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
wget.exe http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ie8.zip
Haha, would be hilarious to watch the public outcry from that.
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.
Where do you specify proxy settings if there is no IE Internet Options?
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.
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
Where do you specify proxy settings if there is no IE Internet Options?
internet options in the configurations screen
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.
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.
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.
they are, "internet options" has been in the configurations screen for years
IE Tab for Firefox will take care of that as it allows you to switch between IE and Firefox rendering engines.
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.
It doesn't bundle the IE rendering engine - it requires that it be present on the machine.
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.
All that windows does is hides the icons. It doesn't remove IE
Read the linked article!
iexplore.exe is removed.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
Makes you wonder what happened so that they changed their stance regarding finally listening to their customers and coming down from their high horse.
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.
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.
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.
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!
All that did was to hide the program, not remove it.
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.
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.
Just buy Windows N.
You'll be first to buy it.
Some files will probably need to left behind so other applications can still use its rendering engine (Trident).
It probably just hides the shortcut to it or something.
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.
Last edited by CalumJR on 04 Mar 2009 - 18:32
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.
lol I know right? Why call something tv if you can't really watch tv
not many, "removing" ie was always possible with windows, not with windows vista.
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.
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..
Apple safari
Firefox
Internet Explorer 8
Opera
other - url:
Not hard to do and would resolve the issue of complying the European law.
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?
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...
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.
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!
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
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.
An FTP link works just as easily for downloading as an HTTP link.
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!
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.
... 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.
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.
At least it's giving users choice. They don't have to uninstall it.
Even Internet Explorer 8 doesn't properly support XHTML.
Seriously, I want to know how much money and time have companies and developers wasted making their sites work with Microsoft's special child? (IE6/IE7)
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 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.
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.
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.
"If we can't beat them, sue them."
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.
Source
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.