According to Computer World, things are not looking good for European fans of Windows 7 and Internet Explorer. Microsoft has decided to remove Internet Explorer from versions of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe, the company is not offering an upgrade path from Vista. Also, although international exchange rates vary, the prices of Windows 7 do not look good for people paying in euros or pounds.In an effort to quell EU concerns over anti-trust issues, Microsoft preemptively removed Internet Explorer from Windows 7. Many have speculated as to why the company made this move. Some have suggested that the ploy was inspired by the company's earlier EU-agreed removal of Windows Media Player from the so-called "N" versions of Windows Vista. However, in that case, Microsoft's concession (offering the "N" versions of Vista) did nothing to harm their bottom line or to increase competition in media players. OEMs simply demanded the non-"N" versions of Vista, and the "N" versions became a minute fraction of copies sold.
This time Microsoft is going for broke by removing Internet Explorer from all versions of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe. OEMs in this case may choose to include it, however, in their Windows machines, just as they add so-called "crap-ware", "crippleware" and teaser anti-virus suites. This is what it would appear Microsoft is hoping for. The European Union's preferred solution remains a sort of pop-up voting screen offering users a choice of browser installs the first time they fire up a new Windows 7 machine. The EU may have its way in the end, even with Microsoft seeming to be trying to pull the rug out from under their feet.
This state of affairs has nothing to do with the pricing of the various versions of Windows 7 in Europe, or does it? Windows 7 Home Premium is slated at €119.99 ($169.19 at today's rate) in countries using the euro and £79.99 ($132.28 at today's rate) in the UK. People in the US will be paying "only $119 for the same software after a two-week pre-order sales discount expires July 11" according to Computer World. Plus, US customers will receive Internet Explorer as part of the default install.
Even more surprising, Windows 7 Ultimate, which will retail for $219.99 in America will cost around 90% more in euros and 50% more in pounds, at current rates. It's worth remembering that the versions listed for comparison are full versions in Europe and upgrade versions in the US as Microsoft hasn't announced when upgrade versions will be available in the EU. Without the initial choice on October 22 users will have no choice but to purchase the full versions or wait until Microsoft has the upgrade versions ready for the EU.
Article update - to reflect the fact that pricing is based on Full edition in Europe as Microsoft will not be supplying upgrade editions initially.
Windows 7 upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over Vista
Last edited by jamesVault on 29 Jun 2009 - 16:27
2001: Windows XP upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over 2000
2006: Windows Vista upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over XP
2009: Windows 7 upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over Vista
You know, if all these operating systems don't offer any advantages over the previous versions, why isn't anybody using Windows 1.0?
2001: Windows XP upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over 2000
2006: Windows Vista upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over XP
2009: Windows 7 upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over Vista
You know, if all these operating systems don't offer any advantages over the previous versions, why isn't anybody using Windows 1.0?
Exactly. You're completely right. People are too tight when it comes down to it.
How are they (the EU) being ripped off? HOW? They're paying 169 Euros for a FULL edition of the OS...vs $119 for an UPGRADE here. How does that make it a rip off for them vs what we're paying here in the US? HOW?
For the sake of accuracy I would note that the comparison $240 (or so) USD versus $119 USD for those too lazy to Google.
Exactly my point, 0 points for this article. Just look at the caption, this article was made to make people HATE Win 7 for no apparent reason. Sorry James, better luck next time.
If it ain't broke... I'll let you complete that axiom.
I doubt many will believe the propaganda machine surrounding '7' considering vista's abject failure. Those who have '7' forced upon them by OEMs will most likely detest it as they did with vista, for why would a downgrade option be included otherwise? Some would argue that it's for businesses, but there is a significant demand from ordinary users to downgrade as evidenced by OEM statistics.
Because support is withdrawn and users are either forced to upgrade or buy a new machine and implicitly pay the MS tax. It's what we call proprietary lock-in. They have been doing this since inception.
Windows 7 upgrade is too expensive and it doesn't offer significant advantages over Vista
LOL. you have to be kidding. the world has spent the last 2 years telling us that Vista is crap. now you're telling us we should stick with it because Win7 offers no significant advantages over Vista.
You'd complain if Win7 was free. Moan for moanings sake.
Looks like you didn't do your homework well.
Microsoft is not going to be releasing Windows 7 upgrade packages in the EU zone, but only the full package. However, the prices will be close to what Microsoft charged for the Vista upgrade. So Europeans will get the full package for the price of upgrade.
More info here: http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...ticleId=9134914
Looks like you didn't do your homework well.
