EU says Microsoft violated law with IE on Windows

[Ambassador]

You "don't think it will be much of a problem"? WINE and ReactOS have the luxury of being able to cut corners, do a "good enough" job! Microsoft had enough trouble when Vista came out and applications broke, and now you're arguing they should go ahead and hope that third-party reimplementations of it will work "well enough?"

Obviously, the problem in Vista has nothing to do with Internet Explorer, since they kept it and applications still didn't work properly anyways. And again, you miss my point. Where is this third-party implementions coming from? My point is that if these 3rd party implementation can do a adequate, then there is no reason that Microsoft themselves couldn't do an even better job, unless they're complelely incompetent. Case in point: Fred Vorck's Tutorial has IE removed but does certain registry modification and dll file hacks that allow IE-dependent apps to run fine.

Yes, and potentially break everyone else's help content that relies on it?

I'm just confused by that statement completely. Help in Windows is implemented by CHM files, which can be opening in Mozilla Firefox with a simple extension. I don't see how Microsoft could "break" these files, unless they don't even know how their own file format works.

Or spend the time to modify their own vast amounts of documentation for the new system?

What does that mean? MS always has to modify and rewrite their documentation for new operating system versions because there are changes.

Then what's the point if you remove just the shell? The guts of IE are still there, as I mentioned earlier.

Not all the "guts" of IE have to be kept, as a lot of them are simple useless on their own. Further more, for the guts that have to be kept, they can optimized and cleaned out, like in Fred Vorck's Tutorial or 98lite.

WMP - at least older versions - was pretty much just a lightweight frontend around the Windows media framework. That said, is there really such a big deal that they can't be uninstalled? HD space is cheap, and if you don't use it nothing happens.

If you don't use it nothing happens eh? Please read.

And the "HD space is cheap" arguement is basically giving MS the excuse not to make Windows more efficient. The operating system should adapt to the computer, not the other way around.

Doesn't matter: Microsoft is a Big Evil Monopoly© using this policy to drive competitors out of the market, presumably because the consumers are too lazy & stupid to go buy (or, just as likely these days, to download for free) alternatives like OpenOffice, Firefox, WinAmp and so on

There's also that fact some Microsoft apps will open IE automatically even though another browser is set as default and other stupid "tricks":

But half-ass stunts like this aren't going to help break their monopoly position.

Do you have a better solution? Considering that U.S. decided to sit on its ass back in 1999 in the anti-trust case up to today, I applaud the EU for actually doing something.

Of course not - I imagine people just won't buy the IE-less versions - and Microsoft will make damn sure they're tucked away at the back of the top shelf too, just to be safe. The whole thing just comes across as more Microsoft-bashing for the sake of it - I'm sure there are better ways to make things more competitive than this.

Again, they don't have to make an IE-free version, they just have to make IE and other forcefully unremovable apps optional. Simple as that:

Do you realise what you're saying? You're asking Microsoft to modify their own product to mimic what it already does.

That's what Wine does - it has some wrappers around another HTML engine (the bloated piece of junk dlls from Mozilla) to make it mimic how the Microsoft engine works. It requires about a 30 MiB additional download and then it doesn't work very well anyway...

No, I'm saying that Microsoft has the abaility to improve their product and make it more efficient.

Microsoft has more or less loosened the licensing restrictions. In fact, last I checked, users still don't have much say, with Google even paying Dell at one point of time to install their software on Dell computers. In fact, installation of "free" software on computers is in fact a revenue generator for computer makers.

