Windows 7 to come without any browser installed in EU

[Dominus Atheos]

Ars Technica

Microsoft has announced that it will ship a special version of Vista's successor in Europe, titled Windows 7 E, without Internet Explorer 8. The browser-less version, a reaction to an antitrust investigation by the EU into whether Microsoft is abusing its dominant position with Windows and Internet Explorer, will be distributed in all member nations of the European Economic Area as well as Croatia and Switzerland.

Windows 7 E is reminiscent of media-player-free Windows XP N and Windows Vista N, which Microsoft offered in Europe also in response to an EU antitrust investigation. Unlike the N versions, which proved to be very unsuccessful—as Europeans simply purchased the full retail versions and OEMs refused to include them on their systems—Microsoft is not planning to offer a version of Windows 7 in Europe that includes IE8. This means that none of the versions of Windows 7 sold in Europe will include a Microsoft's browser.

As first reported by CNET and confirmed by Microsoft, OEMs will have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser, or ship multiple browsers. "The E versions of Windows 7 will include all the features and functionality of Windows 7 in the rest of the world, other than browsing with Internet Explorer," Microsoft notes. "Computer manufacturers will be able to add any browser they want to their Windows 7 machines, including Internet Explorer, so European consumers who purchase new PCs will be able to access the Internet without any problem. Consumers will also be able to add any Web browser to their PCs, to supplement or replace the browsers preinstalled by their computer manufacturer."

Microsoft notes that the decision affects both OEM and Retail versions of Windows 7 products. While OEMs will have access to a free "IE8 pack" that allows them to add the browser back in, consumers who purchase retail copies will not have a browser that they can use to download a browser. Therefore, Microsoft will offer IE8 via CD, FTP, and retail channels. It looks like Mozilla, Opera, Google, and Apple will have to do the same if they want European Windows 7 adopters to have access to their browsers.

Microsoft does not currently have plans to remove Internet Explorer from any versions of Windows XP or Windows Vista, nor from the Windows XP mode add-on for Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate.

Recently, the EU has been asking companies what they saw as the best way to remedy the browser-bundling situation, and was even considering a way to get Microsoft to bundle third-party browsers with the operating system, forcing users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which to set as the default. Microsoft wasn't so keen on the idea of distributing third-party browsers, so it has apparently taken the matter into its own hands and decided to remove IE8 altogether, knowing that the EU already approved of the N editions.

This isn't what the software giant originally wanted to do, as it had previously argued in its legal filings with the EU that the browser was an integral part of the operating system. With the release of the Windows 7 Release Candidate, Microsoft has made it possible to remove IE8 (the beta did not allow this), along with many other Windows components. [W]e’re committed to launching Windows 7 on time in Europe, so we need to address the legal realities in Europe, including the risk of large fines," says Microsoft. "We believe that this new approach, while not our first choice, is the best path forward given the ongoing legal case in Europe."

The European Commission is of two minds on Microsoft's move, pleased by the possibility of OEMs being able to offer multiple browsers, but disappointed that Microsoft itself is not providing consumers with the choice. "As for retail sales, which amount to less than 5 percent of total sales, the Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of Web browsers," the EC said in a statement. "Instead Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a Web browser at all. Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less."

The timing of this decision is quite ironic: the browser space has never been as competitive as it is now. Furthermore, rivals continue to chip away at Internet Explorer's market share month after month. Still, third-party browser makers like Opera, Mozilla, and Google have been pushing the EU for tough sanctions against Microsoft. Unless the EU has objections to Microsoft's decision, it looks like new Windows 7 PCs sold in the EU will be IE-free.

[Dominus Atheos]

Here's a question, do you think anyone at Opera realized that even if OEMs are forced to bundle their browser with all new computers, they are probably aren't going to stop their long-standing practice of setting the browser's default search engine to whoever pays them the most money? In other words, even if Opera wins the lawsuit they probably aren't going to make a red cent off of it?

[Hawkwings]

So does this mean that if I go buy a copy of Windows 7 in Europe and upgrade my computer myself, I'll be stuck with no way to get a web browser? Am I missing something here?

[Netko]

95% of consumers apparently get Windows by buying a new computer, so they should be covered by the OEM, while if you fall into the remaining 5% and buy (or otherwise get) your own, then, yes, you will have to install a browser which will probably entail getting it on some other computer or some other way (MS is promising free IE CDs at all Windows retail outlets). But if you do fall into that 5% that shouldn't really be a problem for you.

Honestly don't know if this is better then the proposed pick-your-browser screen, but apparently Microsoft didn't want to have anything to do with supporting or promoting third party browsers and so deployed this strategy so that there wouldn't be even a hint of that.

