Microsoft changes browser ballot screen, testing begins

Microsoft have made changes to the browser ballot screen that will prompt users in Europe to help them make selections on which browser they would like to use. The modified browser ballot screen will open up to testers in Europe that will include the following changes:

  • Make it so competing browsers can be downloaded from the ballot screen more quickly and easily
  • Ensure equivalent placement on the Windows 7 taskbar for Internet Explorer and all other browser icons
  • Add introductory information, improving the design of the ballot page about each browser to help users make more informed choices
  • Alphabetize the list of browsers so that the five most popular are listed first (by vendor), followed by the next seven most popular (also alphabetically ordered), so that 12 choices are displayed in total
  • Provide the browser ballot to users for five years

The proposed changes will surely please the European Commission (EC) regulators and many consumers in Europe. The browser ballot screen will allow users to not only install other browsers, 12 in total, including Internet Explorer, but be able to uninstall Internet Explorer all together.

The newly modified browser ballot screen makes choosing what browser consumers want to use easily, ranking the top five browsers in current use in alphabetical order, sorted by vendor, shown on the main view with Safari, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera.

Microsoft plans to push the browser ballot screen through Windows Update to Windows 7 PCs, including machines that go on sale on October 22.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Pirate Bay deal may be overboard

Next Story

Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture?

216 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Basically if the EU is still not satisfied with this b/c the ballot screen runs in IE, then MS will have to run the ballot screen in a stripped down version of IE or something. I hope for no more complaints though this is ridiculous

Now it's MS's turn go to EU and ask them to put on GOOGLE's start page the ballot screen, choosing the search engine. Because Google is the monopoly.

Everybody has now permission to force the competitor to sell/propose their product among the competitors's thhings

If you're talking about the web page, people CHOOSE to go to that. If you're talking about browser search engines, they all ask you which one you want to use, even Chrome does.

This entire fiasco is simply more proof that the EU government considers its citizens stupid. That's what you get for allowing monarchs free reign for centuries.

The european commission successfully forced MS into making a ballot screen, what did the DOJ in the US achieve? Yep thought so.. nothing. And this was done for its citizens. Now we have real choice. It's a shame our american brothers and sisters can't share the same liberty. Let's hope the DOJ sees the virtues of this decision and takes action.

Microsoft_Bob said,
The european commission successfully forced MS into making a ballot screen, what did the DOJ in the US achieve? Yep thought so.. nothing. And this was done for its citizens. Now we have real choice. It's a shame our american brothers and sisters can't share the same liberty. Let's hope the DOJ sees the virtues of this decision and takes action.


Ummm yall always had a choice, Im sorry that Europe must be to stupid to go and find browers on their own. I guess all FF, Chrome, and other browser users are in the US>

I believe you should install IE8 & one of the others, because putting it simply, all the rest are built around the same codebase, they use the same plugins, and some websites don't like browsers like firefox, but prefer IE8.

So when there is going to be problems with installed browser (no browser is error free) who are people going to blame..

I cant believe that there are ppl so anti-microsoft. Yes i agree that microsoft has a monopoly, and the ballot idea is a good thing (though annoying to me) but yet ppl still arent satisfied, believe all companies should be treated the same , but tying the hands of one company to let others catch up is a bit unfair i think. It would be like giving usane bolt weights to carry when he runs so other ppl have a chance to catch up to him.

Also to Microsoft being "evil" etc plz dont act like apple, google etc would act any different in microsofts position. I mean thanks to apple you cant have an Apple, a very common fruit as a logo anymore, cnt even use the word pod on electrical goods. So yeah MS can be bad at times but so can the other companies

This may seem very "ms fanboi" like to which im sorry for, im not really one, i just dont understand why ppl are so one sided about this, no company is perfect and this is a step in the right direction, and should be happy with this, not start complaining when u have no idea how effective its gona be and being picky about little things like omg they're showing their logo, its in the middle and opera is only on the right!omg and it being in an ie window, yeah that may influence a few ppl but not everyone person. And with it being close to release data, only logical and easiest option would be to create a webpage that ie would redirect to . (and who wouldve thought, Ms wanting promote ie in there own os, im sure no other company would do such a thing if in the same position...)
And u never know maybe in win8 there will be a ballot application

I'm waiting for Opera to complain that the ordering gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over them because M comes before O in the alphabet.

Microsoft_Bob said,
It isn't acceptable. Because it clearly means IE is pre-installed and also promotes IE above all the others.


That's BS. Number one, MS should NOT be required to preinstall any software that they do not produce, therefore, the only way for them to offer alternatives is by allowing people to click on a link that opens up their browser to download the software. My god, is the EC SO against MS, that they can't even allow ONE IE opening per machine??? Once the user downloads what they want, that's it... they can turn IE off and never see it again. What's the big deal?

They're just doing this to punish MS and fatten their wallets.... I see nothing wrong with this type o setup.

NeoSpam said,
That's BS. Number one, MS should NOT be required to preinstall any software that they do not produce, therefore, the only way for them to offer alternatives is by allowing people to click on a link that opens up their browser to download the software.

How do you think Windows Update works? It looks nothing like IE, but manages to download stuff just fine.

I really don't like the descriptions, for people with absolutely no computer expirience, the descriptions may cause confusion. Especially Safari - "See the web in a whole new way". I can imagine that making people think that Safari takes them to a different Internet.

Seeing as safari is on the far left, I can almost guarantee they will now get a bigger increase (by a substantial amount) of the market share. Most normal (non-tech savvy) will click the 1st link. They won't bother looking at the others.

booboo said,
Seeing as safari is on the far left, I can almost guarantee they will now get a bigger increase (by a substantial amount) of the market share. Most normal (non-tech savvy) will click the 1st link. They won't bother looking at the others.


It really depends on the users. I had to do a thesis for one of my classes, and one of the things I had to study was user interactions. You'd be suprised how many users click the center option first. Which in this case, you guessed it, is IE.

shockz said,
It really depends on the users. I had to do a thesis for one of my classes, and one of the things I had to study was user interactions. You'd be suprised how many users click the center option first. Which in this case, you guessed it, is IE.


Haha. That's pretty clever of MS then.

I've usually found most computer n00bs tend to go for the things they have heard of, or the logos they recognise most... Again IE wins there

Fun thing: other people have tried to justify the link on the far right as well this way.

At least shockz has data though

Frank Fontaine said,
I've usually found most computer n00bs tend to go for the things they have heard of, or the logos they recognise most... Again IE wins there

lol, then I'd say Google has a good shot then, considering everyone recognizes their logo. Maybe Apple too if they got their name in somewhere on there, but they didn't.

