Opera Wants More From Microsoft

[d_ralphie]

@petrossa

That's the thing. Eice knows that his arguments are bogus, so he tries this lame straw man where the basis for his argument is that the final verdict has been announced. But it hasn't, so all we can do is to see what the EC said (they found that Microsoft definitely seemed to be guilty of anti-competitive practices AGAIN), and what the facts show.

Eice and others are either ignorant of the facts, or they desperately want to get away from them by using these silly straw men.

You're the one going to town about how illegal and criminal it is for Microsoft to bundle IE with Windows - has that opinion been substantiated by any body of authority with jusdiction in the EU, or were you just pulling those claims out of your arse?

You are aware that the final judgement hasn't been announced yet? But the EC clearly stated that Microsoft definitely seemed to be in violation of EU competition law. So all that remains is basically paperwork and working out the final details.

Never mind the fact that Microsoft has been convicted of anti-competitive behavior numerous times in the past in countries like the US, EU, Korea, etc.

So: Are you really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

Are you denying that IE's inclusion in Windows gives it a huge advantage over other browsers, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling? Are you also denying that Microsoft has been willfully violating standards, even going so far as to sabotage standards?

The question here isn't "has Microsoft been convicted yet?". The question is if you Microsoft defenders who are so convinced that Microsoft has never done anything wrong actually have any arguments to back up your claims.

[Eice]

Poor reading skills? MS was convicted of marketshare abuse in WMP case. Now it does the same thing AGAIN by continuing to bundle applications, i.e. IE.

This is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin.

So just because the EU stupidly decides that Microsoft is not allowed to bundle a media player, means they can't bundle other software as well? The WMP case automatically means Windows is not allowed to ship with IE, Notepad, Wordpad, Paint, Calculator, Minefield, Solitaire, etc?

Let's face it: you're trying to cover your lack of evidence by throwing more bull. Again: who the heck do you think you're fooling, other than perhaps yourself?

You are aware that the final judgement hasn't been announced yet? But the EC clearly stated that Microsoft definitely seemed to be in violation of EU competition law. So all that remains is basically paperwork and working out the final details.

So you finally admit that there's no final judgment. But apparently that's not stopping the Opera shills from their blatant lies anyway.

What's left is "basically paperwork"? According to that posted article, Microsoft hasn't even been heard. Unless the EC has evolved into some sort of kangaroo court where decisions are made in advance without needing to review all available evidence, you're just playing your old trick of bulls***-spewing.

[Lechio]

Uh, no. Steam doesn't use PMS. It still using registry, doesn't use a single database and can't be installed multiple times.

What you gave an example of, is just update check. And the same one that WU uses (checks updates for only installed applications (games in Steam's case)).

edit: And as the guy bellow me said: already available in all the browsers.

Who said it uses PMS? With Steam you can install, patch and download games. Now imagine extending all of that to your system, be able to update and install any type of programs (and not just games) all from a single system interface.

Does it need to use a database? What is the Windows registry to you anyway?

Then why not use something like Steam or Impuse to handle your application updates. If anything, it proves that Microsoft doesn't have to be the vendor that makes the update platform...

Right. Currently you have Adobe, Java, Creative, (...) all providing updaters. Hundreds of applications come with its own updater, all consuming system resources. And look at the Adobe case (or have you forgotten about that?), due to this situation 80% of computers running Windows are exploitable.

Microsoft does have the obligation to open its platform to other competitors and assure that its competitors have access to the same resources that Microsoft's own applications have.

[d_ralphie]

So you finally admit that there's no final judgment. But apparently that's not stopping the Opera shills from their blatant lies anyway.

Uh, no one ever said there was a judgement. Show me the post where I claim that there is one. Yet another desperate straw man from someone who cannot come up with arguments to support his "Microsoft never did anything wrong, stop picking on innocent little Microsoft" nonsense.

And again, the EC has clearly stated their position, and Microsoft has been convicted of anti-competitive practices several times in several different countries in the past.

Now, are you really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

Are you denying that IE's inclusion in Windows gives it a huge advantage over other browsers, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling? Are you also denying that Microsoft has been willfully violating standards, even going so far as to sabotage standards?