Microsoft is not going to be releasing Windows 7 upgrade packages in the EU zone, but only the full package. However, the prices will be close to what Microsoft charged for the Vista upgrade. So Europeans will get the full package for the price of upgrade.
More info here: http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...ticleId=9134914
Microsoft has stated that upgrade versions will be released in the future.
This makes sense, as the no-IE change was only made in the last month or so. MS hasn't had a chance to work out modified upgrade software (as it must remove IE).
No, it's just business as usual. When Vista came out, the Ultimate version retailed here for ~500€, which for an OS was ridiculous. It actually looks cheaper now...
I have updated the article as the prices weren't clearly marked as full/upgrade but people will still be paying more in the EU as no upgrade editions will be offered initially.
People will be paying the Upgrade Price for the Full Package.
The price difference has nothing to do with Windows 7, in EU software has always been more expensive.
Currently Vista Home Premium Full costs: EUR208.99, Vista Home Upgrade costs EUR119.99
Vista 7 Home Premium Full will cost EUR119.99
Last edited by ricknl on 29 Jun 2009 - 16:50
+1
So what if there's no "upgrade" option...we're getting the FULL package for the upgrade price!!!
Author epic fail
People will be paying the Upgrade Price for the Full Package.
The price difference has nothing to do with Windows 7, in EU software has always been more expensive.
Currently Vista Home Premium Full costs: EUR208.99, Vista Home Upgrade costs EUR119.99
Vista 7 Home Premium Full will cost EUR119.99
In the EU technological things are generally more expensive, and its b*******. I'm glad we get this at a 'reasonable' price though.
Unfortunately EU citizens will have to pay for the stupid behaviour of EU insittutions
Or there are just some points taken out that are good to get exercised about.
The EU commission is protecting its citizens by enforcing competition laws, however the same cannot be said of the US whose DOJ sits idly by while monopolistic abuses are occuring.
Yeah really working on those competition laws by going after the same company time after for no valid reason, with no valid solutions. Meaning we the EU consumer (I'm from the UK) get shafted! If a non tech-minded relative/friend goes and buys a new PC they want an out of the box experience, they need a browser preinstalled to get online and then they are free to choose what the hell they like. What are we supposed to go back to AOL or Netscape days, quick how many free CD's can you take before the shop asst decides you're taking the pi**?!!?!?!!
The EU bureaucrats shaft the consumer most of the time and make themselves look stupid - bananas mustn't be too curvy anyone remember that one?
As for the pricing the EU pay more for those of you that can't see the difference between EU€, GBP£ and USD$ needs shooting in the head now!!! If you pay USD$100 and we pay GBP£100 it isn't a 1-1 exchange rate you know, that means "at the time of writing this we would actually pay USD$165.46, yeah I can see how THAT is fair!
The UK gets it for $67.72 less than the US which makes it a 33.86% discount if my calculations are correct. Even if there was a 20% tax it's still cheaper than the US.
Also if you add on 20% to the listed price in for europeans outside of the UK the total is $203.03 which is only 3 dollars more than what americans pay and the $200 price tag in america does not have tax included either.
In the USA we pay sales tax too... (even on internet purchases we are supose to)
Until congress passes a law that says states can charge taxes on interstate purchases it is still illegal to charge taxes for purchases from a company that has no physical presence in your state. NY was sued over this by Amazon and Newegg last year after NY wrongly insisted they charge taxes.
via Windows Update
c:>ftp ftp.mozilla.org
And Windows Update is for Windows updates, MS shouldn't be forced to include other software products up there. Drivers is one thing, cuz that plays a key role in how the OS works.
It handles Office Updates too.
Afaik there will be a CD available, maybe even included, with IE and Live Essentials on it.
The article talks about how the EU wants MS to give a popup dialog option whether or not the user wants to install IE. That being said, Microsoft should add a front-end to Windows that allows for downloading of other popular web browsers directly. The front-end would make the FTP process in the background completely transparent and the list of browsers and the FTP servers hosting them could be updated via a connection to MS at the first log in.
This kind of ideology should be carried through for all major in-built software (browser, firewall, anti-virus, media player, CD/DVD recording, etc) for all OS, not just Windows. Maybe we can see this happen in the future.
This kind of ideology should be carried through for all major in-built software (browser, firewall, anti-virus, media player, CD/DVD recording, etc) for all OS, not just Windows. Maybe we can see this happen in the future.