And yet, if you're savvy enough to install an OS, you already know all about every one of these browsers and have no problem choosing the one you want.

People here seem to be forgetting that "n00bs" will undoubtedly buy a PC with 7 pre-installed, and the OEM will have more than likely made this choice for them already.

THIS JUST IN: Opera CEO complains that the E logo will make people blindingly click on it because it's what they're familiar with.

Oh wait, Opera already said that. Ridiculous u_u

(can't find the link)

Find the source for that one lol, how could they possibly complain anymore? They are on the ballot, they just want to be the top browser... greed grits

This is such a crock. An OS without a native browser is something that the OS manufacturer is not going to be required to support (nor should they). I can't wait till someone has problems with Firefox (which I love and use), and find out they have no phone support, and nothing to fall back on.

/soap box.

On another note, given they're required to have this screen, they should just have large icons without that crappy window in a window, with some smooth rollover info boxes.

thornz0 said,
On another note, given they're required to have this screen, they should just have large icons without that crappy window in a window, with some smooth rollover info boxes.

Then they would have to abandon the self-advertising of offering a ballot running in IE hehe.

The ballot screen text seems to insinuate that if you choose "select later" and do not explicitly turn off Internet Explorer, IE will be unpinned but will remain enabled. Is that the case? To what extent is IE "enabled" in that sense?

Also, what's with the scroll bar on the selection screen, shouldn't they all be tiled if there's not enough horizontal space? Who cares if you have to scroll down to see the "Select Later" option?

Give me this screen during installation, not after the OS has installed.
And while you're at it, let me pick and choose what components I want installed from the get go.

I could see how picking what bits you want during Install mattered more back in the early 90's but do you really care if the bits for stuff like media center or media player are installed by default? You don't have to use them, and I doubt you have a small HDD so space isn't the issue.

Users want an OS that does all the basic stuff OOTB, not having to install it later or pick it from some list.

That said, in the end you're going to install the browser you want or the media player you want. When you do that, it takes over as default from any default MS apps they could have in there. So the whole argument is pointless.

Apple Safari and Google Chrome are not even 2 years old right? So I don't think they should be on the list they are unsafe. The world as not tested them that much. But to bad people love Google and Apple way to much for anyone to think that.

So-Unreal said,
Apple Safari and Google Chrome are not even 2 years old right? So I don't think they should be on the list they are unsafe. The world as not tested them that much. But to bad people love Google and Apple way to much for anyone to think that.

Err Safari has been around for a tad bit now. Chrome is the new player.

So-Unreal said,
not even 2 years old right? So I don't think they should be on the list they are unsafe.

Uh, just how many products do you apply this "logic" to?

So-Unreal said,
Apple Safari and Google Chrome are not even 2 years old right? So I don't think they should be on the list they are unsafe.

And IE is safe? LOL

Doesn't look like the top 5 are in alphabetical order to me. Alphabetical order would be:

* Chrome
* Firefox
* Internet Explorer
* Opera
* Safari

Shadrack said,
Doesn't look like the top 5 are in alphabetical order to me. Alphabetical order would be:

* Chrome
* Firefox
* Internet Explorer
* Opera
* Safari

"Alphabetize the list of browsers so that the five most popular are listed first (by vendor), followed by the next seven most popular (also alphabetically ordered), so that 12 choices are displayed in total"

Why MS chose such a convoluted method of ordering perplexes me. Then again, if that had ordered it by the browser name, wouldn't Firefox come before IE? Perhaps they are more concerned with Firefox's popularity than any of the other browsers.

Also Chrome, which will only go from strength to strength, and I would imagine, anyone with a nervous disposition at MS would be more nervous about a (relatively) new product from Google than an established one from Mozilla.

Wanderermy said,

"Alphabetize the list of browsers so that the five most popular are listed first (by vendor), followed by the next seven most popular (also alphabetically ordered), so that 12 choices are displayed in total"

Ahh so it does say that. My bad.

Thats why I added (by vendor) because I knew people would ask about this.
Microsoft claims to of done this by vendor, which is odd, but they did it for a marketing strategy.. as Shockz said, people look at the center first.

Crankenstein said,
... They will go crying to the EU again, it wouldn't surprise me if they push for this in the American releases of Windows.

Uh, last I remember, the US is not part of the EU.

And no, this isn't just Opera vs Microsoft.

I think we should all go buy iPods and then hand the Apple headphones back to the salesperson and demand Sony headphones. This bundling-the-competitor's-product-with-your-own nonsense would never fly in the physical goods realm. I don't understand why it's ok in the digital realm.

You don't understand because you don't have a clue about EU competition law. The law applies to Microsoft because it has a dominant market position. Internet browsers are separate to an operating system, and thus MS has been found to be abusing its market share.

This law doesn't apply to Apple and its range of MacBooks, because Apple doesn't have a dominant market share. Sizeable, yes - but not dominant. As for iPods... headphones are part of the actual MP3 player, and thus there's no problem there. Internet browsers are different.

So all of you whining about how the EU sucks, about how all the other companies are crybabies, etc. - try to read an article explaining WHY such an outcome was reached. THEN post. But not before knowing about what you're typing about.

I'm sorry, however, I believe Apple should be held accountable to do similar stuff with their OS as well.

Microsoft had to make a ballot screen, Apple should be forced to do the same. As for linux, well its open source so they cannot really be told to do something now can they?

DarkNovaGundam said,
I'm sorry, however, I believe Apple should be held accountable to do similar stuff with their OS as well.

Microsoft had to make a ballot screen, Apple should be forced to do the same. As for linux, well its open source so they cannot really be told to do something now can they? ;)


we both know apple is far worse than MS when it comes to business practices, in MS's place apple would probably DESTROY the pc industry

Headphones are part of an MP3 player as much as IE is a part of Windows.

They come bundled but the consumer can easily change them out for a different one.

It's the exact same principle and not a difficult concept.

The outcome was reached because Opera can't sell their product on their own merits.

C_Guy said,
Headphones are part of an MP3 player as much as IE is a part of Windows.

They come bundled but the consumer can easily change them out for a different one.

It's the exact same principle and not a difficult concept.

The outcome was reached because Opera can't sell their product on their own merits.

They haven't even tried to sell their product, thats my largest problem with them. I've never seen any real, serious Opera marketing campaign.

They should have to prove they tried to sell their product, before they can claim Microsoft kept them out of the market.