[Eice]

Uh, no one ever said there was a judgement. Show me the post where I claim that there is one. Yet another desperate straw man from someone who cannot come up with arguments to support his "Microsoft never did anything wrong, stop picking on innocent little Microsoft" nonsense.

Sure, you never said there was a judgment. How very innocent of you... except that you keep repeating the blatant lie that Microsoft is guilty of bundling IE with Windows.

So how is Microsoft guilty if there's no judgment? Are you a legal EC representative entitled to make such claims? Or did you just pull them out of your arse? No need to reply to that, btw, we already know the answer. :rolleyes:

[d_ralphie]

Sure, you never said there was a judgment. How very innocent of you... except that you keep repeating the blatant lie that Microsoft is guilty of bundling IE with Windows.

Are you really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

Are you denying that IE's inclusion in Windows gives it a huge advantage over other browsers, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling? Are you also denying that Microsoft has been willfully violating standards, even going so far as to sabotage standards?

So how is Microsoft guilty if there's no judgment? Because you pulled that claim out of your arse?

I don't understand what the disagreement is. In my opinion, Microsoft is guilty. That is what I've been talking about all along. To support that, I point to the fact that the EC's preliminary finding was the same, and nothing has changed in the 2 years since the first statements from the EC on the matter. On the contrary, the EC has started talking about what the proper remedies to punish Microsoft and restore competition to the market is.

So what is the disagreement?

Is your position that Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong in this case?

Or are you just arguing semantics and using silly straw men in order to derail the discussion?

[Eice]

Are you really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

No, I'm saying that you're resorting to blatant, bold-faced lies in your desperation to defend Opera's shamelessness. The fact is that your wild claims that Microsoft is guilty are not substantiated in court, nor are you in any position of legal knowledge or authority to try to pass your cheap opinions as truths - simple as that.

[Antaris Veteran]

Microsoft does have the obligation to open its platform to other competitors and assure that its competitors have access to the same resources that Microsoft's own applications have.

Yeah, you keep repeating that same mantra over and over again.

Give me some solid reasons why Microsoft has this obligation!

[d_ralphie]

@Antaris: Because they broke the law.

No, I'm saying that you're resorting to blatant, bold-faced lies in your desperation to defend Opera's shamelessness.

I don't understand what this has to do with the question of Microsoft's guilt. Please explain.

The fact is that your wild claims that Microsoft is guilty are not substantiated in court, nor are you in any position of legal knowledge or authority to try to pass your cheap opinions as truths - simple as that.

Why are you writing this when I have already responded to it?

Here's what I wrote again: "In my opinion, Microsoft is guilty. That is what I've been talking about all along. To support that, I point to the fact that the EC's preliminary finding was the same, and nothing has changed in the 2 years since the first statements from the EC on the matter. On the contrary, the EC has started talking about what the proper remedies to punish Microsoft and restore competition to the market is."

So are you really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

Are you denying that IE's inclusion in Windows gives it a huge advantage over other browsers, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling? Are you also denying that Microsoft has been willfully violating standards, even going so far as to sabotage standards?

[Eice]

I don't understand what this has to do with the question of Microsoft's guilt. Please explain.

Thank you for agreeing that Opera's shameless whining is not justified by Microsoft's non-existent crime. Considering the number of times you've repeated that lie, though, you might want to post a more detailed explanation for everyone else's benefit of why you were wrong.

[Lechio]

Yeah, you keep repeating that same mantra over and over again.

Give me some solid reasons why Microsoft has this obligation!

Mantra... Antaris you joker. :laugh:

Law. Does that suffice as a reason?

I think someone has referred the case of Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola here as an example, where Coca-Cola had to let Pepsi use its fridges, this in the US.

If you look at that image you will see that Justice is blind, even when it's dealing with a multi-billion dollar company.

[Antaris Veteran]

Mantra... Antaris you joker. :laugh:

Law. Does that suffice as a reason?

I think someone has referred the case of Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola here as an example, where Coca-Cola had to let Pepsi use its fridges, this in the US.

If you look at that image you will see that Justice is blind, even when it's dealing with a multi-billion dollar company.

Oh wow, you managed to find a link to possibly the broadest topic on the planet. Well done.