That's precisely the ridiculous outcome Microsoft was averting by excluding IE. Forcing a software company to include an opposing company's software for an illegitimate cause is preposterous. Apple doesn't have to include Firefox on default OS X installs -- nor should they. The only situation I can think of in which Microsoft should be forced to provide an option to install competing products is when Microsoft's product explicitly interferes with the operation of that of a competitor's. This obviously isn't the case.
On an unrelated note, the 'Internet Explorer has a monopoly' argument is the most farcical thing I've ever seen. IE has a ~65.50% market share, as of today. This is, by definition, NOT a monopoly -- "the exclusive possession or control of something." A marginal majority (considering its decline)? Yes. A monopoly? Not even close.
This has been answered ad nauseam. In case you didn't catch it the 10,000,000'th time, OEMs will be obliged to provide a selection screen upon installation that will auto-magically download your prefered browser (even including IE, though why anyone would want to use it is beyond me) and install it. Even a monkey could do it, though I expect a monkey would know better than to install IE
that could, of course, change.... its just like back when IE had all those security flaws, people learned about the alternative browsers... now that there is no more IE, people will know about ways to get a browser
It's not going to increase market share in Europe for Linux - it's just going to make people resent the EU for making their chosen system more inaccessible.
Oh and look it's the same person as in all the anti-EU ones. This is my second surprised face.
It's not going to increase market share in Europe for Linux - it's just going to make people resent the EU for making their chosen system more inaccessible.
When you start driving on the right side of the street and you start using euros instead of pounds I might consider you a european.
He he, touché!
It's not going to increase market share in Europe for Linux - it's just going to make people resent the EU for making their chosen system more inaccessible.
When you start driving on the right side of the street and you start using euros instead of pounds I might consider you a european.
Always nice to see a bit of ignorance, why would anyone in the UK care if you think they are European or not?
Oh and look it's the same person as in all the anti-EU ones. This is my second surprised face.
And once again, nothing useful to contribute from the usual.
Wake up and pay attention to those all over Europe that are opposed to the EU's decisions as well.
It's not going to increase market share in Europe for Linux - it's just going to make people resent the EU for making their chosen system more inaccessible.
The damage inflicted is caused by an american company on the EU. If you were a European citizen, you should know that. However I'm incredulous of your declaration, for many here have claimed the same, but are actually just shills.
Wake up and pay attention to those all over Europe that are opposed to the EU's decisions as well.
The only ones showing opposition to the EU's stance are MS shills; Many of which flood forums such as these with the same platitudinal comments.
Wake up and pay attention to those all over Europe that are opposed to the EU's decisions as well.
The only ones showing opposition to the EU's stance are MS shills; Many of which flood forums such as these with the same platitudinal comments.
Man I wish I was paid by MS to remark on such a retarded comment, based on what proof? How does one prove they are British (I wouldn't want to call myself European, I'm neglish and proud but politically Correct and all that). I am British, I was born here in 1980, I'm from Wigan, I now live in Southport, any other response, maybe you'd like me to give you my full address and you can come and visit and I can slap you round the head, for questioning me. hahahahaha
I am showing opposition to the EU's stance and do so every time we the ordinary people get a chance to. I disagree with the restrictions they put on free trade, I disagree with the fact that the UK pays them millions of Pounds a day to sit on their arses and spout shi* all day long!!!
They could have spent the time more wisely doing an EU wide marketing Ad showing alternatives, do they? No they go after the purse strings, that's what it boils down, easy money. No I don't work for MS, and for the record I hate IE drives me mad, I use Firefox, even as far as testing the Beta's, I used Chrome for a while, didn't like it, I tried Safari, wasn't impressed. I've made my choice, as any consumer is free to do so.
Oh and for the record I hated Vista it sucked, Windows 7 has replaced XP as my OS of choice on my desktop, the family desktop and all my laptops (3) including my Mother's, and my sister's.
OK Rant over
Verb, not noun.
Yeah... now we have to live with FULL versions at UPGRADE prices.
Article fail, Comment fail.
This is why they say to be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
Why should i be angry to system? Is microsoft, private corporation, some sort of force of the nature that cant be blaimed?
Phoenix: Read the article and if you're still unsure, read some of the other comments on this newspost. Maybe start with Sir.S's comment, below.
Yes, terrible indeed. Now we have to pay upgrade prices (i.e. LESS) for the full version. OH THE HUMANITY!! THE HORROR!!
