundling browser in their OS too, and something incredibly unfair happens. Safari is piece of garbage in existence: there is no way to change search engine. If you think that bundling a browser in an OS will make people think that the only way to surf the net is to use the bundled browser, people WILL also think that the only way to search the net is to use the default search engine bundled in the browser. Now, even IE lets you to choose (and even create your own) search engine by clicking the "Find more providers", what is Apple doing now? Apple is just helping Google to monopoly the search engine market. The world is ALWAYS unfair, even the one who claims themselves "don't be evil" enjoy it, becoz they ARE evil.

@GraphiteCube -

Apple, Mozilla, Opera Software and Google all implement future possible standards into their browsers. This is evident with CSS3 which is currently in developement and many of CSS3's attributes are supported by all these browsers.

Also, in Safari you can choose which search engine you would like to use from Google and Yahoo. Not much choice but there is still some choice.

C_Guy said,
Netscape was crap compared to IE, that's why it died.

That is your opinion, and I find it doubtful that you've ever even touched Netscape. Read up on some analyses over why Netscape was put under, and you'll find that it matches what I said.

C_Guy said,
Apple is being no more or less "fair" than Microsoft because they bundle Safari the same way Windows has integrated IE in Windows. The principles are exactly the same.

Did you read my post? Yes, you're right - the bundling aspect is still a problem. But because Apple has a vastly smaller market share compared to Microsoft, it does not impact web standards.

Let me clarify what they is important. A web browser, aside from all of its other features, has one purpose: to display web pages properly. Web browser engines rely on a set of standards to know how to parse web pages properly. Internet Explorer did not obey standards - it practically made up its own set. Because Internet Explorer comes with Windows and because most people just used Internet Explorer by default (there was no FireFox in those days), the majority of websites began to code specifically to Internet Explorer. (The wealthier websites would make two versions of websites: one for IE, and one for the standards-compliant browsers.)

In other words, because of its huge user base (and that's a user base by default, mind you) websites began to cater specifically to Internet Explorer. Microsoft probably wasn't trying to rewrite web standards - even if they were, they weren't sharing much with competitors about the directions they were trying to go in. That introduced huge problems for competing web browsers, because websites catering to IE would more often than not display incorrectly on their own product. How can you compete like that? You can't, pure and simple. At that point it has nothing to do with bundling, it has to do with your ability to design a product that works as people intend it. It seems to be hard enough for browser companies to get it perfect with open, published standards - how would it be if Microsoft (who originally felt that they had to make their products and product formats as incompatible with competitors as possible) was the one to set those standards?

C_Guy said,
You may struggle with IE and that's fine but IE does work well for a vast majority of people. To say it's a load of garbage is simply ignorant.

It's a load of garbage. Do you even use it? It is not standards-compliant. I don't even care about the other fluff features (which it has been sorely lacking, compared with competitors), I'm talking about its performance as a web browser.

But that doesn't matter these days, because I can use what ever browser I want. So can you, and everyone else viewing this webpage. I remember a time when you couldn't go beyond two or three websites before I'd have to fire up Internet Explorer to view a page properly, or get beyond one of those "you must be using IE 5.5 to view this page" messages. There wasn't any real choice back then, and the reason for that has to do with Microsoft's huge market share, their blatant disregard for standards, and the bundling of Internet Explorer to Windows (but note that the bundling alone would not have caused those problems without the market share).

C_Guy said,
Apple's marketshare compared to Microsoft's is irrelevant. Apple customers use Safari to surf the web unless they go to the "trouble" of installing a competing product, same as Windows users. There's no difference at all.

Why, of course there's a huge difference. Let's image that Microsoft and Apple designed their web browsers with a total disregard for web standards. The average user, clued out to both companies' failures to play nice, encounter web pages that don't work properly in their browser. Who are they going to complain to? Realistically speaking, if even a slim majority of websites are workable or look "OK enough" then it's likely that they will complain to the websites and blame them for poor coding. They will not blame the maker of their web browser.

At that point, who's going to win - the complaints of the billions of Internet Explorer users, or the complaints of a few million Safari users? If a web site does not have the resources to create versions of the website that cater to both browsers, of course they're going to design for IE. They're receiving a lot more IE usage and a lot more complaints calling for IE compatibility, aren't they? It's a no-brainer.