[Lechio]

Oh wow, you managed to find a link to possibly the broadest topic on the planet. Well done.

Fair. I'll compile a list of reasons (backed up by links with data for you), after lunch... :)

You have not commented on the other part, the example given of Coca-Cola versus Pepsi case. Why was that?

[Pupik]

Mantra... Antaris you joker. :laugh:

Law. Does that suffice as a reason?

I think someone has referred the case of Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola here as an example, where Coca-Cola had to let Pepsi use its fridges, this in the US.

If you look at that image you will see that Justice is blind, even when it's dealing with a multi-billion dollar company.

Except with software, that logic isn't the same. Microsoft provided the tools for the software developers to build applications for their operating system.

The choice of the software developers to let their users update easier the application, is made by the developers of the application and not Microsoft.

If Opera just woke up and gave the users of their latest beta the option to check for updates, Microsoft isn't the one to blame for that.

And if you want to build a tool that will check updates for all installed applications and not just the ones you provide (it's called "Windows Update" for a reason), then by all means, you're free to do so. No one is stopping you.

[Antaris Veteran]

Because that bares no relevance on why Microsoft apparently need to build an update service for 3rd party vendors.

[Lechio]

Because that bares no relevance on why Microsoft apparently need to build an update service for 3rd party vendors.

OK. Answer these simple questions:

Why is it that IE can be updated using Windows Update and other software of the same category, not made by Microsoft, cannot use that resource?

Why is it that IE comes bundled with Windows?

Why is it that IE is a browser that does not follow Web standards?

(example given for IE also applies to the majority of software made by Microsoft)

[Pupik]

OK. Answer these simple question:

Why is it that IE can be updated using Windows Update and other software of the same category, not made by Microsoft, cannot use that resource?

Because IE is made by Microsoft, and Microsoft thought it would be a good idea to keep their products updated using a service, that they made for their operating system.

Why is it that IE comes bundled with Windows?

Why is OS X bundled with Safari? Why is major Linux options with Firefox? Why Google Chrome OS used with Chrome?

Why is it that IE is a browser that does not follow Web standards?

(example given for IE also applies to the majority of software made by Microsoft)

Because everything can't be added at once at the current growing rate of the technology. As the IE versions grows, so does the support for newer technology.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Pupik

[Antaris Veteran]

When you decided to flash the Coca-Cola/Pepsi case you neglected to understand how it would (at a stretch) relate to this Microsoft case. If it were that, the vending machine would by the windows operating system, and the cans inside would be the various pieces of software. Coca-Cola does not have to provide a facility for repairing damaged cans, or providing newer replacements.

Why is it that IE can be updated using Windows Update and other software of the same category, not made by Microsoft, cannot use that resource?

IE is a Microsoft product. Windows Update is a Microsoft product. There is no reason why Microsoft can't leverage their own technology to support their own products.

Why is it that IE comes bundled with Windows?

In this modern day, not providing an OS with a default browser would be commericial suicide. The majority of time spent on computers nowadays is done so on the internet. Now, I understand the Browser ballot screen is a way of making consumers more aware of alternatives, but not having the initial ability to get online is just retarded. What would you have, an OS delivered without a browser???

Why does Apple bundle Safari with Mac OS/X?

Why is it that IE is a browser that does not follow Web standards?

WTF? What the hell as this got to do with this case? We can all agree the IE6's support for web standards is shocking. But with IE7 and IE8 they have made great strides, and I'm sure if you have given IE8 a fair chance, you can see that its support for CSS 2.1 is brilliant.

(example given for IE also applies to the majority of software made by Microsoft)

Take it you just wanted to through that one in there for the sake of it?

[DDStriker]

So what you are saying is that Opera should refuse to answer questions when a journalist contacts them and asks questions about the antitrust case against Microsoft?

What the hell are you on about :s

Opera is pushing more crap onto windows not talking about existing complaints they are making up more as they go along

It IS up to the EU. Does that mean that Opera can't be allowed to hold an opinion? Your logic is just bizarre. You seem to think that Opera is in any kind of position of authority. But all they are doing is to answer questions from journalists on the antitrust case, and offering their point of view.