'-.-
This is why they say to be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
They will be forced to offer a selection screen, so getting a browser wont be a problem. This is a desperate attempt to circumvent the EC, and has so far failed.
the same way you got it in Windows 95... by media or FTP download
Silly reasoning. Yeah because in those 14 years the tech landscape has hardly changed at all...
Internet was still in it's infancy in 95, now it's completely interwoven in society/everyday life. you can't expect people to just go back in time 14 years and call it reasonable. A lot has changed since then.
Through Windows Update or Microsoft Update.
You don't. You will select Firefox, opera, chrome, or safari in the ballot screen at startup, and forget IE ever existed. I'm going to count to three and you will slowly awake from this hypnosis feeling completely refreshed xD
but FTP hasnt...
A simple "ballot" screen on install or "OEM first run" on all the versions of win7 is the best option.
Leave IE8 compiled on the disc, and let users choose the browser they require from a list!
As for upgrading, make the upgrade process uninstall IE8 from vista/xp and then show the ballot screen.
that way all the browser developers get a slice of the pie!
Jesus christ, are they stupid?
then drop the prices for full versons of the OS, so more people can buy it!!! (below the 100 quid mark for professional i'll be happy)
To say any ANY application that is run on literally COUNTLESS different configurations and millions of computers at any given moment is "a simple thing" is a fallacy. Especially considering Microsoft would have ZERO control over the download of ANY of the other browsers, and can't garment it'll work. Someone boots windows for the first time, and a botched Firefox install that causes a system crash is run... who the hell is the consumer going to blame?
Just like everyone blames nvida's terrible drivers for game performance being so bad when vista came out.
Microsoft owes it to it's consumers to provide as full and complete an experience out of the box as possible with their Operating system. They've decided, LIKE EVERY OTHER MAJOR OS OUT THERE, that a browser is part of that package and it's utter bull that they aren't allowed to, because they have 80% of the market that they are steadily losing BECAUSE THE COMPETITION THAT IS APPARENTLY BEING DRIVEN OUT OF EXISTANCE has started innovating and provides a better product.
You mean Opera won't be happy?
Have they? It seems OEMs have been prohibited from including competing browsers for years as part of licence agreements. This is what we call monopolistic abuse, and the reason for the EU stepping in.
Everything in America is either cheaper or bigger. It's nothing to do with Microsoft.
Plus, the British are used to it.
Maybe we should moan that a beer is only 20p in Cambodia too.
First it was iPod volume limiting because some idiot didnt know how to use the volume control and some how managed to damage his little ears so now every time i want a new iPod i have to get it from US! and now no IE because its pre-installed on every PC??
I dont personally use IE, writing this from FF but sometimes i need to open an IE tab for those odd pages that still code for it (like OWA), what about OSX they aint screwing them for including Safari??
Most people buy PC's because they are used to Windows and IE is part of the system, the EU should start a case on every manufacture that only sells Windows PC's, sounds crazy but makes more sense than this BS!
Well there's a big suprise. Get off the EU if you dont want to be in it. I'm sick and tired of hearing UK-people ranting their anti-european bs on international forums. Its up to you, get off and renegotiate trade agreements.. its that simple.
Its that simple eh? What rock do you live under? Oddly enough there is this thing called government who run the country, and guess what, they decide whether the UK is in or out of the EU. Joe average on the street has no say over whether they are in the EU day to day, when it comes to the next general election, then those people can have their say. Until then nothing will change.
Also the last time I checked, people could voice their opinions, such as a dislike of being a member of the EU, or are you the opinion police?
Yeah, and thats why UK will never leave eu.. Because instantly when goverment rises in power it becomes part of the goverments that are running the eu at highest level.. it's only avarge joes that get their fact from tabloid and bit played out opposition leadeders that believe that there is more in eu than its memberstates. Or not even the latter ones, they just play dumb to gain support, and its quite easy when you have no responsibility.
It's easy, emigrate then.
I have only seen uneducated comments from you.
1) 'At its peak, the British Empire was the largest formal empire that the world had ever known.' - Good job on your comment.
2) 'We' lost most of it quite a long time ago, and it was before our lifetimes, so it is history which no one dwells over.
For your first class in history, study this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...tish_Empire.png
You're just "****ed" because you got rolled over by Nazi Germany in WW2. Haha, sucks to be you.
Oh look! I can make pointless unrelated (and irrelevant) comments too. Yay me!
Oh look! I can make pointless unrelated (and irrelevant) comments too. Yay me!
lmao, at least it was funny.
I live in the UK and I'm ecstatic that the EU is finally punishing this foreign monopoly that abuses ours and the EU's competition laws.
