 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Microsoft still undecided on no-browser Win7 conundrum | |
|
||
| Time: 15:07 EST/20:07 GMT | News Source: TG Daily | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft is still investigating how to deliver web functionality to European users of its upcoming Windows 7 OS.
|
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 26 of 26 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 2138 (88.209.214.53) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 01:20:52 AM |
| this is so simple, give customers a right to choose. this is what the eu was fist asking and then demanding. it is not so complicated of a issue. |
| #2 By 2201 (82.45.132.196) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 04:04:56 AM |
| The customer already has a right to choose. They can install whatever they like. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 07:55:38 AM |
| #1: Despite constantly talking about how they enjoy competing on an even playing field, they really don't and will try to thwart any attempt to remove their inherent advantage. |
| #4 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 09:40:03 AM |
| This is the old lets include a can of Pepsi in every six pack of CocaCola argument... |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 09:45:55 AM |
| #4: That argument might fly of Coca-Cola was a global monopoly with a history of using its monopoly to keep competitors down. |
| #6 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:54:33 AM |
|
#1 Absolutely. In fact, every time the OS is installed Microsoft should pop up over 300 menu's asking the user to choose:
Browser? Media Player Spreadsheet? Word Processor? Bit Torrent client? and on and on and on ... Alternatively ... in a sane world ... they could offer IE8 and let the users track down and install the software they want. You know ... they could choose. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:55:27 AM |
| #6: Windows doesn't ship with most of that, so choice is the default in most cases. However, you need a browser to get those choices. Making MS put up a panel that prompts for choice of IE, FF or Opera isn't a big deal and would help maintain competition. After all, we all know what happened when MS thought it had won the browser war. 5 years of nothing. |
| #8 By 2201 (78.32.103.51) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 01:41:02 PM |
| Nah, it's a solution to a non-existing problem. No one really cares what browser is on their machine. For the little amount of people who do, they know where to go to get their browser. This isn't solving any problem whatsoever, especially as IE share has already been FALLING. Silly clunky way of solving some perceived problem. |
| #9 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 04:34:45 PM |
|
#7 Windows has a word processor - Wordpad. A media player -WMP. A calculator - Calc. An ftp client. A picture editor. A fax client. CD/DVD burning software. A zip client. etc.
"However, you need a browser to get those choices" All you need is ftp. (Thats how I got Mosaic - once you got a winsock client.) Or .. heaven forbid, a pre-installed browser. Then you can use the pre-installed browser to go get anything available. Of course non-idiots would realize a modern OS should ship with a browser. Not just an ftp client. |
| #10 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 04:39:07 PM |
| PS You can still get Mosaic from the same place I got it: ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Mosaic |
| #11 By 16797 (65.93.150.28) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 04:50:51 PM |
|
#7 "Making MS put up a panel that prompts for choice of IE, FF or Opera isn't a big deal and would help maintain competition."
Are you suggesting that advantage that IE enjoys is replaced by giving that same advantage to 4-5 major browsers? What about many other, less popular, browsers? Why shouldn't they be there too? How is some new browser ever going to get to that list in the future? Either offer none or offer as many as possible (for example, have a dialog with links to like dozens of browsers or something like that.. This list would get reviewed & updated on a regular basis using, for example, WU). |
| #12 By 143 (96.28.64.244) at Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:52:53 PM |
| It's socialism for your box. LOL <_< |
| #13 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at Wednesday, July 01, 2009 08:38:49 AM |
|
)h I just developed a web browser, how do I get in n this list thing. If my browser, "Joe Q Public Generic Web Browser" isn't included, then I'm going call discrimination. Why should everyone elses browser get placed on a "Ballot" screen and not mine?
