Microsoft cuts apps from Windows 7

Microsoft has decided that Windows 7 won't include built-in programs for e-mail, photo editing, and movie making, as was done with Windows Vista, CNET News.com has learned.

The software maker included Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Mail, and Windows Movie Maker as part of Vista, but later chose to offer separate downloadable Windows Live programs that essentially replaced those components with versions that could connect to online services from Microsoft and others.

Microsoft told CNET News late Monday that it has decided to remove those features entirely from Windows 7 and instead offer only the service-connected Windows Live versions as optional free downloads. Earlier on Monday, Microsoft had declined to say how it was handling things.

In a follow-up interview on Monday, Windows Vista general manager Brian Hall said Microsoft made the decision to remove the tools from Windows for several reasons, including a desire to issue new operating system releases more quickly than it has in the past. The move also removes the confusion of offering and supporting two different programs that perform essentially similar functions.

View: news.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

T-Mobile Google Android phone unveiled....a little early

Next Story

Adobe releases Creative Suite 4

113 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This news is pure FUD,
because a mail client and a photo viewer must be present out of the box. I don't think Microsoft will not include them.

You really might want to read the entire article before shouting FUD.

It remains to be seen just how Microsoft will distribute the Windows Live programs in conjunction with Windows 7-based PCs. Presumably the company could strike deals with computer makers or retailers to include the software, or links to download it.

This thread is a prime example of how MS just can't win.

If MS include there apps as part of the default install people whine about bloat, and MS foisting their apps on people and taking away user choice.

If MS remove them and make them a separate download/install people whine that these basic functions are not there anymore and that downloading them is a PITA.

Come on people, get it together!

With Vistas Welcome centre you get an easy link to download/install Live Messenger. No pain. With Win7 there will most likely be something similar for the whole Live suite. No pain!

You would think that Microsoft would think about something called custom install. Say for example check out the install routine of Microsoft office. It has options to install everything or individual applications. Why can they not come up with something like that when installing windows ?

(sweetsam said @ #49)
You would think that Microsoft would think about something called custom install. Say for example check out the install routine of Microsoft office. It has options to install everything or individual applications. Why can they not come up with something like that when installing windows ?

They used to do this in older versions of windows' installers but they stopped doing this for some stupid reason. I would love to have this feature back instead of having to download or not download things.

It will probably be more expensive! :P Lightened supercars are a prime example of less = more (dollars). Maybe that wasn't the best analogy to use, but I hope someone gets what I mean? maybe...

Good thing they're clearing up this confusion between a Live and non-Live app for everyday users. These days it's almost guaranteed a computer can have Internet access, so it's not too much of a big deal to get these apps. They will have to however make it painfully obvious in the first Welcome screen users see about downloading these apps.

My only gripe is for the time being, Live Movie Maker is atrocious compared to any Movie Makers before it.

I think it's a good move on their part, for as long as the applications are still free and distributed through the Windows Live brand, By doing this Microsoft helps windows because it means less code to deal with and more time for the developers to work just with the OS itself.

Of course Microsoft is in a position where they cannot please everyone, let me put it this way: they will always be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Good move Microsoft!

I am very glad that they've done this, not only to please the antitrust lawsuits and legal department, but to further streamline the footprint of the OS. Don't need movie maker? Don't download it!

besides how hard is it to download all the extra programs and burn them onto a CD (MS could bundle a 'companion' disc with new PCs or on request when you buy the OS from stores as well)

i do agree with the move to remove some apps being installed for you and if you want them you can install them instead of being forced on you,more choice is better,if you say don't want movie maker then it won't get installed unless you want it to,often times when an app is included it either tends to be an old version or it is current for a time then gets out of date fast,spending more time on the actual os is better. these days you don't have to deal with dial up or slow speeds like you did before but if you ask me an app should be capable of working Online and offline so if you do lose your connection then offline will still work fine.i would like to see IE as an optional feature(the web Browser part)and keep the rest in if it is needed.

I was hoping to see Internet Explorer on the list as an optional free download. Too bad it won't be optional, too.