Fair enough. But even if they can bundle them, watch as the try to do just a little more:

At one point in 1996 after Compaq removed the MSN and Internet Explorer icons from the desktops on their Presarios to instead promote AOL and Netscape Navigator, Microsoft sent Compaq a letter stating its intention to terminate Compaq's license for Windows 95 if Compaq did not restore the MSN and Internet Explorer icons to their original positions. (From DOJ Finding of fact 206)

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Fair enough. But even if they can bundle them, watch as the try to do just a little more:

At one point in 1996 after Compaq removed the MSN and Internet Explorer icons from the desktops on their Presarios to instead promote AOL and Netscape Navigator, Microsoft sent Compaq a letter stating its intention to terminate Compaq's license for Windows 95 if Compaq did not restore the MSN and Internet Explorer icons to their original positions. (From DOJ Finding of fact 206)

The.. fuck? Did you see the date? That was over a fucking decade ago. How does that matter in the current climate???

Do you have a better solution? Considering that U.S. decided to sit on its ass back in 1999 in the anti-trust case up to today, I applaud the EU for actually doing something.

You call this doing something? It's more like "Nya nya! See we are trying to poke you in the face!" Seriously, if the EU is serious about anyhting, it should sue half the computer industry for monopolistic practices.

[Ambassador]

The.. fuck? Did you see the date? That was over a fucking decade ago. How does that matter in the current climate???

I don't think Microsoft has changed their OEM agreement in that regard, so yes it is still relevant.

You call this doing something? It's more like "Nya nya! See we are trying to poke you in the face!" Seriously, if the EU is serious about anyhting, it should sue half the computer industry for monopolistic practices.

Actually, if you read the history of this EU event, you'd know that began when Opera filed a complaint against Microsoft.

[Solauren]

Ambassador, I'm going to say this to you as nicely, politely, and civily as possible;

You obviously have no idea about what you're talking about, so shut the fuck up and listen to the adults.

What you are suggesting, isn't a simple 'remove a few files here and there'. Microsoft products are so interlinked with Windows now, it would require a near-complete rewrite of just about every single piece of Microsoft software. At the bare minimum. Oh, and good luck using older software on the newer systems as a result.

It would also required at least partial rewrites of every pieces of software out there that uses microsoft's built in HTML support. Again, good luck using older software.

There is a reason that microsoft includes so much in it's products. It's so they can talk to and interact with each other without a shit load of extra programs required.

It's also why alot of developers use the existing Microsoft software and file structures; it's so they can all talk to each other and interact without a bunch of third party programs, or extra development time.


Anyways, really, I don't see what the problem is with Microsoft including a Internet Explorer as part of Windows. It's free. Hell, most web browsers are free. (I don't know of any that are not free). So what's the problem? Is microsoft being a dick how it handles itself in business? Absolutely. But that's a management issue, not a software issue.

Quite frankly, this entire process as struck me as assine.

This is like someone suing General Motors because they are including steroes in their cars. After all, why would anyone want to go out and buy a stereo for their car if there is already one in it?

[phongn]

Solauren, Ambassador would argue that since you can remove the stereo at your discretion he'd would not have any problems, esp. since it's not required for the core functionality of the car. As for the rest of Ambassador's post, I'll get to it in a little while - I am at work.

[Ambassador]

What you are suggesting, isn't a simple 'remove a few files here and there'. Microsoft products are so interlinked with Windows now, it would require a near-complete rewrite of just about every single piece of Microsoft software. At the bare minimum. Oh, and good luck using older software on the newer systems as a result.

It would also required at least partial rewrites of every pieces of software out there that uses microsoft's built in HTML support. Again, good luck using older software.

There is a reason that microsoft includes so much in it's products. It's so they can talk to and interact with each other without a shit load of extra programs required.

It's also why alot of developers use the existing Microsoft software and file structures; it's so they can all talk to each other and interact without a bunch of third party programs, or extra development time.

So I guess Fred Vorck's site which had a lot of research put into and hard work is completely wrong right ? Or the nLite developers? Or Shane Brooks?

Anyways, really, I don't see what the problem is with Microsoft including a Internet Explorer as part of Windows. It's free. Hell, most web browsers are free. (I don't know of any that are not free). So what's the problem? Is microsoft being a dick how it handles itself in business? Absolutely. But that's a management issue, not a software issue.