DarkNovaGundam said,
I'm sorry, however, I believe Apple should be held accountable to do similar stuff with their OS as well.

Microsoft had to make a ballot screen, Apple should be forced to do the same. As for linux, well its open source so they cannot really be told to do something now can they? ;)

You're sorry you disagree with the law? Maybe you should propose an amendment to the EC. Again, the law concerns companies with DOMINANT market share. Apple is not dominant in the OS market.


@C_Guy: It isn't the same as bundling headphones. An internet browser is not an inherent part of an operating system. By your logic, MS could freely bundle antivirus, a firewall (a fully-featured one), a music player, a photo organiser, an internet messaging program, a photo editor, etc. and really make it hard for competitors to compete.

You can't use an MP3 player without headphones - for your analogy to ring true, that would include Apple bundling (for free) an FM transmitter, a leather pouch, screen protector, stereo dock, etc. and making extremely difficult to compete on that basis.


How is this hard to understand? A company has around 90% market share WORLDWIDE. They begin slowly, but surely, to bundle (for free) their own products to add on top of their core product, until they supply EVERYTHING.

With people who purchase software legitimately, what proportion of that 90% will buy extra software, if everything they need has been provided for free? Not including the 10% of computer-savvy people that know what a browser even is, of course.

Microsoft seems to get targetted more than other companies because NO OTHER COMPANY ON EARTH HAS A 90% WORLDWIDE MARKET SHARE. Maybe Apple with the iPod, but they're not bundling in extra stuff to try to drive out other competitors... yet.


It is a controversial case, yes... but at least debate it on the REAL controversies. All the comments on this page are just knee-jerk reactions typed out without even thinking about the entire context or the broader implications.

brianshapiro said,
They haven't even tried to sell their product, thats my largest problem with them.

That's funny as they are the only browser in recent memory that required you to pay for the full version.

dewaaz said,

You're sorry you disagree with the law? Maybe you should propose an amendment to the EC. Again, the law concerns companies with DOMINANT market share. Apple is not dominant in the OS market.


@C_Guy: It isn't the same as bundling headphones. An internet browser is not an inherent part of an operating system. By your logic, MS could freely bundle antivirus, a firewall (a fully-featured one), a music player, a photo organiser, an internet messaging program, a photo editor, etc. and really make it hard for competitors to compete.

You can't use an MP3 player without headphones - for your analogy to ring true, that would include Apple bundling (for free) an FM transmitter, a leather pouch, screen protector, stereo dock, etc. and making extremely difficult to compete on that basis.


How is this hard to understand? A company has around 90% market share WORLDWIDE. They begin slowly, but surely, to bundle (for free) their own products to add on top of their core product, until they supply EVERYTHING.

With people who purchase software legitimately, what proportion of that 90% will buy extra software, if everything they need has been provided for free? Not including the 10% of computer-savvy people that know what a browser even is, of course.

Microsoft seems to get targetted more than other companies because NO OTHER COMPANY ON EARTH HAS A 90% WORLDWIDE MARKET SHARE. Maybe Apple with the iPod, but they're not bundling in extra stuff to try to drive out other competitors... yet.


It is a controversial case, yes... but at least debate it on the REAL controversies. All the comments on this page are just knee-jerk reactions typed out without even thinking about the entire context or the broader implications.

There is no need to speak so much at me!

It was an opinion, deal with it.

neodorian said,
That's funny as they are the only browser in recent memory that required you to pay for the full version.

And looks where its got them, tiny market share and no real prospects for the future.

DarkNovaGundam said,
I'm sorry, however, I believe Apple should be held accountable to do similar stuff with their OS as well.

It's a good job you don't write the laws then.

DarkNovaGundam said,
Microsoft had to make a ballot screen, Apple should be forced to do the same. As for linux, well its open source so they cannot really be told to do something now can they? ;)

Sign.. Apple isn't a monopoly.

C_Guy said,
The outcome was reached because Opera can't sell their product on their own merits.

Or perhaps bundling IE with an OS that has a desktop monopoly might put Opera at a wee disadvantage?

brianshapiro said,
They should have to prove they tried to sell their product, before they can claim Microsoft kept them out of the market.

MS has kept everyone out of the browser market for years. Why do you think web standards stagnated for so long?

thealexweb said,
And looks where its got them, tiny market share and no real prospects for the future.

Isn't Opera the default browser on the Wii? That's a pretty large market.

Microsoft_Bob said,
Or perhaps bundling IE with an OS that has a desktop monopoly might put Opera at a wee disadvantage?


Yet this hasn't stopped Firefox from gaining a big chunk. And in the EU i believe it's market share is even higher vs the US.

Also this hasn't stopped Chrome from coming out of nowhere and gaining more market share in 6months than Opera has had all this time.

The argument that IE in windows is a big competition changing disadvantage doesn't match with the current market numbers on the desktop at all.

Opera has been around longer than Firefox as well, yet couldn't seem to get anywhere, I wonder why?

It's so annoying when you first run IE8, with all it's alert windows, and settings. Google has made is so much better.

Apple must be happy being first..... seriously though most people will install the first one in the list.... (common people not use people that know browsers) the list should be randomized so the order is never preferential or in any specific order

Nah I don't think that's right. They'll pick the one with the most recognisable brand. That includes a combination of the name and the logo. So I think IE will win out here.

I disagree with neufuse too. I bet most people will choose IE over the other potions because they are familiar with the logo and the name Microsoft as the maker of Windows.

That ballot screen could lead to many tech calls, advice, questions, doubts, etc from average users to company support or even we as geeky friends. It is an odd decision because it can set precedent for other companies to reclaim being offered as choices for their software.

And yet, none of those descriptions makes any of them stand out from the others. So what, the user expected to read up in-depth about each one before making the choice? I bet the language isn't exactly noob-friendly, especially if they start talking about open source credentials, web compatibility, and **** like that. Talk about making a mountain out of a... well, it's not even a molehill.

If a user can manage to install an OS. then I'm sure they can a few lines of text then make a decision. I mean that's why we have brains right? We aren't some vacant shell unable to make decisions are why?

Maybe because I have a US mentality, but capitalism states that if you sell a product you should be able to bundle what you want with that product.

Imagine crooked capitalism that forced you to BUY addons such as IE8, that's the alternative.

People have always had a choice as to their Web Browser, and Firefox has climbed up that ladder. What happens when, if, Firefox overtakes IE, will the EU back down? No, because they don't like businesses to suceed.

