Opera Wants More From Microsoft

[(Spork)]

Opera reminds me of a spoiled child ... that whine and whine and whine until they get get what they want .

opera = crap

it's not MS job to set up a update manager for it

[Lechio]

No, I don't see how it is important to the browser/user market share. People that run Opera are aware of it's update option, and so does the Firefox, Chrome and any other browser users.

Having Microsoft providing the updates instead of the developers of the application, isn't going to increase the browser market share.

For that, Microsoft did more than enough with the ballot screen... which Opera whined about too, because IE's icon was too recognizable in their opinion.

Uncertified product does not go on WU. Again, Opera wants it to do something it doesn't do. Trying to force Microsoft to add something to their OS that doesn't exist is pointless, especially when they can already check for updates themselves. Heck, they can even use the built-in options like BITS to manage it.

Why are they not complaining that Opera isn't on Apple Software Update? (Monopoly is irrelevant.)

Opera have gone way too far. I mean, seriously, they expect Microsoft to start hosting Opera's software updates on their servers and pushing out updates? That would also make them responsible for support for Opera's crap.

Third-party software/updates do not go into Microsoft's servers. That's not the point. Microsoft only needs to provide the tool.

The point is having a unified packaging/updating system in Windows that takes care of installing/updating software.

Why is this still not clear?

[MrChainsaw]

F U Opera, Windows update is for Windows and Microsoft. Hence the name "Windows update" and previously "Microsoft update".

[Dapen]

You're argument is invalid

why do you care what the user gets to choose? if IE6 was available and they picked it then it will be of a disadvantage to you

this crap that opera is trying to push will not effect you in the slightest way unless you're hoping users will select a browser other then IE for which you don't want to support

also i'm not sure what users you are referring to but majority of the people here have the mental capacity to download another browser if we choose

IE6 wouldn't be on the list, smart ass.

Just goes to show you don't care much for IE and would allow opera to impose such ludicrous rules their software fails and this won't help them

I agree Opera are going a bit over the top with all this, but they are making some good points. Alternate browsers need to be a lot more clear to users than the current situation.

[Pupik]

Third-party software/updates do not go into Microsoft's servers. That's not the point. Microsoft only needs to provide the tool.

The point is having a unified packaging/updating system in Windows that takes care of installing/updating software.

Why is this still not clear?

You mean the tools that are already available in the browsers (see attached image), and Microsoft has no touch in them?

[BoomyBoy]

Here is the new source:

http://www.favbrowser.com/opera-chief-warn...ndows-services/

[DDStriker]

Third-party software/updates do not go into Microsoft's servers. That's not the point. Microsoft only needs to provide the tool.

The point is having a unified packaging/updating system in Windows that takes care of installing/updating software.

Why is this still not clear?

it's clear, it's just stupid if you want a unified packaging/updating system then get one

microsoft should not have to provide this to you because you want it and they definitely shouldn't be forced to provide such a service

you can't go around dictating how a software companies software should work the most you can do is suggest

where opera being the pricks that they are will cry to the Eu to try and make microsoft do what they want which is wrong

[ncoday]

Yes because having a central update checker is a bad thing :rolleyes:

But Should Microsoft have to pay for the Hardware and increased bandwidth costs?

If Opera is willing to pay for the added expenses, then hey, I am all for it. If Opera thinks Microsoft should have to shoulder the added costs, then hell no!

Personnally, I hope that Opera just dies as a company ASAP!

[Antaris Veteran]

Third-party software/updates do not go into Microsoft's servers. That's not the point. Microsoft only needs to provide the tool.

The point is having a unified packaging/updating system in Windows that takes care of installing/updating software.

Why is this still not clear?

Why should Microsoft provide the tool? First and foremost, it is not their resposibility to provide an update delivery platform for 3rd party software. Secondly, Opera already has an update feature, so this whole "opening up the Windows Update" platform is just another way they are trying to get more exposure to possible clients.

The way I see it is that they want to leverage someone else's tool to get more people using theirs...

[Eric Veteran]

Third-party software/updates do not go into Microsoft's servers. That's not the point. Microsoft only needs to provide the tool.

The point is having a unified packaging/updating system in Windows that takes care of installing/updating software.

Why is this still not clear?

There is no tool in Windows that does that!. How many times do I have to say that? What Opera apparently wants doesn't exist. They can't force Microsoft to create software. The day companies can force others to write software for them is the last day of the viability of computers.

[Nicholas P.]

That's absolutely ****ing ridiculous. This IS NOT Linux, there is no software package manager designed to do this. Perhaps Opera wants to give Microsoft the money to help fund this? OH WAIT - Opera can't even afford advertising, so I guess not! Are Opera purposely trying to make Windows 7 fail?

I agree. Totally Rubish.

[BajiRav]

Here is the new source:

http://www.favbrowser.com/opera-chief-warn...ndows-services/

*facepalm* Opera is DUMB at least for employing the guy who gave that interview.

[DDStriker]

IE6 wouldn't be on the list, smart ass.

heh, yeah although IE7/IE8 is still missing some css standards and not sure about its html 5 support (don't quote me on this :p)

[SkyDX]

Oh gosh I can see tomorrows headlines already....

Opera CEO: Microsoft should code Opera under our supervision

It's called WINDOWS update and Opera already has an auto updater so why all that needless ruckus... >_>

[Lechio]

You mean the tools that are already available in the browsers (see attached image), and Microsoft has no touch in them?

No. A centralized unified updating/packaging system, that third-parties can use.

Sorry to say it, but replying just feels like speaking to a wall.

IE uses Windows Update to receive updates. That gives it an unfair advantage over every other Web browser (not that Microsoft's time of response to exploits is something even worth mentioning).