Desktop, link, install Internet Explorer. Those of us who actually know how to work our computer machines could install Firefox or Opera, etc. They could also include IE on the setup disc and give an option to install it. Besides, most of these people you refer to don't know how to install Windows either, they buy their computers from Dell, HP, etc with a browser and everything else already installed.

i think that this is a pretty smart move... you need to go online to get these apps, but you need to go online to check your email anyway, and if your editing photos and making movies, chances are you'll just upload them to flickr and youtube or something

lets just hope that the live mail program is the size of an average email... like, for the sake of the poor people still stuck on 56k in the villages and countryside, or those who need to use gprs because there simply isnt a phone line...

Well, this is good ..

almost all of the reasons people have a computer now is for online ... music, communications, photos, documents ... can all be done online ... so everyone is connected to the net. Why would you want an email client installed if you weren't on the net? So if you're on the net, surely you can just click a 'GET LIVE EMAIL' link ?

It's the best way and I applaud it

That Windows 7 must be an interesting new OS.

Does not include the mini kernal, but rather extens the vista kernel (which extended the NT3.0/3.1/3.5/2000/XP kernel)
Still no a single new feature is included, or wait Paint and Wordpad have a new GUI. Looks cool for the least interesting applications.... duh...

For the rest the announcement is to drop applications. Oh sorry, they become downloadable and now to include advertisements.

Whoaw... this values another 299 bucks for the upgrade. Let me start saving for this.

Windows 7, the new Windows ME

Congratulations, you win the stupidest post of the day award. It's not even in beta yet and you are making ridiculous unfounded assumptions about it. Oh and the "next Windows Me" thing got really old when everyone was saying it about Vista, and XP before that. Can't you go troll somewhere else?

Eh? firstly "MinWin" is the Vista/7 kernel stripped down to it's bare essentials, so 7 essentially does (and Vista for that matter) have it. What you mean not a single new feature added? that is bold statement considering 7 hasn't even reached Beta 1 yet. The dropped applications is a great idea, it removes redundant applications and the Windows Live versions do not all include ads. Only Messenger has an ad banner, I've yet to see single ad in any other Windows Live product. 7 isn't even finished yet and your proclaiming it's WinME 3.0?! what is with people and these stupid comparisons? all these "backseat" developers who seem to think they know more then everyone else, how about they join together and make a better OS? instead of constantly complaining/shooting MS down for every tiny little thing....that is the end of my little rant :P, take with a grain of salt.

(xavalon said @ #37)
Does not include the mini kernal, but rather extens the vista kernel (which extended the NT3.0/3.1/3.5/2000/XP kernel)

What's wrong with that?

(MioTheGreat said @ #37.3)

What's wrong with that?

never ask trolls logical questions, for example, ask xavalon what is wrong with the NT kernel and he might explode because his brains can't cope with facts

I think this is a good idea for at least two reasons. First, it allows them to avoid antitrust issues by providing an optional download (maybe with third party options as well, they don't necessarily have to charge for the software). Second, it reduces the bloat of Windows on a fresh install. I really think they need to go a step further and remove Paint and Wordpad (etc). These mini apps need to go as well, they have not "really" been updated. I think the consumer should be given an option upon Windows activation of where (and what company) to get a Paint and Wordpad like application from (again free). They could simply enforce OS applications standards, like Apple does with iPhone applications. It has to look nice, be stable and provide utility to the end-user.

So basically what needs to be in Windows is the "Windows OS." No packaged install discs, no manual. Hell, why not allow users to subscribe to TechNet and download the latest ISO off the net. Each OS purchase could be a lifetime support contract for that product. Remove the box completely. Bandwidth today is more of a public good than it is a luxury. It will be even more so in another decade. Why not just suspend sales of Windows sales in boxed format for all but the bottom twenty percent of the market. I really don't believe that it takes much experience to download a 4.3gig ISO, check it and than burn it to disc. Even better would be the option of a true network install (with a mini ISO download).

It really makes confusion now - Windows Gallery - Windows Live Gallery, Windows Mail - Windows Live Mail - what is this all for? Which should I use?

Actually it should reduce confusion, because there will be no more Windows Gallery, Windows Mail, etc. There will be only the Live programs.

For the record, I like this change...