Yeah it's an odd situation. My initial reaction was, "What?! Come on, it's their operating system, let them put whatever the hell they want on it!". But then I thought about the situation further - many people who use Internet Explorer simply use it's already there. These people are probably okay with it not being particularly tech-savvy but it is still potentially a lost user simply because Microsoft have already forced their browser on the operating system.

I found it hard to think this way being a nerd, but I always come to the same conclusion when looking at it from a distance.

P.S Scottish/British.

You realise that capitalism is not a system of laws? Maybe you think it is ok for a company to do whatever they want. Maybe there should be no laws. Maybe companies should be able to dump any chemicals they want into rivers, maybe drug companies should be able to sell drugs that kill 10% of people who use them. Maybe Microsoft should ban anyone from running anything else on their OS. Yes, that sounds like a great place to live in.

cakesy said,
You realise that capitalism is not a system of laws? Maybe you think it is ok for a company to do whatever they want. Maybe there should be no laws. Maybe companies should be able to dump any chemicals they want into rivers, maybe drug companies should be able to sell drugs that kill 10% of people who use them. Maybe Microsoft should ban anyone from running anything else on their OS. Yes, that sounds like a great place to live in.

They have never banned anyone from running whatever browser they want. They offer their option included. If you want something else you are free to install it. It's one of the simplest systems I've ever seen. If having IE somehow blocked you from installing another browser I could see a problem but it does not. It's not up to a company to keep up with all of its competitors and introduce you to them. I have no problem installing Firefox and Chrome on my Windows machines and if someone wants to do so they are free to do so. I don't even use IE unless I have to but I could care less if it's there. I don't use Safari on Mac OS either.

That's why MS doesn't have a true monopoly at all, going by the definition of the word. You do have choice, the fact you have to go and find it yourself doesn't change the fact. I suppose people like to have their hands held and walked through such things, but that's not how the world works.

MS at best has a virtual monopoly, just how Google has one in search for the most part. You're still free to run Linux on your hardware, a PC doesn't equal windows. You can run any apps you want, you don't have to use MS's only. It's hardly a real monopoly o the PC market.

It's easy to spin it as one and sue them for some easy money when you have bills to pay though.

GP007 said,
That's why MS doesn't have a true monopoly at all, going by the definition of the word. You do have choice, the fact you have to go and find it yourself doesn't change the fact. I suppose people like to have their hands held and walked through such things, but that's not how the world works.

MS at best has a virtual monopoly, just how Google has one in search for the most part. You're still free to run Linux on your hardware, a PC doesn't equal windows. You can run any apps you want, you don't have to use MS's only. It's hardly a real monopoly o the PC market.

It's easy to spin it as one and sue them for some easy money when you have bills to pay though.


That might be your definition of Monopoly, but who cares. It is not the economic or legal definition of Monopoly. But who cares about that, lets just make up our own definitions of words, what fun that will be.

This is very simple, the fact that some people still don't understand why Microsoft is a monopoly is only a reflection on those people.

ccoltmanm said,
Maybe because I have a US mentality, but capitalism states that if you sell a product you should be able to bundle what you want with that product.

Pure capitalism has no government regulation. This is why the banks went bust, that is, a lack of regulation. The US has laws to prevent monopoly abuse and it's called antitrust. MS broke that law. Unfortunately the DOJ hasn't done anything about it, whereas the EU has.

ccoltmanm said,
Imagine crooked capitalism that forced you to BUY addons such as IE8, that's the alternative.

IE is free like every other browser. And most forms of capitalism are crooked by design.

ccoltmanm said,
People have always had a choice as to their Web Browser, and Firefox has climbed up that ladder. What happens when, if, Firefox overtakes IE, will the EU back down? No, because they don't like businesses to suceed.

Firefox is the exception to the rule. Why should the other browsers have a disadvantage to IE? This ballot is a first step towards a level playing field. And no the EU wont back down because even if IE's market share dips the ballot screen still ensures all browsers have an equal chance to succeed.

neodorian said,
They have never banned anyone from running whatever browser they want.

No, but they put all other browsers at a disadvantage by shipping IE as the default!

GP007 said,
That's why MS doesn't have a true monopoly at all

MS have unequivocally used their desktop monopoly to try and monopolize the browser market.

GP007 said,
MS at best has a virtual monopoly, just how Google has one in search for the most part.

The key difference is MS has illegally violated competition law where Google has not.

GP007 said,
You're still free to run Linux on your hardware, a PC doesn't equal windows.

It does if you buy it from most OEMs due to the MS tax. MS regularly uses coercion tactics against OEMs to hurt competitors.

GP007 said,
You can run any apps you want, you don't have to use MS's only. It's hardly a real monopoly o the PC market.

MS has a desktop OS monopoly. This is indisputable.

GP007 said,
It's easy to spin it as one and sue them for some easy money when you have bills to pay though.

The law applies to everyone, including billion dollar evil corporations. At least in the EU anyway. The US doesn't seem interested in preventing anti-competitive behaviour.

cakesy said,

That might be your definition of Monopoly, but who cares. It is not the economic or legal definition of Monopoly. But who cares about that, lets just make up our own definitions of words, what fun that will be.

This is very simple, the fact that some people still don't understand why Microsoft is a monopoly is only a reflection on those people.



So fill me in on your definition then, oh wise one. Because anyway I look at it, it goes like this...

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.

3. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.


Now, I can at least assume you are smart enough to understand what the above 3 share in common right? But just in case I'll point it out, in each case it's down to a single person/company/government that has EXCLUSIVE control over a specific market.

Does MS have EXCLUSIVE control of the PC market? No. Does it have the right to be the only exclusive PC OS? No. Does it have the exclusive right to be the only PC software maker and seller? No.

It's not a real monopoly. I see how you don't want to admit this simple truth, but oh well. Being the market leader makes you a virtual monopoly in that you have more push true, but the same applies to, Intel with x86 CPUs, IBM with big-tin mainframes, Google with search. and so on. Due to the shear size of their market slice they are each a "virtual monopoly" if you want to call MS one as well.

cakesy said,

That might be your definition of Monopoly, but who cares. It is not the economic or legal definition of Monopoly. But who cares about that, lets just make up our own definitions of words, what fun that will be.

This is very simple, the fact that some people still don't understand why Microsoft is a monopoly is only a reflection on those people.



So fill me in on your definition then, oh wise one. Because anyway I look at it, it goes like this...

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.

3. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.


Now, I can at least assume you are smart enough to understand what the above 3 share in common right? But just in case I'll point it out, in each case it's down to a single person/company/government that has EXCLUSIVE control over a specific market.