Quite frankly, this entire process as struck me as assine.

I'm sorry, but Internet Explorer isn't "free" in the traditional sense. To legally use Internet Explorer, you need a legal copy of Windows first. It is actually against the IE EULA to install IE in WINE (though why you want to other than for site developing, I have no idea). Opera and Firefox don't have this restriction, nor does any other "free" web browser that I know of.

Secondly, it is feature that a great number of people have been asking for for years. It's something all other operating systems include. And won't harm the pro-IE people in any way. It's about denying choice to the end user.

This is like someone suing General Motors because they are including steroes in their cars. After all, why would anyone want to go out and buy a stereo for their car if there is already one in it?

Well, there's a difference there. General Motors doesn't have a monopoly on stereos, and in many cases they give you a choice of what stereo you want. Secondly, I would go out a buy a stereo if the one in my car was crap, or I would buy new wheels if the wheels in my car were crap, or I would replace the shifter knob if I wanted a better shifter knob, etc. etc. just last year, my dad and I upgrading the speakers in our car. We removed the old speakers, because they were redundant and would have resulted in reduced sound quality. Does that mean everybody needs to replace these parts? No. Some are content with what they have, but some aren't.

Again, it isn't that[/t] IE is bundled, it is how it is bundled. If GM made a car with customizability in mind, and then made the stereo unremovable, I think people would complain.

Solauren, Ambassador would argue that since you can remove the stereo at your discretion he'd would not have any problems, esp. since it's not required for the core functionality of the car. As for the rest of Ambassador's post, I'll get to it in a little while - I am at work.

I was just to about to post this post when you posted this. You are correct, nonetheless.

[Solauren]

Perhaps stereo wasn't the best choice.

However, there are other things that are part of the car that you could argue.

i.e the Starter, Steering wheel, tires, spark plugs, etc.

They are needed for the operation of the car, but are all replaceable with off-the-shelf or costumized parts. (Just make sure you get a part that's designed for your car)

[Ambassador]

They are needed for the operation of the car, but are all replaceable with off-the-shelf or costumized parts. (Just make sure you get a part that's designed for your car)

The key word there is "replace". When you replace those parts, you don't have the old parts still connected in your car. You either keep the parts in the safe place or recycle them. When you have two ram modules in your computer that aren't compatible, you keep the one that has the most ram, because leaving them both in is pointless.

What I find funny is how everybody is so against what I'm saying about having IE option. If they dd add this eature, the people who still wanted IE wouldn't be affected, and the people who don't want it will be happy. I agree that an specifically IE-free version of Windows won't solve anything. A special stripped out Windows "lite" version would be more useful and make more sense.

[phongn]

Obviously, the problem in Vista has nothing to do with Internet Explorer, since they kept it and applications still didn't work properly anyways. And again, you miss my point. Where is this third-party implementions coming from? My point is that if these 3rd party implementation can do a adequate, then there is no reason that Microsoft themselves couldn't do an even better job, unless they're complelely incompetent. Case in point: Fred Vorck's Tutorial has IE removed but does certain registry modification and dll file hacks that allow IE-dependent apps to run fine.

You claim that you want Microsoft to let users fully remove IE. Therefore, to maintain functionality, anything that depends on it and its libraries must be reimplemented somehow. And don't just quote the whole site at me (which, by the way, is full of nonsense. IE Hotfixes slowing the computer down? Where's his numbers?)

I'm just confused by that statement completely. Help in Windows is implemented by CHM files, which can be opening in Mozilla Firefox with a simple extension. I don't see how Microsoft could "break" these files, unless they don't even know how their own file format works.

User A "completely removes" IE from their system. They press F1 and try to access the help file. It fails to work. Functionality is lost and broken.

What does that mean? MS always has to modify and rewrite their documentation for new operating system versions because there are changes.

EXISTING stuff, like Office Help.

