Opera Wants More From Microsoft


  

539 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

ViperAFK

I defended opera at first, it is a decent browser, but they are taking this too far:/ and this is totally unnecessary, pretty much every major browser besides opera has built in auto update. They are trying to get microsoft to cover up and inadequacy in their own browser :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
tunafish
Yeah, because it's nice and safe to be running unpatched and outdated software.

Except it should not be upto microsoft to make sure other companys software is updated. Quite frankly all the software i use has autoupdaters built into it. I want windows update to just provide updates for anything microsoft

So your argument is nulled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lechio
Except it should not be up to Microsoft to make sure other company's software is updated. Quite frankly all the software i use has auto-updates built into it. I want Windows update to just provide updates for anything Microsoft.

So your argument is nulled.

Microsoft provides the platform and tools for others to use. It's their responsibility to ensure that everyone is entitled to the same rights when using this platform.

By you words, Microsoft should only allow their products to use these tools (current reality)?

That's anti-competitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
splur

Why aren't they happy with their own browser autoupdating?

I'm happy I'm with FF now, other than the fact that the browser is superior, at least Mozilla doesn't treat their users like complete retards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tunafish
Microsoft provides the platform and tools for others to use. It's their responsibility to ensure that everyone is entitled to the same rights when using this platform.

By you words, Microsoft should only allow their products to use these tools (current reality)?

That's anti-competitive.

Yes because it's THEIR product, their update API that's been designed for use to update microsoft products. All microsoft does is provide an operating system, they should no way be obliged to offer update services for 3rd party products. <Snipped>

Edited by Max
Link to post
Share on other sites
ToneKnee
That's only assuming the updates will be via MS servers and not be available from the software publishers site

Microsoft would want it to be on there servers and pass security checks. Linking to a external web site to download could lead to a host of security problems, viruses, DNS re-direction and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lechio
Yes because it's THEIR product, their update API that's been designed for use to update microsoft products. All microsoft does is provide an operating system, they should no way be obliged to offer update services for 3rd party products.

It's their platform, they should insure competitiveness to other companies that provide alternatives. Otherwise IE, Office, Windows Media Player, (...) should not be entitled to use Windows Update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pallab

OK. I don't think Opera was talking about distributing updates through Windows Updates. I asked someone at Opera and was told to focus on this statement by Jon:

"If they have sites and content out there you need to access to use the operating system in a meaningful way, and it's web based and that doesn’t work - that’s a problem."

He is merely concerned that giving a ballot would be of no use if it breaks essential Windows Services. He merely wants the system to function properly even without IE i.e. all services that require the use of web browser (IE) should be cross-browser compatible.

That sounds fair enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pupik
It's their platform, they should insure competitiveness to other companies that provide alternatives. Otherwise IE, Office, Windows Media Player, (...) should not be entitled to use Windows Update.

Office uses it's own updater and WMP and IE is a part of the OS. So yeah, it's their platform and they should care only to update their products, and not every application that can be installed on their OS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hjf288
It's their platform, they should insure competitiveness to other companies that provide alternatives. Otherwise IE, Office, Windows Media Player, (...) should not be entitled to use Windows Update.

So because you cant be bothered and your company is so insignificant and is failing at its task, cannot afford advertising you expect Microsoft to hand everything they invested in on a silver platter?

Why dont Microsoft just open source Windows, thats the only time Opera will stfu...

There are already update checkers that people have made to fill that niche, wanna use it do so? if not dont

Link to post
Share on other sites
tunafish

Except funny thing is companies seem to be doing fine with their own auto-ipdaters now don't they. So stop trying to troll and cause arguments, last i checked this topic was about Opera, not some microsoft v linux update thing.

I dont see why microsoft should have to open up their update service to 3rd party companies. This just increases the chnace of screw up's, as at the end of the day who is going to be at fault here, im guessing Microsoft even though it's not their software. Everyone will end up blaming them.

Funny thing is look how well Windows N sold in Europe............. It was this biggest waste of time ever.

And saying IE, Office, Windows Media Player should not use Windows Update, is kind of stupid considering they are Microsoft products, and it's Microsoft Windows Update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lechio
Office uses it's own updater and WMP and IE is a part of the OS. So yeah, it's their platform and they should care only to update their products, and not every application that can be installed on their OS.

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.

(...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pupik
That's the definition of anti-competitiveness

I'm sorry, but I couldn't read that without laughing :laugh:

Microsoft is to blame for Opera can't keep don't want to keep their application updating through their own service, and want to rely on others (Windows Update in this case) to provide the bandwidth for them?

Are you serious?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SVG

lol.. Accidentally said Yes :p

I thought it was Do you think Opera wants from Microsoft.. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
kazuyette

**** Opera software ! I hope that it will die from bankruptcy ! This is unreal ! Can't they provide an auto-update service themselves ? This kind of behaviour is at kindergarten level and not at a business level ! I don't see why MS should provide access to Windows Update to 3rd party developpers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shokus
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, a GUI is not an essential part of an OS.

A commandline interface is not an essential part of an OS.