Where do you draw the line? |
| #14 By 12071 (203.214.21.35) at Wednesday, July 01, 2009 09:03:00 AM |
|
#11/#13 Let's make an arbitrary start... start with the list of web browsers listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers Then, only consider browsers that: - Runs on Windows (sort of a pre-requisite really!) - Pass Acid1 - Pass Acid2 - Score 70+ on Acid3 And supports: - DOM1 and DOM2 - CSS 2.1 - XSLT - XHTML i.e. standards that are already several years old. This basic criteria gets us down to the following choices: - Flock - Chrome - Firefox - Opera Not so bad! 4 choices for the user... and if you've developed a web browser that meets modern standards then it too should be added to that list. |
| #15 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:41:30 AM |
|
#14 So you are deciding for me what are the best Web browsers to use. HMMM...
Your still limiting my choices. |
| #16 By 16797 (65.95.10.114) at Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:04:36 PM |
|
#14 Well.. it is not that simple.
Larger organizations value management capabilities (through group policies) more than standard compliance, etc (especially if all their internal web-apps already work on existing browser). That is precisely why they pick IE over, for example, FF. Then, what about security? I see you didn't even mention it. Is it on a predictable patching cycle? How easy is it to roll patches? Etc, etc. |
| #17 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at Wednesday, July 01, 2009 07:39:26 PM |
|
#15 You compared a convicted monopolist that has been found to abuse their position in the market place with "include a can of Pepsi in every six pack of CocaCola" - you need all the help you can get!
#16 I was making an arbitrary start, not necessarily including everything possible, but a reasonable start - that being a modern web browser on a modern OS that supports relatively modern web standards. Offering the user a text based web browser on Windows 7 isn't a great idea, neither is any other browser than cannot support modern standards appropriately and correctly. This isn't just about large organisations and what happens to be easier for them. Just like BlackBerry users don't care how easy/difficult it is for the sysadmin to set up BES compared to supporting WinMobiles and iPhones. This is about the end users too and ensuring that they have a modern browser that does not stagnate over time as a result of some company trying to protect their OS. "what about security?" I can't speak for Flock as I haven't used it but the others are probably on par security wise. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses - and at a point in time there will always be one ahead of the pack but over time I think the stats show that they are relatively on par. "Is it on a predictable patching cycle?" See it's funny that you mention "security" and "predictable patching cycle" together - that's not how security works. There's nothing predictable regarding security and the only thing a predictable cycle does is manage patching of issues at the expense of leaving end users unprotected for long periods of time. Sure it's in the best interests of large organisations as you are leading to, but it's definitely not in the best interests of end users. "How easy is it to roll patches?" Once again I can't speak for Flock and I don't have Opera installed at the moment but both my Chrome and Firefox web browsers patch themselves! So how easy is it? Super easy! |
| #18 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:43:22 PM |
| IE should come with shrink-wrapped Windows, and the OEMs would be responsible for displaying the selection panel. They could charge the various browser manufacturers for inclusion on the panel (say a couple of cents per machine). The display order would be completely random so no included browser would get an advantage. |
| #19 By 95132 (96.25.183.211) at Thursday, July 02, 2009 04:06:59 AM |
|
Solution seems simple enough to me, don't include the IE8 install in the OS install routine for Win7E.
Ship it on the DVD in /IE8 folder. If a user actually wants it's there for him to find or be told and he's not that put out. On the OEM's side if they want to add some browser selection installation routine to the port OOBE so be it, not ms's problem unless they specifically are preventing such, which they currently do not to my knowledge, but it's up to the OEM. Asking MS to advertise other's products is insane. I kind of like MS's response: You got what you want EU, don't like it then stop with the BS or suck it up an live with it. |
| #20 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at Thursday, July 02, 2009 07:29:18 AM |
| #19 Amen! Sometimes the cure is worse than the problem... |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, July 02, 2009 08:16:36 AM |
| #20: Well, no, the cure is most certainly not worse than the problem. Like I've said before, we've all seen the problem in action for the 5 year stretch that MS let IE stagnate due to lack of competition. |
| #22 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at Thursday, July 02, 2009 09:32:30 AM |
| #21 But at least you could use that stagnated IE and download whatever you like to use. |
| #23 By 16797 (65.93.25.91) at Thursday, July 02, 2009 09:37:44 AM |
|
#17 "You compared a convicted monopolist that has been found to abuse their position.."