Not all the "guts" of IE have to be kept, as a lot of them are simple useless on their own. Further more, for the guts that have to be kept, they can optimized and cleaned out, like in Fred Vorck's Tutorial or 98lite.

Oh, fuck, I should've known, more "optimization" nonsense and people "cleaning out" stuff they shouldn't.

If you don't use it nothing happens eh? Please read.

And the "HD space is cheap" arguement is basically giving MS the excuse not to make Windows more efficient. The operating system should adapt to the computer, not the other way around.

It'd be nice if you quoted websites that didn't throw around nonsense like that. Furthermore, there are efficiency goals, yes, but when we live in an era of 500GB hard drives, there's being efficient and simply being pound foolish. And Microsoft might as well do something with all these resources we have. That said, Microsoft is actually trying to make Windows 7 rather more efficient.

There's also that fact some Microsoft apps will open IE automatically even though another browser is set as default and other stupid "tricks":

Yes, lets talk about a Microsoft OS nearly ten years old! Hint: you'll do better if you bother looking at XP SP2+ or later.

Do you have a better solution? Considering that U.S. decided to sit on its ass back in 1999 in the anti-trust case up to today, I applaud the EU for actually doing something.

"Doing something" is insufficient. It has to be demonstrated that the action taken will actually bring about the desired goals.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't think Microsoft has changed their OEM agreement in that regard, so yes it is still relevant.

And you have proof? I don't see Microsoft swinging an axe against Dell for having a deal with Google. And Compaq is dead and has been dead for nearly a decade which renders that example moot.

Actually, if you read the history of this EU event, you'd know that began when Opera filed a complaint against Microsoft.

Way to dodge the actual issue. Doesn't change the fact that the EU is just being half assed about its pursuit against monopoly. The case against Intel has gone on for over a fucking year and not a squeak has been heard of that.

[phongn]

So I guess Fred Vorck's site which had a lot of research put into and hard work is completely wrong right ? Or the nLite developers? Or Shane Brooks?

In fact, yes, they may quite be wrong. Research and hard work does not automatically imply that it's right. Also, yes, I do know of the nLite/vLite crew - I use their products, but mostly for bundling drivers with XP install CDs.

I'm sorry, but Internet Explorer isn't "free" in the traditional sense. To legally use Internet Explorer, you need a legal copy of Windows first. It is actually against the IE EULA to install IE in WINE (though why you want to other than for site developing, I have no idea). Opera and Firefox don't have this restriction, nor does any other "free" web browser that I know of.

Ignoring the whole EULA issue for that moment, it is free in the traditional sense. It costs no money. Are you going to argue that freeware and public domain software isn't "free" because it requires an operating system like Windows or MacOS to run? That is nonsensical. Furthermore, IE7 isn't a bad browser (nor IE8 RC1).

Secondly, it is feature that a great number of people have been asking for for years. It's something all other operating systems include. And won't harm the pro-IE people in any way. It's about denying choice to the end user.

Sure, it's about denying the choice to let them remove it. But so what? It's not a big deal, it's not as if Microsoft is denying the ability to install alternative browsers.

[apocolypse]

Sure, it's about denying the choice to let them remove it. But so what? It's not a big deal, it's not as if Microsoft is denying the ability to install alternative browsers.

That was my thought when reading the article. I don't think anyone here would consider MS and its business practices to be "saintly" or whatnot, but to me it's much ado about nothing. If MS set it up that I can use IE and only IE, it's a legitimate grievance. But yeah, considering that I'm using Firefox right now on a machine that's practically MS's bitch, that's obviously not the case. Quite frankly I think the lawsuit is silly as stands since I'm not being forced to use IE, and a waste of time and money. Not to mention the various other issues with the removal of IE as already listed by posters.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while, every major web browsers is free, and IE can be used to download them. Without IE installed, the user has to go get a physical disk or drive to be any other web browsers on the computer, it get it through some kind of LAN. How the hell is competition or the consumer being helped by that? That is what anti trust law is supposed to do, not exist for its own sake.