Do we live in the Soviet Union or something? No, free speech remains free.

Its Opera who filed the case and its them who have to agree with the terms and its their window to raise issues this has nothing to do with free speech this is a lawsuit that they are imposing on microsoft and they are adding pointless "requests" to this suit

its not an opinion when you're using a lawsuit against someone to enforce it

But yes you're right opera has no authority in this matter yet they seem to be able to dictate what punishment can be dished out for microsoft (seems like opera/EU follow the soviet union way of thinking? :laugh:)

It doesn't.

Any statistics to show otherwise?

I don't know about the credibility of this site as i don't really care about how many people use a certain browser but for arguments sake

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

which shows 2.59% for chrome and 1.97% for opera

Opera has been available for free for 3-4 years.

I'm sorry did this have a point? chrome hasn't even been out for a year (i think 11 months but majority of it was beta)

Except they didn't. First of all, Apple did this before Google. Secondly, even the most JS-heavy sites today won't benefit from these optimizations.

ok i take it you don't know what you're talking about then the afl and nrl website (which were javascript heavy) loaded significantly faster with chrome then safari or firefox when it first came out

I'm not sure if apple did it first or whatever but chrome had implemented it better then anyone else had

EXACTLY! Rendering time. The bottleneck on sites today is not JS, but other things like rendering, CSS, etc.

they work hand in hand yes you may not notice much on a simple website but if you're really taking advantage of javascript then you will appreciate the extra speed (i believe this is why google wanted to enter the os mark to set a new standard so they could also benefit from providing a better service)

not to mention jquery running so much faster brilliant for creating more dynamic web sites with great flexibility

Yes, it will be great in the future, but the point was: SunSpider and the V8 benchmarks are IRRELEVANT to today's real world sites. They are just pure marketing, and testing for a tiny and specific part of JS, and if the JS engine is using those specific optimizations.

Not really i mean all of javascript functionality has been greatly improved due to being compiled + executed

I'm not sure what you are basing you're information on for this "pure marketing" and "testing for a tiny and specific part of JS, and if the JS engine is using those specific optimizations." but thats pretty far from the truth

even without optimizing the code the fact they are pretty much pre-compiling it and executing it is already a great way to boost its performance so any custom optimiziations after that is just a nice little gift

Edited August 16, 2009 by DDStriker

[Pupik]

Heh. I like how all our answers, are almost identical :rofl:

[Antaris Veteran]

Heh. I like how all our answers, are almost identical :rofl:

It's an obvious truth then...

[petrossa]

So just because the EU stupidly decides that Microsoft is not allowed to bundle a media player, means they can't bundle other software as well? The WMP case automatically means Windows is not allowed to ship with IE, Notepad, Wordpad, Paint, Calculator, Minefield, Solitaire, etc?

You've got it in one. I knew you'd see reason finally. Microsoft has been judged in violation of EU LAWS against anti-competitive behavior.

If someone can make a valid case that he has tried to put Solitaire on the market for years and can link his failure to MS bundling Solitaire with it's OS it is illegal and will not be allowed.

That in the colonies you like to get ripped off by a monopolist, hey that's your thing if you're into that. Over here we prefer to be able to be protected against these practices.

Luckily my favorite milf Ms Kroes is like Thatcher on steroids so it's a done deal. All MS can do is comply, not comply and pay fines up 10% of yearly revenue for each year they don't comply, or get out of the EU market.

Guess what it's shareholders prefer?

It's an obvious truth then...

:D :D ?that you both have no clue?

[Panda X]

Shut the **** up Opera, honestly.

[Subject Delta]

Well I suppose there should be an updating mechanism in place, as it makes sense to have updates if the products are going to be offered in the first place, but I disagree that the updates should be offered through WU at the expense of Microsoft's bandwidth, maybe it should pull the updates from their servers. Still, they could also just put an auto update feature in

[petrossa]

Opera suggests that the updatecheck is done by WU, it's own servers will provide the update.

Seems to make perfect sense to me. Why have 30 different update checkers polluting the bandwidth?

As for MS it makes no difference in bandwidth as they have to check for IE anyway if it's installed. So checking for updates for the default browser, no matter which it is, is a very good suggestion.