I suspect that the removal of these applications is more in line with Microsoft's attempt to create a "base" image of the OS that can be easily and effectively deployed to any machine via the installer; however, it could just be that they've seen the error of their ways: they offer an e-mail client and photo gallery software via office - why do they need to offer a watered down version?

Ok, maybe people don't want to buy Office, but free alternatives, better than what office offers, can be found online.

All of the programs they are unbundling will still be freely available. The only thing they're removing are the programs included in Windows Live, so no one will have to buy Office or anything else if they still want them. They're just separating them from the OS, which I agree is a great change. I noticed that the bundled programs were seldom if ever updated while the Live stuff got refreshed quite often. I just wish they would make Internet Explorer a part of the Live suite and make it an optional install also. They already untied it from the shell in Vista, might as well go all the way.

I am looking forward to this. I don't like all the extra crap that gets installed. Less is more in my book. I use Outlook for email, CS3 for photo work, and Nero 8 for making DVD's and CD's. I don't use a single live product. I have used movie maker in the past. It is a great simple program for making simple windows videos but I will not miss it if it is gone.

Why will people want to buy another version of windows if it lacks crucial features out the box? Will WMP still be about? What about IE?

How about reading the article?

The software maker included Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Mail, and Windows Movie Maker as part of Vista, but later chose to offer separate downloadable Windows Live programs that essentially replaced those components with versions that could connect to online services from Microsoft and others.

Unless Windows Live wouldn't be free, I don't understand why they would continue developing two almost identical programs. I didn't see much difference between Windows Live Mail and Windows Mail.

(Nexx295 said @ #30.1)
How about reading the article?

Unless Windows Live wouldn't be free, I don't understand why they would continue developing two almost identical programs. I didn't see much difference between Windows Live Mail and Windows Mail.

There actually is a big difference. The names might be close but Windows Live Mail is like a rewrite/new mail client while Windows Mail is just a minor updated version of the outdated and lacking Outlook Express.

(Nexx295 said @ #30.1)
How about reading the article?
Unless Windows Live wouldn't be free, I don't understand why they would continue developing two almost identical programs. I didn't see much difference between Windows Live Mail and Windows Mail.

Windows Mail was a half hearted attempt in updating Outlook Express. Windows Live Mail, on the other hand, does everything well and has a nice UI to boot.

The latest Windows Live Mail beta takes this a step further and integrates Windows Live Calendar. Maybe with this, Windows Calendar may cease to exist and instead be merged into WLM permanently. If they do that, the client should be renamed to not confuse others; after all, this app does almost four different things: mail, calendar, RSS, and newsgroups.

The is a great move. These apps are a free download from Live. And the Live apps are better. They will continue to be developed seperately from the OS and become better for it.
And if you don't want those apps you don't have to download them. It's great all around.

People always complain about the bloat and now the bloat has been removed and people still whine. I don't get it.

I don't like this, but I see why MS chose to do this. Less lawsuits and it will satisfy some users while others complain, but some users will always complain. I see this as a way for PC manufacturers to further bloat my OS with even more useless crapware, even worse than Windows' built in apps.

Any particular reason why PC makers would choose something other than Microsoft's own Live suite of programs? If they wanted to include even more crappy shovelware they would, this isn't really going to change anything there. They are in the business of having happy customers so I'm sure they'd choose Windows Live Mail over Abdul's Shareware Mail client extreme v0.38 beta. They seem to be cutting down on the bundled junk due to complaints.

Plus this is Microsoft we're talking about, I have a feeling they'll gently suggest that the OEMs include their programs.

Why the BLEEP can't Microsoft go back to the days of a customized install? You know, where you would go through all the features and check off the ones you want? You could add and remove components quite easily on Windows 9x/XP.

Why not put them all on the disc and then allow the USER a CHOICE when installing Windows? And, like earlier editions, offer complete/custom/compact/typical scenarios for the lazy ones who click 'Next>' past everything without reading?

This move will throw a lot of people off guard who expect these applications with Windows.

(C_Guy said @ #27)
Why the BLEEP can't Microsoft go back to the days of a customized install? You know, where you would go through all the features and check off the ones you want? You could add and remove components quite easily on Windows 9x/XP.