Does MS have EXCLUSIVE control of the PC market? No. Does it have the right to be the only exclusive PC OS? No. Does it have the exclusive right to be the only PC software maker and seller? No.

It's not a real monopoly. I see how you don't want to admit this simple truth, but oh well. Being the market leader makes you a virtual monopoly in that you have more push true, but the same applies to, Intel with x86 CPUs, IBM with big-tin mainframes, Google with search. and so on. Due to the shear size of their market slice they are each a "virtual monopoly" if you want to call MS one as well.

cakesy said,

That might be your definition of Monopoly, but who cares. It is not the economic or legal definition of Monopoly. But who cares about that, lets just make up our own definitions of words, what fun that will be.

This is very simple, the fact that some people still don't understand why Microsoft is a monopoly is only a reflection on those people.

O rly?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/monopoly.htm
Ill go ahead and quote that last one. "A monopoly is when a business, usually a large corporation, is the only provider of a good or service."
Hmmmm last I checked Firefox and Chrome both had good sized market shares. This isn't like when AT&T was the only way to get phone service. Other comapnies can compete MS does not control alll aspects of the browser market.

Bloated? A 7MB install file, and uses 60 meg of ram for a browser and mail client.

It's not bloated at all. It's feature rich, but it's not bloated, heavy, sluggish, or any other definition of the word.

M comes before O last I checked, if Maxthon has more market share than Opera, shouldn't it be before it on that list? I don't care that Opera is in there, but you are talking about fair right?

lunamonkey said,
Bloated? A 7MB install file, and uses 60 meg of ram for a browser and mail client.

It's not bloated at all. It's feature rich, but it's not bloated, heavy, sluggish, or any other definition of the word.

Does it come with a nail clipper, a fan and an automatic spam can opener besides mail, torrent, web server etc?

Kirkburn said,
Source?

Firefox ~= 500M downloads.
Maxthon ~= 200M downloads.
And Firefox market share is ~10 times more than Opera's

So we can (very roughly) estimate that
Maxthon ~= 4 * Opera

RealFduch said,

Does it come with a nail clipper, a fan and an automatic spam can opener besides mail, torrent, web server etc?


It has a download client that can cope with torrents. It's combined in a incredibly simple interface. It's actually too simple to compare with a desktop torrent client. It's suitable for a quick, one file, torrent.

Firefox/chrome have a download client too, and it's comparable to Opera's.

Web server? I wasn't aware of it having a webserver.

It does have a spam filter on the mailclient. You can turn it off. I don't use it the spam filter. You can turn off the mail client too. You won't even see it.

What other add ons are you unhappy with?

It still uses under 100meg of ram with a load of pages open. (much less on initial run). So by definition, it's not "bloated". Bloated is when the interface is overcrowded and you cannot make it otherwise.

When was the last time you tried it and spent any time using it? I hated Opera until I actually tried it properly. I use Firefox for web development (firebug).

Once you dig deeper on all browsers, you'll find features you don't want and don't have a need for. Opera is no exception.

RealFduch said,
Firefox ~= 500M downloads.
Maxthon ~= 200M downloads.
And Firefox market share is ~10 times more than Opera's

So we can (very roughly) estimate that
Maxthon ~= 4 * Opera


Very VERY roughly. Cause those results aren't reflected in the usage share website stats.

You could say it's because they aren't weighting China high enough - but then what difference does that make? This is the EU, not China.

I don't even see why MS are being forced to do this.
It's their product, if Mozilla want to make something successful then get off your bottoms and make an OS to rival Microsoft!

All this means is I have to make another few clicks when installing/booting up.

More work for me, the consumer - thanks EU!

Leaders do not get rights because the competitors whine to much otherwise. So to shut them up governmental bodies decide to control how the leaders run their businesses.

Mr Spoon said,
I don't even see why MS are being forced to do this.
It's their product, if Mozilla want to make something successful then get off your bottoms and make an OS to rival Microsoft!

All this means is I have to make another few clicks when installing/booting up.

More work for me, the consumer - thanks EU!


MS is forced to do this because we live in a time where ****ty companies are given a helping hand because they cried. Instead of making your browser earn IE type status they file lawsuits and get a push. Oh and they say they arent advertised properly when everytime i install something its begging me to install google this or firefox that.

Yes, but the point is that IE got that "IE type status" because Microsoft embedded it with an existing product (Windows) that was already number 1 in its field. The vast majority of users will just use what they are given out of the box and will not be bothered to even look for an alternative, no matter how good the competition is.

And can these consumers not take responsibility for themselves? Like those who purposely chose to go out and get FireFox did?

Or is that too much to ask these days?

Mr Spoon said,
I don't even see why MS are being forced to do this.
It's their product, if Mozilla want to make something successful then get off your bottoms and make an OS to rival Microsoft!

All this means is I have to make another few clicks when installing/booting up.

More work for me, the consumer - thanks EU!

Because they broke the law. Is that simple enough for you people to understand? In most countries, except the USA, when companies break the law they have to make amends. If they want to sell their good in other countries, then they have to obey the laws.

cakesy said,

Because they broke the law. Is that simple enough for you people to understand? In most countries, except the USA, when companies break the law they have to make amends. If they want to sell their good in other countries, then they have to obey the laws.

How was *your* life impacted by what they did? Other than your ideological bull****, what has Microsoft done *to you*? Yeah, thought so.

The whole bit about bundling IE and hurting the market doesn't match up with the market share numbers. The verdict in this case is BS imo. The law can be changed/bent or twisted to fit whatever political motives you may have.

The fact is, while IE has come with windows for years that in no way stopped or hurt Firefox from gaining a big chunk of the pie. It also hasn't stopped Chrome from coming outta nowhere and gaining more market share in half a year than it's taken Opera 10 years to get to.

This whole bit about MS breaking the law by having IE in windows is pure BS used by the EU to try and show it's got the ability to actually do something in the global world, when in reality it's more political crap than anything good for the user. In the EU firefox gets used way more than IE compared to the US I bet. So this whole idea that consumers are being hurt is also BS.

Mega Goatfart said,
How was *your* life impacted by what they did? Other than your ideological bull****, what has Microsoft done *to you*? Yeah, thought so.

Good point, well made. I guess only stuff that directly affects me should be enforced as the law. Big on the old logic, aren't you.

My life has been impacted because I am a web developer, and I have been forced to work extra hard to get stuff working in ie6, because it has a large market share. Ask any web developer. We have all cursed Bill Gates because of ie6, the most standards-non compliant browser ever.