You will have the choice of installing it, and you would know that if you paid the slightest attention to the news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
I wouldnt pay for this, now if they make a cheaper version of windows 7 without ie that would be great (i would get it). Price its everything paying for windows at the same price with or without ie make no sense at all, without IE version should be cheaper lets say by 10 dollars.
For those who insist that IE its free, its never have been free since they bundle it with windows the cost of ie its included inside windows. That way they killed netscape and opera which sold their browser before and have to offer it for free now....
Secondly, it would make sense that the non-IE/WMP versions cost the same..if not more. It's another different DVD pressing that Microsoft has to make...another SKU they have to maintain...another build they have to test updates on....and in my opinion, they should tack on a 'hassle' fee anyway. The rest of the world has no problem with IE and WMP being included with Windows...I'm still not sure why the EU thinks it's wrong....that's a horse that's been beaten to death here already though.
Making further modifications to an operating system isn't cheap or easy. If you expect Microsoft to do it for free then you don't understand how a business operates.
You don't think including a browser with every new PC gives them an advantage? If it didn't, why did they integrate IE into the OS so it couldn't be removed? And why do they fight the inclusion of competing browsers tooth and nail? If IE is just as good as firefox etc, then why are they so afraid to let the user decide?
Only opinions of EU citizens are considered. And as most of the shills in this forum are outside of the EU, they will be ignored.
Is that what your republican dad told you?
But, what part of 'Microsoft will be selling the Full Windows 7 Editions for the price Upgrade because there is no Upgrade option available at the moment' don't you understand?
As mentioned in a previous comment Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade costs EUR119.99 today in the EU, and Windows 7 Home Premium Full will cost EUR119.99 too.
Home Premium Vista Full costs EUR208.99. The new price is almost half of it.
Great isn't it! Users inevitably will be safer
Or just install euro-version and then install you beloved IE from windows update.. tadaa?
Which Uni?
wrong.
There is a minimal IQ for using a computer. This question fails the criteria, sorry.
You have made a very ignorant point here. leo either sarcastically or genuinely has shown it from the "AVERAGE" person's POV, not everyone is techminded and would know how to get the browser. They buy their new computer from the manufacturer and expect it to be able to work, that's why companies like Dell make so much money from pushing extra software, like Office and Mcafee as an optional extra. They are then happy they have the facility to use it as they see fit.
The EU hould be looking at the licensing agreements for OEM installs not whether MS can supply Windows 7 as a retail product with a browser included!!
The Pro and Ultimate versions to me will be way overpriced in the UK.
@leo221. Don't be silly you just download Firefox before you install the new OS and save it to a USB key or something. Don't see a problem with the lack of IE.
Last edited by DooGie on 29 Jun 2009 - 18:54
Microsoft should really make an ad where they explain that it was the EU behind this stupid deal.
Microsoft should really make an ad where they explain that it was the EU behind this stupid deal.
I'm wondering if Windows update is run after installing Windows 7 you will get the option to install IE8
And you'll find out that EU didn't require them to remove it. Research the subject before making ignorant comments.
They may not have mandated this change, but this change certainly wouldn't have happened had this ludicrous case not been opened prior to Windows 7's release. Microsoft's voluntarily (albeit provoked) decision to exclude Internet Explorer was in their best interest, to [hopefully] avoid an even more asinine decision to bundle competing products.
Microsoft should really make an ad where they explain that it was the EU behind this stupid deal.
It's called a ballot screen on startup. How many times can the same question be asked? This is becoming banal...
Sure, explain it to a geek, he will get it just in seconds. But a wiseman one said "you only truly know something when you can explain it to your grandmother (Albert Einstein)."
Here Grandma, i installed firefox for you to your computer. If you are wise enough to install windows, then you should have no problem installing your needed software.. for others, OEM will preinstall browser it sees fit.
Sure, explain it to a geek, he will get it just in seconds. But a wiseman one said "you only truly know something when you can explain it to your grandmother (Albert Einstein)."
Which internet browser would you like to use?
(a) use firefox
(b) use opera
etc...
Hold on, you are right, I think i'm going to have to get a physics degree to work that one out. It's like when an update screen comes up and asks me if I want to install update or leave it; I get all confused and don't know which button to press; do I press accept or cancel?? it's so hard to choose, please help!
Microsoft should not have to make a ballot screen to promote competitors.