Why not put them all on the disc and then allow the USER a CHOICE when installing Windows? And, like earlier editions, offer complete/custom/compact/typical scenarios for the lazy ones who click 'Next>' past everything without reading?

This move will throw a lot of people off guard who expect these applications with Windows.

I guess it's because they need to pander to the masses and sadly, the masses don't know **** about installing windows.
Getting them to reinstall the OS would be difficult enough, then bombarding them with a series of options, any one of which they could accidentally uncheck and then be on the support line because Movie Maker "isn't there".
Simply installing everything ensure most people will get what they need and the worst anyone can say is that the programs are taking up space.

I agree, though, I'd prefer a customised install myself, I wish they'd at least have a "simple" and "advanced" install for those of us who know what we're doing. But then again, if you know what you're doing, you can customise your installation even without tools like n/vlite (those are just frontends for officially sanctioned Microsoft tools).

(C_Guy said @ #27)
Why the BLEEP can't Microsoft go back to the days of a customized install? You know, where you would go through all the features and check off the ones you want? You could add and remove components quite easily on Windows 9x/XP.

That's because you have only 32kb of memory in your head and constantly forgetting things.

Compare the install time of XP vs. Vista.
Vista is not "installing", it's "unpacking".

Because Vista's installer simply extracts a disc image to the hard drive when installing the OS, you can't really tell the installer not to extract a specific file/app onto the hard drive. They could, however, bring up the "Turn Windows features on and off" dialog either before or after the setup to allow users to choose what they want on their system.

Maybe that would be the best compromise... except there STILL will be some people complaining that the WMP/IE/WLM/whatever binaries are on the disc, THAT'S A MONOPOLY!

Its a good and bad idea. I mean this will give oems a chance again to install more crapware on pc's that dont have these utilities already. Most of these utilities are not used by the majority of us, but how much space do they really take up? For the novice computer user they are great at least photo gallery from what I have seen.

I think it should give you the basic OS when you first install it and at the first login give you a wizard type thing where you can select which apps you want and then it would go and download the newest version (that way your new install is already up to date). And maybe have a copy on the DVD too in case they don't have internet then you can just install from disc

OS X makes you pay for iLife to get additional features...why not Microsoft. Besides, all the apps they are cutting are crap anyway.

OS X *kind of* makes you pay for iLife. All Macs come with the latest iLife, but updates to iLife are separate from OS X. So in a sense, yeah, Apple makes iLife an add on.

1. Those of you that don't like the idea.. you guys are lazy (see below).
2. This is old news, they announced this a long time ago, even Bill hinted at this.

I actually think it's a great idea. People don't want a bloated operating system. Some people do not even need these applications, in fact, some people never use them... so it's good that they give them an option.

I would assume that on first start up, it would prompt you to select which ones you want. This would also allow for better updates.

I also like how they are removing the operating system versions because it was weird how they had two versions of the apps under similar names.

Good move MS!

(j2006 said @ #23)
1. Those of you that don't like the idea.. you guys are lazy (see below).
2. This is old news, they announced this a long time ago, even Bill hinted at this.

I actually think it's a great idea. People don't want a bloated operating system. Some people do not even need these applications, in fact, some people never use them... so it's good that they give them an option.

I would assume that on first start up, it would prompt you to select which ones you want. This would also allow for better updates.

I also like how they are removing the operating system versions because it was weird how they had two versions of the apps under similar names.

Good move MS! :)


QFE old news. Stupid for Cnet to rehash and rebadge it as if microsoft is doing something criminal. This was the plan from the begining and its just now reaching peoples eyes. IF you wanted to complain you should have done it a long time ago.

Good move MS.

God I hate those antitrust whiners.....

Now I've to pay some dubious 3rd party to play Minesweeper and Spider Solitaire

(shakey_snake said @ #21)
No one uses outlook express/windows Mail anyways, why keep making it?

Especially when you have Windows Live Mail.
Makes sense to me.

Nice, someone with real insight into how 100% of the Windows user base use their OS and its applications.

I understand the motives of not having duplicated applications between the Windows standard applications and the Windows Live applications suite but I would prefer a Windows 'distribution' which contains OS and Applications to be ready to roll immediately. I find stupid not to have an e-mail client as a standard feature of the OS.