Also, I have to use rubbish like active-x, which crashes the browser constantly (yes, even ie7 and ie8, i have tried), because some genius thought it was a good way to manage their applications.

Also I had to put up with a crappy web experience that has only improved in the last few years, and not because of Microsoft, but because of Mozilla, Google, Apple and Opera.

Mega Goatlord said,
How was *your* life impacted by what they did? Other than your ideological bull****, what has Microsoft done *to you*? Yeah, thought so.

As much as I'm surprised to be defending cakesy here ... wow.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Kirkburn said,
As much as I'm surprised to be defending cakesy here ... wow.

Pot calling the kettle black?

I'm all for having an opinion, but christ, this guy comes in every single news article about Microsoft, and spams it up responding to every single comment made. He acts as though a Microsoft rep came to his house and slapped his mother then kicked his dog. It gets old.

Mr Spoon said,
I don't even see why MS are being forced to do this.

Because they are a convicted monopolist whose circumvention of sanctions is infamous.

Mr Spoon said,
Its their product, if Mozilla want to make something successful then get off your bottoms and make an OS to rival Microsoft.

It has nothing to do with producting a good product and everything to do with MS shipping their own browser as default which obviously gives them an advantage. This is a step toward equality.

Mr Spoon said,
All this means is I have to make another few clicks when installing/booting up.

Oh the horror of it :D

Mr Spoon said,
More work for me, the consumer

Got to reduce RSI huh?

statm1 said,
Leaders do not get rights because the competitors whine to much otherwise. So to shut them up governmental bodies decide to control how the leaders run their businesses.

Perhaps you would prefer a world with no regulation where the banks are free to set their own arbitrary fractional reserve?

tablet_user said,
MS is forced to do this because we live in a time where ****ty companies are given a helping hand because they cried.

Shipping IE with windows doesn't give MS a "helping hand"[sic]?

tablet_user said,
Instead of making your browser earn IE type status

What's this "IE type status"[sic] you speak of? Monopoly advantage status?

tablet_user said,
they file lawsuits and get a push.

Abusing a monopoly in the EU is illegal. So the union was obligated to take action. Just as it does with other crimes.

tablet_user said,
Oh and they say they arent advertised properly when everytime i install something its begging me to install google this or firefox that.

But they aren't installed with the OS?

Mega Goatlord said,
How was *your* life impacted by what they did?

And so the EU shouldn't act against illegal activities because you don't think it's relevant?

Mega Goatlord said,
Other than your ideological bull****, what has Microsoft done *to you*? Yeah, thought so.

MS broke the law and will suffer the consequences regardless of your pity for them.

LoveThePenguin said,
And so the EU shouldn't act against illegal activities because you don't think it's relevant?


MS broke the law and will suffer the consequences regardless of your pity for them.


Give it a rest before you have an aneurysm.

People, this news is about the ballot screen, not which web browser or company is best or worst. Please try to keep the discussion on-topic.

C_Guy said,
And can these consumers not take responsibility for themselves? Like those who purposely chose to go out and get FireFox did?

Or is that too much to ask these days?

apparently it has always been too much to ask... that's how microsoft got their browser monopoly...

What if the user doesn't know what to do and clicks and downloads all of them? Surely this is a problem with this whole ballot screen altogether. It causes confusion for the end user. Heck even I'm confused with this list. Since when was a Safari a browser? I thought it was some kind of animal reserve. And the heck is a Firefox, is that some kind of animal and why would I want to download an Opera, does it sing? I'm sooo confused :S. I'm guessing that internet explorer searches the internet so I may just go with that and Firefox looks nice too with that sexy orangey looking fox, I'd like that icon on my desktop thingy :P

LoveThePenguin said,
True. Expecting humans to be able to learn things is just too much...


And I'm sure you can replace the engine in your car, fix your heating and perform major heart surgery? What, you mean you're not an expert at everything..?

All those computer novices will not understand the purpose of this screen and simply click on the most familiar logo. Google will benefit big time from this.

LoveThePenguin said,
Perhaps this will give them the impetus to learn what a browser is and how IE is the worst of them all :)


Dare to dream. The moon is made of cheese!

Absolutely right. My mum & dad use "Google" to "search" the web, so that's what they'll click when they are asked about anything to do with the web.

I think mine made it on there, but I think I screwed myself by naming myself ZZ Industries...


In all seriousness, I'd kind of like to know as well.

Why does it say "Internet Explorer" as an option. If they wanted to use Internet Explorer, wouldn't they just say "Use Internet Explorer" as it's already installed?

They need to make every browser's option identical or Google, Mozilla, and Opera will have a fit. The "Install" button for IE probably just adds the shortcut back to the taskbar and makes it the default browser.

Chrono951 said,
They need to make every browser's option identical or Google, Mozilla, and Opera will have a fit. The "Install" button for IE probably just adds the shortcut back to the taskbar and makes it the default browser.

And therein lies the problem. IE is still installed by default. [snipped]

LoveThePenguin said,
And therein lies the problem. IE is still installed by default. [snipped]

Could be a security problem, yes, since some Windows components require IE, and in case that's lacking some security patch the others have, yes... But that's just in theory. The reverse could also be true, that a user gets less secure because he/she picked the wrong browser in the ballot screen.

soumyasch said,
Why does IE have an install button? If it were not installed, what's rendering the ballot screen?


They probably don't have internet explorer icons or anything like that . Its probably not even associated as the default out of the box.

It probably just turns it "on" more or less, while the core bits are still going to be in there because they're used by other apps and thus are needed for legacy support.

Strange they couldn't make a normal application to present the ballot isn't it? Almost as if they wanted to make their own browser choice more prominent...

LoveThePenguin said,
Strange they couldn't make a normal application to present the ballot isn't it? Almost as if they wanted to make their own browser choice more prominent...

How would you download the alternate browsers? Most companies serve them via HTTP.

GreyWolfSC said,
How would you download the alternate browsers? Most companies serve them via HTTP.


And FTP as well. FTP is supported via command line in Windows without any need for a browser.

The command line FTP client in windows isn't all that great, sure you could run a type of automated script to use it, but what if it doesn't work with the FTP server? It doesn't support newer FTP type stuff, hell I don't think it even has passive mode?

soumyasch said,
Why does IE have an install button? If it were not installed, what's rendering the ballot screen?

I would assume it has enough basic web usage installed to be able to connect directly to the download locations. Also I would think IE isn't getting installed yet, since its giving you the choice up front. Its just in an IE window for demonstration purposes (i.e. for us to see).