This sounds exactly like the EU trying to look busy against a househole name, when its blatant that it would change absolutely nothing in terms of ‘competition’ for free products, and easily hurt more then help. They’d be doing a hell of a lot more service to themselves if they spent these legal resources going after makers of spyware, or maybe all the Chinese companies busily stealing patens by the tens of thousands. But going after Microsoft is high profile, helps make a largely ignorant public look less harshly at the enormous budget for EU. If a company with 1% market share did the same thing with its own OS and browser you can be certain this would never come to court.

[Darth Fanboy]

I am not viewing this thread in Opera right now because IE was forced upon me by Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who broke into my home and threatened to blugeon me to death with a couple of boxes containing Windows.

[General Zod]

If a company with 1% market share did the same thing with its own OS and browser you can be certain this would never come to court.

You mean . . .like Apple?

[Solauren]

I am not viewing this thread in Opera right now because IE was forced upon me by Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who broke into my home and threatened to blugeon me to death with a couple of boxes containing Windows.

Fanboy, I think you just summoned up the stupidity of this entire case in one comment.

Beautiful.

[Ambassador]

(which, by the way, is full of nonsense. IE Hotfixes slowing the computer down? Where's his numbers?)

He doesn't say that ANYWHERE. And he does back up his claims with proof.

EDIT: I'm sorry didn't respond to the other points, but I'm working right now. Hopefully later I'll be able to respond.

[Xon]

Right, using task manager to measure memory usage. Utterly worthless. No to mention those platforms have wildly different memory amounts which radically changes how windows can use memory.

[phongn]

He doesn't say that ANYWHERE. And he does back up his claims with proof.

"IE6 hotfixes will slow your machine down." (In Step 8).

He further made bold claims such as "I've answered every criticism like this already, years ago, in blogs, forums, and on Usenet." If he has already done so, why hasn't he done so on his own site? The person who authors that site just sounds like another penny-wise pound-foolish guy who has just enough knowledge about computers to be dangerous.

Right, using task manager to measure memory usage. Utterly worthless. No to mention those platforms have wildly different memory amounts which radically changes how windows can use memory.

And thanks to modern memory management, it doesn't even matter since it'll be paged out anyways!

[phongn]

Really, just requiring Microsoft to allow third-party browsers be the default one would accomplish the goals Ambassador seems to originally have wanted to do: increase competition in the marketplace.

[Isil`Zha]

How's this for not uninstalling IE:

There are still many websites and webapps that require IE to even display, due to utilizing certain IE-only components. My solution is, of course, to use IE Tabs to view webpages that require IE - but it still requires Firefox to render the page using IE.

So, if you want to view some webapp/webpage made my Microsoft, or some developer that has made their webpage or webapp to use IE components, you need IE anyway (unfortunately.)

[General Zod]

How's this for not uninstalling IE:

There are still many websites and webapps that require IE to even display, due to utilizing certain IE-only components. My solution is, of course, to use IE Tabs to view webpages that require IE - but it still requires Firefox to render the page using IE.

Can you name any prominent websites that still have this requirement? I recall running into perhaps all of 3 such websites in the last ten years, and they wound up being utterly useless to me.

[phongn]

Can you name any prominent websites that still have this requirement? I recall running into perhaps all of 3 such websites in the last ten years, and they wound up being utterly useless to me.

AT&T's online signup site didn't work in Safari or Firefox.

[General Zod]

Can you name any prominent websites that still have this requirement? I recall running into perhaps all of 3 such websites in the last ten years, and they wound up being utterly useless to me.

AT&T's online signup site didn't work in Safari or Firefox.

I just went there through Firefox and it worked fine.

[phongn]

I just went there through Firefox and it worked fine.

Did you go all the way through attempting to execute an order for service?