In any case, that will only encourage OEMs to bundle more crapware with their prefab distribution on home computers.
Yay</sarcasm>

To be honest, I find it somewhat annoying to have an email client sitting on a new system. If I had never touched a computer in my life it might be useful, but at this point I already have a history of email that I carry around with me when I move to a new computer, and it's all in the format of my preferred mail client. I could convert it, but why? I just download the mail client I've always been using, and use that.

Newer computer users have even less of a use for a mail client because they're all using webmail. Practically everyone I've seen simply logs into their Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo! accounts and they manage their email there. What use is a mail client there?

The only potentially useful thing to include with a system would be an Office suite. As of now I've only seen demos for Office suites (usually Microsoft Office) on systems, which is also an annoyance. OpenOffice could be put onto new systems, but then you'd get people complaining that they already have or prefer Microsoft Office, and OpenOffice is just junkware to them. Looking to the future, Microsoft and Adobe seem to want to follow along with web-based services like GoogleDocs. Just as the mail client has been made obsolete for mainstream users thanks to webmail, office software suites and the like may become obsolete as well. The only bit of software that would be justified, then, would be a web browser.

As for your argument that OEMs will be encouraged to bundle more crapware, that's a bunch of rubbish. You really believe that if Microsoft claims "this is our most slimmed down OS ever - it allows you to only put on what you need" OEMs will suddenly see it as a green light to load up more BS? The OEMs are already receiving criticism for the amount of crap that they put on new systems. If Microsoft slims down or completely removes all of their own excessive pre-installed garbage, it will be entirely obvious who 100% of the blame should shift to.

(Ledgem said @ #20.1)
Newer computer users have even less of a use for a mail client because they're all using webmail. Practically everyone I've seen simply logs into their Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo! accounts and they manage their email there. What use is a mail client there?

Exactly. The mail client is no longer anywhere near as relevant as it once was. I use Outlook myself, which also negates the need for a built in mail client. I really like where Microsoft is taking the Windows Live platform, even if I barely use it myself.

I can't believe people have bitched enough to make a federal case out of which applications are installed by default. Seriously, in a society where people could sue you for anything, why even bother with something like this? What could you get from it? There's no cash settlement or anything you could actually use. Actually, you would only receive the satisfaction of walking away with the freedom of having to download "optional" crucial utilities from a Microsoft Internet server. ****ing pointless.

Movie Maker is a crucial utility? Seriously?

I have no idea what your whole litigation rant is about, but it's explained pretty clearly why they're doing this. There is no point bundling these programs when they have near identical replacements available in the Live Suite. It also makes Windows simpler for them to develop. Absolutely nothing was said about lawsuits, what are you talking about? Anyway I think having Microsoft start moving in the right direction for a change, bundling less stuff into Windows and giving us the choice as to whether we want them or not is far from pointless. Just goes to show though that some people will whine about anything.

It's a very important move. Microsoft has a very large market share and Windows is used by the majority of businesses and consumers alike. By forcing applications to be installed they undermine the ability of other companies to compete and can impose measures that work against the interests of the user. For instance, Microsoft could lockdown WMP to only play files created by Microsoft - users could always install alternative programs but because it's there and convenient many, or most, will not and that stifles competition. A move like this demonstrates that Microsoft understands this and is doing something to address concerns (as well as having a convenient way to force the latest version of software upon users).

So, people care because it's a VERY important issue that has considerable impact upon competition and even the economy itself. It's a shame that people can understand this, instead choose to moan at every opportunity. Countries have competition laws to protect people, not simply to punish businesses and end users - it's just that the EU is more strict about it, while the US is all about big business (judging by the state of the economy it's pretty obvious which is the better approach).

It's a good thing. If folks were to reinstall Win7 after 6mo - 1 year, they'd most likely have to update programs MS had excluded from the initial install anyway. As well, Photo Gallery, Win Mail, and Movie Maker can easily be replaced with (better freeware) other programs imo.

Why are people saying they have more choice when apps are not preinstalled? It's not like you are stopped from having more than 1 app of the same type...****es me off

You have more choice because you can choose whether to install them or not. Why would I want Movie Maker on my system when I never use it? Why would anyone want multiple apps of the same type when they only use one? Absolutely nothing is being taken away here, if you want them you can install them.