Blah blah blah... Convicted monopolist was not convicted of monopoly in EU. And in US - haven't you noticed that things have changed significantly in the meantime? Beating a dead horse, aren't we? "How easy is it to roll patches?" Once again I can't speak for Flock and I don't have Opera installed at the moment but both my Chrome and Firefox web browsers patch themselves! So how easy is it? Super easy! Patch themselves? Not good, patching must be planned (= tested, approved) etc. How easy is it to roll-back patches? Are there old web apps, that use ActiveX or were created with IE in mind only? Do I need to run those? Does that browser speak group policies? Etc. There's nothing predictable regarding security and the only thing a predictable cycle does is manage patching of issues at the expense of leaving end users unprotected for long periods of time. Not every security patch is critical, Chicken Little. You fail to see one simple thing - that you shouldn't be deciding for me what is it that I value most: standards compliance, ease of use, security, manageability, etc. Leave that to me please. |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:18:35 AM |
| #22: That's not a good solution as the vast majority of people, generally clueless about browsers, will tend to stick to the default. The whole point of this is that there shouldn't be a default browser. The one the users chooses will be the default browser. Users could run any browser they wanted for the past 15 years, yet we still had the problem of IE dominating because it was the default browser in the default Windows install. Now, users may still choose IE because they think it's better for whatever reason, and that's fine. |
| #25 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at Thursday, July 02, 2009 07:30:20 PM |
|
#23 "Convicted monopolist was not convicted of monopoly in EU"
The legal terminology used was "near-monopoly", however they were found to have "abused" their position in the market just the same as they were in the US. "haven't you noticed that things have changed significantly in the meantime? " I'm sorry, have we had a court case since to reverse the previous findings? Are you now the expert on when it's safe to ignore past actions? Sure past actions aren't a reflection of future performance... except in the case of Microsoft who don't seem to learn their lesson. "Beating a dead horse, aren't we?" If there's beating involved, its all on your end. I was pointing out the idiocy of the "arguments" (and i use that term in the most loose form) made from the Only-Microsoft crowd where they mention things like: - Coke having to include a can of pepsi - Apple having to bundle competitor's products - Car Manufacturer A having to allow Car Manufacturer B's radio etc etc there's a million of them... all with the same fundamental underlying issue... in none of those examples is the company a convicted monopolist that has been found to abuse their position. So no, I'm not beating a dead horse. "Patch themselves? Not good, patching must be planned (= tested, approved) etc. How easy is it to roll-back patches?" Once again you're solely focused on the enterprise. End users do not "test" nor "approve" patches. They just install them. In the enterprise, there's teams that perform the testing and approving on behalf of the end users. Rolling back patches - just a matter of running the install for the previous version as each patch updates the main program version rather than just changing random dll's. "Are there old web apps, that use ActiveX or were created with IE in mind only? Do I need to run those?" Do you? "Does that browser speak group policies? " Do you have group policies installed at home? Does anyone? Anyone even remotely resembling an end user? "Not every security patch is critical, Chicken Little." Of course not - and I'm glad that we have you to decide for us what is and what is not critical - just as you can decide for us all matters of the law. There are plenty of critical patches that are left un-fixed for long periods of time due to having a patching cycle in place. "You fail to see one simple thing - that you shouldn't be deciding for me what is it that I value most: standards compliance, ease of use, security, manageability, etc. Leave that to me please." Yet you're allowed to decide for the rest of us when matters of law are no longer important and which security patches are critical - what's good for the goose... I'm not trying to decide anything for you, I'm leaving the option to you, all I want to ensure is that: a) you're not left behind with the ever evolving web standards - and hence don't bitch and moan when website X doesn't work on your outdated, slow, shitty web browser that appears to have a single things going for it - management. b) you're not the cause of impacting other people to get left behind with the ever evolving web standards. So we're not stuck with a piece of crap web browser that doesn't change in 5 years because god forbid, that might impact the bottom line of other products. |
| #26 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at Friday, July 03, 2009 03:08:32 PM |
|
The "near monopoly" in the EU was in reference to WMP being included in Windows. Not IE.
In response, WMP was left off of Windows N. |