[Antaris Veteran]

IE uses Windows Update to receive updates. That gives it an unfair advantage over every other Web browser (not that Microsoft's time of response to exploits is something even worth mentioning).

How is that giving them an unfair advantage. It's an update platform. Opera has its own, Safari has its own, Firefox has its own, where is the unfair advantage?

[DDStriker]

No. A centralized unified updating/packaging system, that third-parties can use.

Sorry to say it, but replying just feels like speaking to a wall.

IE uses Windows Update to receive updates. That gives it an unfair advantage over every other Web browser (not that Microsoft's time of response to exploits is something even worth mentioning).

heh unfair advantage? thats why people are still using ie6?

i'm not sure how it gives it an unfair advantage? other browsers update routines run alot more frequently then ie does atleast from my experience

i don't quite understand how ie gets an advantage based on how it gets updated? internet explorer is software that is installed and can be updated as its almost always running

firefox and all other browsers can do the same thing

at first people used the excuse that "ie loads faster then firefox because its integrated in the operating system" well then along came chrome and kissed that crappy theory goodbye

[techbeck]

Opera is a winey bitch of a company. Companies are responsible for their own updates and cannot expect others to update their software.

[Pupik]

No. A centralized unified updating/packaging system, that third-parties can use.

Sorry to say it, but replying just feels like speaking to a wall.

IE uses Windows Update to receive updates. That gives it an unfair advantage over every other Web browser (not that Microsoft's time of response to exploits is something even worth mentioning).

What advantage are we talking about here? Every time you open the browser, it checks for updates by default (at least in Firefox).

Which cuts the need for Windows Update's daily/weekly/monthly check for updates, and does the job better for your used browser.

[ncoday]

That's the definition of anti-competitiveness. They provide the platform, so their products should have an advantage above all of the other non-Microsoft solutions.

A Media Player is not an essential part of an OS.

A Web browser is not an essential part of an OS.

(...)

Oh yes it is. I would like to see you go create a modern, mainstream, consumer-oriented operating system that does not have a browser or media player and see if it sells well!

Even the default install of Ubuntu 9 Workstation has a browser and media player.

Why should an update to a specific application cause Windows not to boot? It's an application, not a system component (pushing it a bit there, aren't you?).

And no, Microsoft does not need to provide the updates themselves, nor "pay for the bandwidth" of updates for other applications that they do not make, nor provide support for those applications. They only need to provide the tools, a centralized software install/update tool. If the user only wants to install and keep Windows software updated that's fine. Don't see how this would affect other people who want to run only MS software on their systems.

This would only bring advantages to the user, don't see the reason of why some people seem disturbed and affected by this idea.

The problem is that your average end-user {i.e. not some who comes to Neowin} would not see the difference.

They would see "Microsoft Windows Update" installed something on my computer and now it gets a BSOD or can't get on the internet, cannot check email etc. and they will call and complain to Microsoft!

You have to anticipate the level of computer intelligence of someone like an 80 year old grandmother,

[Lechio]

But Should Microsoft have to pay for the Hardware and increased bandwidth costs?

It doesn't... Only needs to provide the tool for others to use.

Why should Microsoft provide the tool? First and foremost, it is not their resposibility to provide an update delivery platform for 3rd party software. Secondly, Opera already has an update feature, so this whole "opening up the Windows Update" platform is just another way they are trying to get more exposure to possible clients.

The way I see it is that they want to leverage someone else's tool to get more people using theirs...

Microsoft provides the OS. Microsoft allows IE and their products to update using Windows Update.

It controls the platform and gives an unfair advantage to their products.

There is no tool in Windows that does that!. How many times do I have to say that? What Opera apparently wants doesn't exist. They can't force Microsoft to create software. The day companies can force others to write software for them is the last day of the viability of computers.

This is not only about Opera. It's about a whole industry, it's for common good ( even for the ones that are affiliated with Microsoft, which are the majority of this industry... ).

Microsoft does need to open its platform, and it will eventually, if they still want to stay in business. The EU will make sure they do.

[Dapen]

heh, yeah although IE7/IE8 is still missing some css standards and not sure about its html 5 support (don't quote me on this :p)

IE8 would be the only Microsoft browser available, and that isn't overly bad. Some people need an alternative to IE6, maybe they aren't able to upload their IE, but there shouldn't be anything stopping them from trying a different browser. They just need that little extra info into the world of Firefox and Chrome, and *COUGH* Opera. Opera is making a good example of this and it needs to be addressed.

[Nagisan]

I personally love Opera as a browser but I do not feel Microsoft should have to offer updates through Windows Update for rival browsers. Opera 10 which is in Beta 3 (and from what I understand from their previous blogs, quite close to release) has Auto-Update built in and enabled by default. This will work essentially the exact same as if MS updated external browsers through Windows Update.

They need to just focus on getting Opera 10 out the door before Windows 7 goes retail, then they wont need MS to offer updates, anyone running Opera 10 will get Auto-Updates whenever they start their browser.

Edit: I personally fully agree with them trying to get the average computer users to choose between the major browsers, most computer users think Internet Explorer IS the Internet. I think asking for updates through Windows Update is a bit far considering any major browser can update itself.

[Antaris Veteran]

Microsoft provides the OS. Microsoft allows IE and their products to update using Windows Update.

It controls the platform and gives an unfair advantage to their products.

You just don't have an argument there. Just because they update through that mechanism doesn't give them any advantage at all. You've not giving any real reason why there is an advantage. In fact, I think you're arguing the point just for the hell of it...

[jmc777]

Opera Software hasn't asked to have its browser distributed/updated via Windows/Microsoft update. Well done guys and girls—9 pages of pointless rants!