I like this approach. They should be concentrating on getting the OS perfect because it needs all the attention possible to get Windows to the point of clean, efficient, standardised, fast. It's been far too long and time for Microsoft to get it right. Out with the old windows junk, strip it down, make it work like a warm knife through butter.

Now, if you they dropped Windows Live from the product name it would be even better. Sure, have them in the branding group of Windows Live but for gods sake don't have Windows Live Photo Gallery etc. as the name in my start menu, it's way too long, just have it as Photo Gallery. It's ridiculous any other way. I think they should have a Windows Live button, click that, you have all the services there in a simplified menu(Maybe even one that comes up on the desktop as a circle of apps with nice icons easy to tell apart, named easily as Messenger, Movie Maker, Photo Gallery, Writer etc. I would love that instead of Windows Live Movie Maker, Windows Live Messenger in my start menu. So easy for consumers and nice on the eye. Argh, I wish I was there showing MS.

Anyone else feel the same way ?

I was wondering if I was the only one annoyed by the long and silly names; I always rename them after I install. Aside from being too long I just think the names are dumb and confusing for many people. What makes these programs "live"? I really wish they would drop it and go back to the simpler names like Windows Messenger, Windows Mail, etc.

Are you listening to your selfs? You're complaining over file names..

Just rename the damn thing and your done.

seriously.. gah sh*t man

And so begins to downhill spiril of features that won't be included in windows 7 that were supposed to be included in windows vista, that were rumored to be in windows xp... hehe...

(Klownicle said @ #14)
And so begins to downhill spiril of features that won't be included in windows 7 that were supposed to be included in windows vista, that were rumored to be in windows xp... hehe...

You're so cute. I bet you think this will reverse the market and OSX or Linux will end up with the Windows user base...

(GreyWolfSC said @ #14.1)
You're so cute. I bet you think this will reverse the market and OSX or Linux will end up with the Windows user base...
Your razor-sharp wit and sarcasm is mis-directed. Klownicle seems to be a solid Windows (XP) user. Not Apple. Not Linux.

Good god. Heaven forbid someone post an opinion here without someone doing a knee-jerk reaction and pouring derision down their throat after making incorrect assumptions. I can see one comment where he proclaims loyalty to XP for his OS of choice with a positive nod to OSX for being "pretty".

But jumping on someone's post while your preconceived notions were 180 degrees wrong is just... well... typical of you.

(markjensen said @ #14.2)
Your razor-sharp wit and sarcasm is mis-directed. Klownicle seems to be a solid Windows (XP) user. Not Apple. Not Linux.

Good god. Heaven forbid someone post an opinion here without someone doing a knee-jerk reaction and pouring derision down their throat after making incorrect assumptions. I can see one comment where he proclaims loyalty to XP for his OS of choice with a positive nod to OSX for being "pretty".

But jumping on someone's post while your preconceived notions were 180 degrees wrong is just... well... typical of you.

But he has a (albeit poorly-worded) point - this isn't about the removal of promised features or crippling of the OS or anything like that, it's simply Microsoft separating two distinct lines of products. The Applications are still available to anyone that wants them, they just wont be installed by default. To me, this makes MUCH more sense - I don't think I use any built-in windows apps aside from Notepad and Paint.
Plus, there'll probably be lots of shortcuts to the downloads in place of the applications themselves, so joe average user will not know much difference.

I am all for this, I hope they put links on the welcome screen direct to the Live Apps website so that they can be downloaded quickly, or why not just replace the built in Apps with the Live Apps from setup, Windows Installation can connect to the net to download the latest updates anyway so why not let it download the latest Windows Live updates aswell.

i think this is a good idea, since they just use up space. i dnt even use any of applications, and if i did require them then i can always install them

I don't see the problem, I thought it was really stupid when they released the new Windows Mail in Vista then immediately made it obsolete with Windows Live Mail. As long as there are up to date downloadable versions that we can choose to install I think this is a very good move. Now, make IE optional too and we're in business.

I think not offering them at all is a bad move on their part. It's just one extra step for me after I setup a computer for someone else. As mentioned above, componant-based install would solve the problem (and so, so much more).