Now the EU could ask OEMs to do that which makes more sense to me
Why is that? the EC isn't going to let them off the hook just because they didn't include IE. If they want to sell the OS in the EU, then they will have to include a ballot screen. Steve "the sweat" balmer can go cry to his mom now and tell her the big bad EU wont let him have his browser monopoly. What a shame...
One thing Microsoft have done in the past for anti-virus is list a host of products, including their own, and link a download. Perhaps an idea could be to have a list of download shortcuts of browsers in a folder?
I can imagine quite a few users who are not very technically minded being very confused by all this. "Why can I go on the Internet? Even Vista and XP let me do that! I want a refund." ... and so on.
They didn't say that they won't allow EU users to install and use IE. They just aren't going to have it install with the OS. You can install it on your own, and I'm sure that most OEMs will ship their computers with it pre-installed.
I've hardly considered Microsoft a 'monopoly' when there's already been a strong competition for many years already. The whole 'evil monopoly' is applied so loosely if you're going to tag it on Microsoft.
I've hardly considered Microsoft a 'monopoly' when there's already been a strong competition for many years already. The whole 'evil monopoly' is applied so loosely if you're going to tag it on Microsoft.
If you look up evil in the dictionary, I'm pretty sure MS are named lol. Fortunately the definition of monopoly is decided by measurable rules, and not the subjective opinion of MS shills.
I've hardly considered Microsoft a 'monopoly' when there's already been a strong competition for many years already. The whole 'evil monopoly' is applied so loosely if you're going to tag it on Microsoft.
i think that the fairest thing is to see the browser as part of the internet, not part of the OS, i.e. not part of 'MY product' ... if the EU or some other governing body hosted a page with all the browsers , and microsoft is foced to link to it, i think that would be fair...
Of course, you could just get Ubuntu which is free.
Oh wait. I actually get the Academic alliance stuff.
If the prices in this article are correct the EU is actually getting the full retail cheaper than the US, there is just no upgrade option to compare it to yet.
Secondly, whilst I do not agree with most of the EU's decisions, I do agree with the EU's decision to take action against Microsoft for abusing its monopoly, like it or not that's exactly what they've done. Microsoft pushing Internet Explorer out with every copy of windows has done detrimental damage to the internet. Most if not all web developers/designers will agree with this.
Like it or not, the EU intervening when companies start to act anti-competitively does help the end user, it just gives you more choice, which can only be a good thing. You can see the difference from the EU and the US when you start looking at choice over broadband and network providers, in the US you have very limited choice for both whilst in the EU you will find you have allot more choice and competition between such companies.
In regards to the end user being left without an internet browser, lets get real, this isn't going to happen. If there was no way to use download an internet browser without knowing how to use ftp the average user would not buy windows 7 and Microsoft would lose a large proportion of the EU market. Something that would not surprise me is if they started to sell or even give away discs with Internet Explorer/FireFox on, much like they do with sim cards now.
I usually do not spend much time commenting on an article because I am much happier just reading up on the latest news and leaving it at that, but incredible amount of ignorance people are showing to this whole situation is unbelievable. For those interested I do not own one Apple product, whilst I own several from Microsoft. Take off your Microsoft sunglasses and take a look at the real picture.
One hour to install Windows vs 30 seconds to a minute to choose an internet browser thereby giving the average user a choice in the matter, inconvenience? I think not.
Your installation time comparison is highly illogical. Windows 7 will take the same approximately 20 minutes, if not less (although definitely not an hour), to install with or without Internet Explorer. Furthermore, it wouldn't save me any time or hassle over downloading the alternative browsers I choose.
To what percentage of computer users are you referring to as "average"? I hardly think that 66% would represent a generalized average. Moreover, how are these "average" users going to benefit? If they're accustomed to just clicking on the 'big blue e' and it working, it won't be there. If they're presented with a list, want Internet Explorer, and don't know what it's named, how are they going to get what they want?
Convenience? Plausibly. Inconvenience? Probably. Source of superfluous confusion for the "average" end-user? Definitely most likely of the three.
I don't remember saying anything about what Microsoft should do in regards to how they handle the situation, only that they have been acting anti-competitively and its about time people saw it.
The installation time is dependant on a per computer basis, of-course if your installing it on a computer with a decent amount of ram/resources it will take as little as 20 minutes, but this isn't always the case so therefore my comparison is not highly illogical. Again, your missing the point, when Microsoft installs their browser by default the user doesn't know there IS a choice of alternative browser, your seeing it only from your perspective, not from the perspective of the average user.