And that, my friend, is why market share is critically important. It's why webpages today now recommend that you be using Internet Explorer 6 or Firefox, yet very few list browsers with lesser market share.

Jugalator said,
Hmm, but does XP allow this for IE 6, or just do downgrade?

All that windows does is hides the icons. It doesn't remove IE

FusionOpz said,
Isn't this just basically the same as what was in Windows XP where it just hides everything?

Read the linked article!
iexplore.exe is removed.

@FusionOpz -

But then third party applications and other things which rely on the trident rendering engine would not work.

Internet Explorer is still removed. Internet Explorer (the shell) is completely separate to the Trident rendering engine.

Woah, does this mean windows update will still work?
Where do you specify proxy settings if there is no IE Internet Options?

ThomMcK said,
Woah, does this mean windows update will still work?
Where do you specify proxy settings if there is no IE Internet Options?

Windows XP was the last one to use IE components during Windows Update.

Yes, I am aware of that but you still need to specify proxy settings somewhere.
Also, if you want to opt for additional MS Updates (e.g. Office) then you need to agree to terms & conditions on the website. AFAIK the MS update site doesn't work in Firefox because it uses ActiveX controls

ThomMcK said,
Woah, does this mean windows update will still work?
Where do you specify proxy settings if there is no IE Internet Options?


internet options in the configurations screen

ThomMcK said,
Yes, I am aware of that but you still need to specify proxy settings somewhere.
Also, if you want to opt for additional MS Updates (e.g. Office) then you need to agree to terms & conditions on the website. AFAIK the MS update site doesn't work in Firefox because it uses ActiveX controls

When they remove the browser it remove the physical browsing ability but the core and engine which is an important core to windows and stuff. like removing the eyes of a blind person doesn't mean they are dead, useless or otherwise cannot function. But also Windows update in windows vista and windows 7 are integrated into the operating system and not through the windows update website. all components necessary for it to operate independently are shipped with the OS and any further updates come through it accordingly. As for proxy settings and stuff as i say although you get rid of the visual web browsing capability the engine core and components/apis etc are still there. so yeah.

ThomMcK said,
Yes, I am aware of that but you still need to specify proxy settings somewhere.
Also, if you want to opt for additional MS Updates (e.g. Office) then you need to agree to terms & conditions on the website. AFAIK the MS update site doesn't work in Firefox because it uses ActiveX controls

Good point. Maybe it's time that Proxy settings were configured as a setting of the operating system and not the browser. Many programs make use of proxy information and getting it from a single source (Windows) would be a good idea.

TCLN Ryster said,

Good point. Maybe it's time that Proxy settings were configured as a setting of the operating system and not the browser. Many programs make use of proxy information and getting it from a single source (Windows) would be a good idea.


they are, "internet options" has been in the configurations screen for years

sometimes people just don't see whats on their screen correctly, it doesn't say 'internet explorer 7 options' :P

ThomMcK said,
AFAIK the MS update site doesn't work in Firefox because it uses ActiveX controls

IE Tab for Firefox will take care of that as it allows you to switch between IE and Firefox rendering engines.

ThomMcK said,
Yes, I am aware of that but you still need to specify proxy settings somewhere.
Also, if you want to opt for additional MS Updates (e.g. Office) then you need to agree to terms & conditions on the website. AFAIK the MS update site doesn't work in Firefox because it uses ActiveX controls

It's not a "site" anymore. It's built into the OS.

Kevin. said,
IE Tab for Firefox will take care of that as it allows you to switch between IE and Firefox rendering engines.

It doesn't bundle the IE rendering engine - it requires that it be present on the machine.

@Trajik 2600 -

I'm pretty sure the Internet Explorer rendering engine (Trident) will still be present on the machine. This will just remove the browser application from the system, but not the rendering engine. Too many things rely on the rendering engine.

As MS is to lazy or unwilling to change the setup and give users the option to have the IE8 junk not installed in the first place, yes.
However, being able to uninstall the IE8 crap is already a great improvement - if not even the best Windows 7 feature so far :)

@Jugalator: The outcry would only stem from their telling to download IE8, rather than Opera or Firefox.