This may not be as bad as people are making it out to be, I suspect there will be a very obvious way to get the Live apps probably as soon as the desktop loads. Honestly, it's really good as the built in apps are lagging their live counterparts, but having multiple menu entries is going to confuse many users who won't know and might not care what the differences in Windows Photo Gallery vs Windows Live Photo Gallery are. Less confusion is good for the consumer.

Great !!!
Windows is finally moving in the right direction.
I look forward to the day when only the OS & generic drivers are installed by default. Apps such as Windows Defender, Media Player, Mail & IE should be optional during a custom install

I like this approach. This allows MS to focus on the OS more instead of holding it back by including extra applications. From what I'm hearing, looks like this method is going to pay off.

But, this is also a situation where MS can't please everyone. People will love this approach while others will moan and groan about Windows not having any new "features".

I guess you could say MS is taking the OS back.

Oh, you just played the wrong card. The "EU" card can only be played on an "EU" turn. This is a "Windows Corporate/Marketing" turn for all markets.

Draw another card. Lose a turn. :P

(Admodieus said @ #5)
If you don't like this move, blame the EU. They're made MS scared to put anything in with the OS.

It is very much about the EU. With Windows 7 it is not possible to enhance the existing built-in applications without incurring the wrath of the EU and anti-monopoly groups. This move will bypass all of them. I expect that manufacturers (dell, HP) will be encoraged to include some sort of windows marketplace, where these apps can be installed for free.

(Deviate_X said @ #5.2)

It is very much about the EU. With Windows 7 it is not possible to enhance the existing built-in applications without incurring the wrath of the EU and anti-monopoly groups. This move will bypass all of them. I expect that manufacturers (dell, HP) will be encoraged to include some sort of windows marketplace, where these apps can be installed for free.

I can only see good thing coming out of this.

I would rather pick/choose my own apps for that stuff anyway Lets be honest, MS always half-asses apps bundled with the OS anyway, WMP being an exception. Sadly, the price of the OS will not reflect the removal of features I doubt.

[i]Lets be honest, MS always half-asses apps bundled with the OS anyway...]

Windows Media Center is kinda nice. Leaps and bounds better than Front Row.

(RAID 0 said @ #3.1)
[i]Lets be honest, MS always half-asses apps bundled with the OS anyway...]

Windows Media Center is kinda nice. Leaps and bounds better than Front Row.

But its still half assed. Its a pity its probably the best out there

(M. Seth said @ #3.3)
While media center is actually quite good, there are better ones out there. BeyondTV and sagetv are two great ones.

if you get them to work ;), the big advantage of media center over these two is simple: if you have the right hardware, it just works out of the box, even a monkey can set it up

(XerXis said @ #3.4)

if you get them to work ;), the big advantage of media center over these two is simple: if you have the right hardware, it just works out of the box, even a monkey can set it up

Except that it's full of DRM. Not good !!

(Captain555 said @ #3.5)

Except that it's full of DRM. Not good !!

DRM? where? I have ripped music, I have watched movies (downloaded ones as well as from DVDs) and have not encountered an issue with DRM yet ...

It's not full of DRM. People often confuse things that have playback support for protected media as something evil that will take away your mp3s, delete your hard drive and report you to Big Brother. I got so tired of hearing this about Vista. The only thing it does is allow you to play content that is protected with DRM, or if you choose to add it to your own content perhaps. Otherwise those Blu-Ray movies you may have purchased would be coasters. Oh and that DVD player on top of your TV? Guess what, it has DRM support too! Oh no! :laugh:

It has nothing to do with your ripped music or movies, you can still do anything you want with them.

(Skyfrog said @ #3.7)
I got so tired of hearing this about Vista.

I wasn't talking about Vista, the discussion was about Media center, and it is full of DRM, that other don't have. One example, Media Center respect the do not record flag, which are not part of the accepted standard. Some networks choose to use it in spite of that and Microsoft respects it.

Anyway If you really want to do a good PVR, choose a solution that run in Linux. Much better and faster.

These live apps will probably be on the Win7 DVD so you can install them when you install windows, that's how I'd do it anyways. Then after you setup your Internet connection they can be updated if needed.

If not you can just download them later as well. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.