Once again your assuming that the only solution is to bundle a multiple choice platform. This is one of many possibilities, as I said in my original post, I'm sure they'll be a simple way for EU consumers to obtain an internet browser with their purchase of windows 7.
Choosing an Internet browser with the advantages and disadvantages of each would be no more confusing that that of selecting your time zone and keyboard settings like users have been accustom to when installing XP.
I never said that you did. I was explaining why it seemeed the most logical choice to me.
True, installation time is dependent upon system resources, although it would tend to be approximately 20 minutes on computers which meet requirements. Regardless, installation time is still irrelevant as the "average" user to whom you refer would be purchasing a computer with Windows 7 preinstalled. Analogy: When I go and buy a box of Godiva chocolates, I don't expect to find any Hershey chocolates or fliers in the box. It's not Godiva's job to tell me that they're not the only one who markets chocolate. As such, if I'm blatantly oblivious to Hershey's existence, it's not Godiva's responsibility to bring it to my attention. Why is it Microsoft's responsibility to inform the user of competitors' alternatives?
No, I'm not naively assuming that making such a selection screen is the only possibility. Removing Internet Explorer is another. However, the EU has indignantly decided that the selection screen is what they want, which I why I concentrated on it so heavily.
Not quite. If you yourself would take the perspective of someone who's never used a computer before, you'd realize that whilst you know what time zone you're in and what language you speak, you have no idea what an internet browser is, much less which one to choose and why.
Godiva doesn't have a monopoly, and neither does Microsoft. A monopoly is defined as "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices." Internet Explorer's 65.50% market share is a steadily decreasing majority, not a monopoly. Whilst Windows' 87.75% market share is indeed considerably higher, it would be an aggrandizement to deem it "exclusive control."
Their monopoly, as I said, is essentially nonexistant. Regardless of the fact that Microsoft has voluntarily removed Internet Explorer from Windows 7 for the EU market, the EU won't stop harassing Microsoft. I'd personally be utterly bewildered if the EU could subdue their greed and stop leaching off of Microsoft.
Unfortunately this approach evokes innumerable unjustifiable issues for Microsoft, excluding the effect on Internet Explorer's market share. Who's going to compile this list? What browsers will be on this list? To avoid further unjustness, every browser that wanted included would have to be. How is this unbiased, juxtaposed list of browsers going to be easily manageable and understandable for the consumer? Is Microsoft supposed to be responsible for issues with their competitors' products? Will Microsoft thereby have to host updates on Windows Update?
That's the part that perturbs me. By being forced to include someone else's software, Microsoft is also thereby involuntarily endorsing and condoning the usage of it. It's not Microsoft's fault if some incompetent programmer writes a browser that crashes the system -- but now it's their responsibility. Back to the chocolate analogy: a court ruling mandates that you use a specific ingredient from a specific third-party manufacturer in every chocolate you sell. One batch of said ingredient just so happens to cause twenty people to experience food poisoning. They all file a class action lawsuit against you because you're the one that sold them the chocolate. Care to explain how that's just, "right," and fair?
And since I haven't harped on this yet: The only reason this case even exists is Opera Software's imprudence that their 13-year-old product has a pathetic 0.72% market share. Google Chrome's market share being approximately twice theirs after only six months just added insult to...failure.
i think that the EU should receive submissions for all the possible browsers, and host those that pass certain criteria (acid test, security, stability, etc) on their own website
That's the part that perturbs me. By being forced to include someone else's software, Microsoft is also thereby involuntarily endorsing and condoning the usage of it. It's not Microsoft's fault if some incompetent programmer writes a browser that crashes the system -- but now it's their responsibility. Back to the chocolate analogy: a court ruling mandates that you use a specific ingredient from a specific third-party manufacturer in every chocolate you sell. One batch of said ingredient just so happens to cause twenty people to experience food poisoning. They all file a class action lawsuit against you because you're the one that sold them the chocolate. Care to explain how that's just, "right," and fair?
no, i dont think they will blame you if you were forced to do it by a higher authority... what would most likely happen is they will go to their local govermental representative and ask for the court ruling to be overturned, or something
And since I haven't harped on this yet: The only reason this case even exists is Opera Software's imprudence that their 13-year-old product has a pathetic 0.72% market share. Google Chrome's market share being approximately twice theirs after only six months just added insult to...failure.