They should have used the name of the browser instead of the name of the company (for the ordering)

Rudy said,
They should have used the name of the browser instead of the name of the company (for the ordering)

Yes, this is an incredibly important point.

Opera should be in first place. It's Allmennaksjeselskap (ASA) Opera Browser. Microsoft should correct this immediately.

Looking at the picture they do use the browser name and it's logo. So the fact they order it by vendor name doesn't mean it's posted by vendor name only.

Napalm Frog said,
However, IE is smack in the middle, and will probably be the first thing you see when it loads up. A bit smart, if I must say.

Oh christ, people are using this exact same argument to describe the left, middle and right positions are best.

Seriously, only one can actually be right, and none of us have the data to prove it.

Lechio said,
Opera should be in first place. It's Allmennaksjeselskap (ASA) Opera Browser. Microsoft should correct this immediately.

That's not part of the browser name, but the company name, and it also follows the company name, not leads it.

Opera Software ASA. ASA is about the kind of company.

Jugalator said,
That's not part of the browser name, but the company name, and it also follows the company name, not leads it.

Opera Software ASA. ASA is about the kind of company.

It was supposed to be a joke... LOL

so the five most used browsers cover, what, 99.9% of the market. What's the point in putting the other 7 on? :S

M2Ys4U said,
so the five most used browsers cover, what, 99.9% of the market. What's the point in putting the other 7 on? :S

Point is it was originally only 4 browsers Microsoft would provide, and given Opera's less than ideal marketshare they had to ensure they wouldn't be put off the list by Safari.

And as an added bonus they even get to keep being on the list even if a 5th browser turns up and takes a cut.

M2Ys4U said,
so the five most used browsers cover, what, 99.9% of the market. What's the point in putting the other 7 on? :S

I know, too much choice is confusing. Where do you live, communist Russia?

cakesy said,
I know, too much choice is confusing. Where do you live, communist Russia?

Yeah, which is why Linux has been such a roaring success on the desktop. Oh...wait...

Too much choice can quite frequently lead to the problem called 'having to sift through the garbage'.

cakesy said,
I know, too much choice is confusing. Where do you live, communist Russia?

Too much choice is a bad thing.

Kushan said,
The whole point of the ballot screen was to give browsers a chance. That's why you get a choice of 7 more.

You don't hold an election without an election campaign.

Simply put, people don't know what a browser is, let alone what the different one does, the issue is moot as it doesn't actually give users a choice nor other browsers a chance.

People will go with:

1. "Ask me later"
2. What icon they find familiar (Basically IE)
3. Whatever comes first on the list (Apple Safari(Then of course find out it isn't what you want and have a guy go change it back to IE)

Having more or less browsers on the list won't make a difference really.

Mega Goatlord said,
Yeah, which is why Linux has been such a roaring success on the desktop. Oh...wait...

20% Share on netbooks and almost 50% share on web-servers isn't shady huh?

Mega Goatlord said,
Too much choice can quite frequently lead to the problem called 'having to sift through the garbage'.

That's a typical rebuttal of monopolists.

FISKER_Q said,
You don't hold an election without an election campaign.

That's why Google and MS are conducting advertising campaigns for their respective browsers.

FISKER_Q said,
Simply put, people don't know what a browser is, let alone what the different one does, the issue is moot as it doesn't actually give users a choice nor other browsers a chance.

Perhaps we should view this as an education campaign to encourage the questioning of the software which we use. And yes it does provide a choice, one which MS would have never given us had it not been for the EU's intervention.

FISKER_Q said,
People will go with:

1. "Ask me later"
2. What icon they find familiar (Basically IE)
3. Whatever comes first on the list (Apple Safari(Then of course find out it isn't what you want and have a guy go change it back to IE)


Or perhaps they discover that IE is worst browser listed on that page and never use it again :)

FISKER_Q said,
Having more or less browsers on the list won't make a difference really.

It's better to have too much choice than too little.

(snipped)

Why shouldn't you get all your applications from one vendor, saves on invoicing right? And they must all work together. And why not have the browser as part of the OS, despite the fact that no other OS in the universe does it.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4167

This seems to have made the EU happy. Glad to see someone is sticking up to big companies.

Typical anti-Microsoft comment: Can't even get product details correct.

Word is a word processor, not an operating system.
Windows is an operating system, not a web browser.
Bing is a search engine, not an e-mail service.

You also conveniently forgot that Safari comes bundled with OS X and is just as removable from OS X as IE is from Windows. And it is in fact in this same universe if you can believe it.

Glad we could clear that up for you.

@C_Guy: I think you may have missed Cakesy's point. He was trying to point out that the lowest common denominator of computer user doesn't really have a clue what they're doing (i.e. "I use windows on the internet"), and to an extent, the EU have established that Microsoft have taken advantage of that fact.

cakesy said,
(snipped)

Why shouldn't you get all your applications from one vendor, saves on invoicing right? And they must all work together. And why not have the browser as part of the OS, despite the fact that no other OS in the universe does it.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4167

This seems to have made the EU happy. Glad to see someone is sticking up to big companies.


Not sure how that is typical. Most people use Windows so obviously most idiots will as well. They are no stupider than the Mac users I deal with at work who can only refer to their computer by year and screen size. Most of the perfectly well-educated and computer savvy folks I know use Windows as well. It's just more common due to hardware availability and cost.

Well a girl at uni once said "Vista is awesome, you can automatically add referencing and text effects" - obviously she's referring to MS Word 2007.

C_Guy said,
Typical anti-Microsoft comment: Can't even get product details correct.

Word is a word processor, not an operating system.
Windows is an operating system, not a web browser.
Bing is a search engine, not an e-mail service.

Yeah it's just possible he was joking... I think that was exactly the point he was trying to make....

cakesy said,
(snipped)

Why shouldn't you get all your applications from one vendor, saves on invoicing right? And they must all work together. And why not have the browser as part of the OS, despite the fact that no other OS in the universe does it.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4167

This seems to have made the EU happy. Glad to see someone is sticking up to big companies.

ummm "no other OS does it?" Apple does it, why should they be given a free ride on Windows??

cakesy said,
This seems to have made the EU happy. Glad to see someone is sticking up to big companies.

Agreed. Shame the US DOJ is incapable of acting on clear monopolistic abuses in the same way.

C_Guy said,
You also conveniently forgot that Safari comes bundled with OS X and is just as removable from OS X as IE is from Windows. And it is in fact in this same universe if you can believe it.

One is a convicted monopolist and the other has no desktop OS monopoly to speak of. That's like comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

bobbba said,
Safari can be completely removed from OS X, IE can only be disabled on Windows, it's a big difference.