Maybe, an OS is not an essential part of an OS.

As far as I know, people expect to be able to play media the moment they install an OS. All modern OSes come with a media player installed. People also expect to be able to surf the World Wide Web after installation of an OS. Yes, a web browser has to be included. I would agree that the OS should offer the ability to remove said software if the customer wants to. But to simply NOT include it is wrong, and the said OS would be a faulty product out-of-the-box.

Moreover, a basic update service is also part of every modern OS today. Having MS Update only update MS products does not confer any advantage to MS products at all, as all other applications can include their own update service. Similarly, customers can choose to turn off MS Update, or updates for other products as well if they so choose. All's fair here.

And may I remind all here that MS Update is not available by default with Windows. Users have to choose to turn it on.

Edited by Shokus
Link to post
Share on other sites
FoxieFoxie
Oh yes, a GUI is not an essential part of an OS.

A commandline interface is not an essential part of an OS.

Maybe, an OS is not an essential part of an OS.

Oh God, I lol'd so hard. Hopefully, colleges won't see my tears.

You just won 1 internet from me, good sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Routerbad

So say Microsoft gives in and allows competing software developers to push updates via Windows Update. After rebooting the machine, one of the updates causes a problem in the system because of god knows what bug that any one of the various software manufacturers pushing updates through WU has created and pushed to countless machines. Who takes the flak for this? If microsoft allowed other developers to push updates through WINDOWS Upate, things will most certainly go wrong somewhere sometime, at which point Microsoft would be responsible for tracking the issue because the update was delivered via their app.

Centralized updating would be nice, but should not have to come from Microsoft. In fact, I see a burgeoning market on the horizon for software that would synchronize and deliver updates for third party apps, via a third party app. Then if Microsoft decide that they want a peice of that market, they could integrate it. They should have the option, not be forced into it, which is how alot of their recent business decisions seem to have been made.

I am absolutely sick and tired (because tired could never come before sick) of Opera. Going by the article, they want all competing browsers to have access to the windows update servers so Microsoft would have to host the content and offer the browsers as optional downloads. This seems to have been their endgame all along, force Microsoft to not only give users an option (which would never get Opera the faux market share they are looking for anyway) but to actually offer alternative browsers through their update services. Then all of the people who just select all updates and install will have all of these browsers and have to get patches for each of them, which would frustrate the hell out of me. I didn't like it when Apple originally automatically installed safari through apple update. I don't like getting force-fed software. I understand I could and would deselect, but their are many non-savvy people (the very same that Opera claim to want to save from the horrors of IE <gasp>) that would just select all of them because it's coming from Microsoft through Windows Update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lechio
So say Microsoft gives in and allows competing software developers to push updates via Windows Update. After rebooting the machine, one of the updates causes a problem in the system because of god knows what bug that any one of the various software manufacturers pushing updates through WU has created and pushed to countless machines. Who takes the flak for this? If microsoft allowed other developers to push updates through WINDOWS Upate, things will most certainly go wrong somewhere sometime, at which point Microsoft would be responsible for tracking the issue because the update was delivered via their app.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
How would this affect Windows users that do not use Opera as their Web browser?

By bloating Windows Update with garbage at the least. Can you explain why Opera can't just check for it's own updates when it starts like most other 3rd-party applications? Should Windows have to manage every single thing installed on the computer? What if a spyware company says the same thing? Is it ok for Microsoft to have to check and download Vundo updates if it happens to be infecting the machine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
M_Lyons10
This is getting beyond ridiculous now. However there is no source for this...so is it even true?

Yeah, it really is. I'm so sick of Opera's whining nonsense...

I looked online, but wasn't able to find a source either. With Opera though, I wouldn't be surprised...

This doesn't make any sense to me though. When I open Firefox it tells me when there is an update then allows me to download and apply it. Google Chrome tells me when there is an update and then lets me download and apply it. Safari doesn't do this (Which is annoying). It's been a long while since I've used Opera, but can they not tell you when an update is available and handle all of this? Is that too complex for their developers? I don't see what benefit releasing these updates through Microsoft Update has for the consumer, it just allows Opera to not support their own updates and confuses users. Why should Microsoft be responsible for updating other companies software? Microsoft Update should remain for Microsoft products, drivers, and updates for hardware and that's it.

I wish Opera would just close their doors already... Though I didn't care for their desktop browser before all this nonsense, I at least didn't have such a dislike for the company. Now I'm just so sick of hearing the nonsense. They act like a kid with all these accusations and brilliant ideas...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lechio
By bloating Windows Update with garbage at the least. Can you explain why Opera can't just check for it's own updates when it starts like most other 3rd-party applications?

If you don't have something installed would it show up on Window Update?

It's not practical to have a ton of application updaters. As a user don't you see an advantage of having a centralized software install/update center?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
If you don't have something installed would it show up on Window Update?

It's still on their servers and has to be checked when WU does it's pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pupik
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.

Great, I see the problem is solved.

18903822.jpg

Wait.. why Opera whining this time exactly :blink: ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.