yes, i kind of agree on that, based on what i've come across so far... but there are just as many people blaming the average EU citizen for making Microsoft take IE out of Windows 7, tho
i think that the EU should receive submissions for all the possible browsers, and host those that pass certain criteria (acid test, security, stability, etc) on their own website
That's the part that perturbs me. By being forced to include someone else's software, Microsoft is also thereby involuntarily endorsing and condoning the usage of it. It's not Microsoft's fault if some incompetent programmer writes a browser that crashes the system -- but now it's their responsibility. Back to the chocolate analogy: a court ruling mandates that you use a specific ingredient from a specific third-party manufacturer in every chocolate you sell. One batch of said ingredient just so happens to cause twenty people to experience food poisoning. They all file a class action lawsuit against you because you're the one that sold them the chocolate. Care to explain how that's just, "right," and fair?
no, i dont think they will blame you if you were forced to do it by a higher authority... what would most likely happen is they will go to their local govermental representative and ask for the court ruling to be overturned, or something
And since I haven't harped on this yet: The only reason this case even exists is Opera Software's imprudence that their 13-year-old product has a pathetic 0.72% market share. Google Chrome's market share being approximately twice theirs after only six months just added insult to...failure.
yes, i kind of agree on that, based on what i've come across so far... but there are just as many people blaming the average EU citizen for making Microsoft take IE out of Windows 7, tho
But doesn't "Shitware"[sic] include the IE browser?
"Microsoft designed Windows 7 Upgrade media for Windows Vista. A customer with Windows XP can purchase Windows 7 Upgrade media but must back up their files, clean install, and then reinstall their applications."
So XP users must clean install so that's like getting the Full version. For Vista, you can go the upgrade route or "you can perform a clean install of Windows 7 with the Upgrade media, as you could with Windows Vista."
So US users get to do clean installs with XP and Vista at a fraction of the cost. Is I correct?
Last edited by carmatic on 30 Jun 2009 - 15:39
LOL f$%# the EU this is what they get
Then the EU retorts with: I take a dump on your head by stopping you selling your OS until you include a ballot screen on startup
Go Microsoft!
(on the OTHER side) Why not just get a technet subscription and shut up? Non-Commercial use of anything they make for 250 bucks during their special? Anyone upgrading 2 or more home machines would be an idiot not to.
What repercussions? They will still have to include a ballot screen if they wish to sell their OS in the EU. I see no change.
the pricing is hiked up on EVERYTHING in europe, so yeah, there is no change... except, http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/29/w...rice?cid=839832 ... so its actually cheaper than Vista for those who are buying a full non-upgrade copy
Many of us have. And many more are joining the ranks worldwide. The days of one dominating OS are numbered...
we do have guts, guts fill our bowels then we expel, so we're fully aware of what Linux is and why we don't use it.
Is it the year of *nix again?
C'mon
Who cares? If its price goes sky high... Thank God there are torrents... and not only...!
whatever happens, it could definately be worse, we could be iSheep using the OSX dictatorship
you get the full installation disk, that allows clean installs, aswell as upgrades, for the same price as the upgrade only version. i'd much rather pay for the upgrade version and get a full clean install out of it, instead of throwing out another £50 or however much it is to be able to do a clean install. for the first time ever, i might concidering paying for my OS.
as for taking out IE, it is a pathetic argument from the EU and it serves absolutely no purpose really because most people who are given the option dont understand the difference between the other browsers and will install IE anyway as microsoft are going to recomend it.
the thought of having a menu at first boot ask whether i want IE, firefox or any other browser they have to include doesnt sound that bad at all, itll take an extra 10 seconds.
and if youre gonna install firefox, or anything other than IE, i spose it saves you time cause you dont have to set up IE just to visit the other browsers download page ;p
There will be boxed copies of IE8 selling for £50 on the shelf right next to Windows 7E for £200, and most punters will buy them both rather than try and figure out how to find a copy of Firefox somewhere!
btw - does Apple bundle Safari with OSX in Europe?
'Course they do, their updater software for Windows which gets installed with iTunes used to force-install Safari on Windows users' PCs. I don't see the EU getting all whiney about that.
On topic meanwhile, 80 quid for a full version of Windows 7 premium isn't too bad is it? I just tried to check the price of a Vista home premium on Scan.co.uk, but they had nothing under the Vista retail section (whatever that's suggesting...), but I did find that an OEM copy of Vista home premium to be £81.
EDIT: actually, when I say "nothing under the Vista retail section", I meant "nothing but a copy of the book "Windows Vista for Dummies""... Whatever THAT's saying
Damn!! That means it's gonna be 4x more expensive here in Australia than Europe.
Seriously, i think that is the premise of microsoft......piracy so all kinds of trojans and virus will be live on your pcs.
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.