Lie. IE can be removed from Windows. What About Webkit and OS X?

LoveThePenguin said,
One is a convicted monopolist and the other has no desktop OS monopoly to speak of. That's like comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Totally flawed logic. Just because a convicted thief has been released and robbed another house doesn't mean that a first time thief is let off the hook because they haven't got the same reputation. Abuse of power is abuse of power, regardless of who you are.

Microsoft_Bob said,
Can IE be removed from XP? No I thought not...

It can be disabled, but not removed. This is because the IE components are used throughout Windows (particularly XP) to provide things such as Windows update. Windows 7 has simply extended this to remove SOME of the binaries from the system which aren't used by other parts of the system. This is an issue in particular for applications such as XFire or Steam, which both use IE to show webpages integrated into their clients. If IE could be totally detached, then these applications would also fail.

LoveThePenguin said,
One is a convicted monopolist and the other has no desktop OS monopoly to speak of. That's like comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges.

Glad I could clear that up for you.


You FOSS guys stick to these Microsoft topics like stink to s***. Why don't you actually go work on improving Linux rather than derailing discussions with anti microsoft dribble?

Microsoft_Bob said,
It's a browser !

(snipped)

Is it? I thought it was just a software, with an internet browsing feature..somewhere in the mist of all the other included things that no one really uses and only takes up space. Seriously, Opera is just a big mess.

thealexweb said,
Dam looks like they forgot to cut off Opera, never mind at least its last.

It is also the closest to the right, the RHS were most people have the mouse

Here come the childish Opera trolls for the 10 millionth time. You hate Opera, we get it. Grow the **** already and stop ruining discussions

thealexweb said,
Dam looks like they forgot to cut off Opera, never mind at least its last.

It's not last, you can scroll right, to see more browsers. The problem is, as you have pointed out, it's not too obvious to scroll right in that frame, and those browsers will not get as much consideration, just because they are later on in the alphabet. Why not tile the browser list or make it scroll horizontally?

Athernar said,
It's funny that you condemn Microsoft over one issue (Which may very well be mitigated by UAC), yet you staunchly defended Apple in another newsitem that highlighted their abysmal security reputation.

No idea what you are talking about. Any company messing up, deserves to have it pointed out, whether it be Apple, Microsoft, Google or Mozilla, and I will do so.

This issue has nothing to do with UAC, did you even read that link before launching into an attack.

Goathead said,
Show me a major corporation running Firefox on their workstations, that this fix needed to be certified on. Go on, I'll wait here.

Ok, so Microsoft are always going to be late in fixing security problems. Therefore we should not use Microsoft because they can't fix security problems quickly. This is what you are saying?


Neobald said,
(snipped)
MS has been doing pretty good on security for the most part
and its common knowledge the most popular products get targetted first
COMMON..KNOWLEDGE

Yes, this is one issue, there are other issues affecting other browsers. Why has Microsoft not responded to this though, when other companies have, very quickly. You can't just remove this point, and talk about how good Microsoft are, except for the times when they are slow.

And the fact that you mention that the most popular products get targeted first is exactly the reason that MICROSOFT SHOULD HAVE FIXED THIS already. If you are not trying to say this, then I have no idea what point you are trying to get across.

Neoauld said,
and its common knowledge the most popular products get targetted first
COMMON..KNOWLEDGE


Really? [snipped]

Consider for a moment the web-server market, and then compare the percentage of servers running GNU/Linux with those running windows. And yet the majority of compromised servers out there are running windows. Care to explain this anomaly in your rationale?

Mega Goatlord said,
Show me a major corporation running Firefox on their workstations, that this fix needed to be certified on. Go on, I'll wait here.

The fact that MS takes so long to fix exploits doesn't worry you?

HalcyonX12 said,
The problem is, as you have pointed out, it's not too obvious to scroll right in that frame, and those browsers will not get as much consideration, just because they are later on in the alphabet. Why not tile the browser list or make it scroll horizontally?

Not all 12 are listed alphabetically. As per the article, the top five browsers are bunched at the start and then the next seven are off screen (those two sub groups are then individually sorted). They're there because they are less popular, not because of their name.

Relativity_17 said,
The list is in alphabetical order:
Apple
Google
Microsoft
Mozilla
Opera.

Wait for Opera to change company name to Apera in a near future.

LoveThePenguin said,
The fact that MS takes so long to fix exploits doesn't worry you?


Nope, because it isn't true. Whilst there have been 1 or 2 isolated cases of exploits that haven't been fixed (FYI the random # generation flaw in the Linux kernel went unpatched for YEARS, and at this year's pwn 2 own the guy hacked the mac using an exploit he discovered researching for the previous year's one showing that it is not just restricted to MS) Microsoft actually have the fastest industry turnaround on severe and critical exploit patches, in fact in some cases they even issue out of band fixes for really big issues.

cakesy said,
No idea what you are talking about. Any company messing up, deserves to have it pointed out, whether it be Apple, Microsoft, Google or Mozilla, and I will do so.

This issue has nothing to do with UAC, did you even read that link before launching into an attack.


Liar. http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/09/16/h...re-than-windows

If there is a security issue that allows for the browser to be compromised, UAC will prevent it from going furthur as IE is placed in a low-IL sandbox. What's so hard to understand?

Frank Fontaine said,
Here come the childish Opera trolls for the 10 millionth time. You hate Opera, we get it. Grow the **** already and stop ruining discussions

Someone is getting emotional over a browser :P

Its not about Opera, its about the company.

powerade01 said,
Someone is getting emotional over a browser :P

Its not about Opera, its about the company.


As an Opera user, yes it is annoying because it presents the forum as being hostile, every time Opera is mentioned, a thread floods with idiots posting pointless comments. It isn't necessary it just reduces the quality of conversations, and it is pretty shameful that it hasn't been clamped down on.

LoveThePenguin said,


Really? [snipped]

Consider for a moment the web-server market, and then compare the percentage of servers running GNU/Linux with those running windows. And yet the majority of compromised servers out there are running windows. Care to explain this anomaly in your rationale?


still windows based
often vulnerabiltieis effect server and workstation OS's
NEXT

Frank Fontaine said,
As an Opera user, yes it is annoying because it presents the forum as being hostile, every time Opera is mentioned, a thread floods with idiots posting pointless comments. It isn't necessary it just reduces the quality of conversations, and it is pretty shameful that it hasn't been clamped down on.

Only comments opposing MS and IE are clamped down on. GreyWolfSC and rm20010 are MS shills didn't you know?