It will be interesting to see what this will do to browser market-share in Europe.

[DaveJB]

So does this mean that if I go buy a copy of Windows 7 in Europe and upgrade my computer myself, I'll be stuck with no way to get a web browser? Am I missing something here?

I'm guessing Windows 7 will be able to download Internet Explorer through the Automatic Updates system. Either that or they'll go back to doing what they did with Windows 95 and include IE on a separate disc.

[Uraniun235]

It looks like the EU is going to prosecute anyway.

[Ryan Thunder]

It looks like the EU is going to prosecute anyway.

Oh, so they've given up any pretense of actually having reasonable expectations, then.

[DaveJB]

As asinine as the EU's demands may appear to be, they wouldn't actually be that hard to meet - all Microsoft would have to do would be to stick a CD with Internet Explorer, Firefox and all the other major browsers in the box with Windows 7; I can't imagine that'd be more expensive than whatever potential fine the EU might impose.

I get the feeling that the EU is somehow trying to overcompensate for the fact that the American DoJ's efforts to break up Microsoft's monopoly ended up achieving virtually nothing. They don't seem to realise that Firefox and Microsoft's own idiocy in thinking that IE6 was perfect and needed no new versions have done far more to create competition in the browser space than anything the DoJ or EU has ever done.

[The Kernel]

And people wonder why no one takes the EU courts seriously in their anti-trust investigations...

It's so fashionable to hit Microsoft with these sorts of allegations, but what the hell is the problem with packing in software? EVERYONE does it, what makes Microsoft so special? Hell, Apple does the same damn thing with OSX, and they even include a bunch of productivity and media applications.

[Genii Lodus]

Even if Microsoft are a convicted monopolist I don't see how the current situation where it's trivially easy to replace IE and Windows 7 lets IE be made unavailable justifies the stupid measure of mandating that a modern OS ships without an internet browser. MacOS and Linux distros come with one by default why can't Windows? With most people using their PC just for email and browsing an OS without a browser is pathetically useless. It isn't feasible for Microsoft to list every web browser as a choice for the end user because A people don't give a fuck and B there are a ridiculous number of browsers available and more appear every month - should Microsoft have to show every random shitty program out there that calls itself a browser. If not why not? Why treat the more popular programs specially?

The increasing popularity of Firefox over IE in the EU makes it especially pointless for the EU to prosecute this with such vigour. I agree with the general principle of not strengthening monopolies but I don't see their OS monopoly lasting much longer with more and more applications moving to an internet/cloud based model where the underlying OS is completely irrelevant. If Opera want more market share they can try creating a browser which makes available the features people want in a modern browser easily and without hassle rather than creating something which does everything badly through a crappy ugly interface. Marketing their browser so the average person might have heard of it would also help.

[Hawkwings]

I'm still waiting for the day when people start complaining that Microsoft packages Wordpad into Windows for free, thereby providing a free word processor that unfairly knocks out the competition (which consists of... hmm... can't think of anything. OPenoffice doesn't count).

And Microsoft is also going to provide a basic antivirus apparently. Are they going to have to purposely gimp that so it doesn't "unfairly compete" with money-making applications out there?

[Ryushikaze]

What I'm curious about, speaking of anti-monopoly and similar practices- is why no one's trying to go after HDCP lockout nonsense.

As for the current issue- I don't think they necessarily need to stop shipping IE, just make it easily uninstallable, no fuss, no muss. That, or don't 'bundle' it, but provide a disc, as they used to.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

As for the current issue- I don't think they necessarily need to stop shipping IE, just make it easily uninstallable, no fuss, no muss. That, or don't 'bundle' it, but provide a disc, as they used to.

The argument being used, I think, is that the vast majority of people just use whatever browser comes pre-installed and don't bother to go looking for another one. Thus, Microsoft including IE with Windows, the most common OS in the world, means they have an unfair advantage. Making it uninstallable wouldn't help that, because most people wouldn't bother to go looking for an alternative. I suppose you could make hte same argument about providing it on a separate disk with only IE on it as well; sure, it doesn't come pre-installed, but it's still the default choice because it came included with the OS.

Not that the latter problem is at all relevant, since it's only really a problem with people who build their own PCs, who would probably be aware of alternatives and have decided whether they're going to use them or not anyway. Forcing Microsoft to offer competitors produces is stupid, but forcing them to not make IE come bundled with Windows makes sense if you accept the above argument, because it means that you might get OEMs giving people the option of various browsers, rather than just leaving IE on there because it's not worth the effort of installing anything else. I guess most of them will just install IE anyway, though, because it's what people expect.

[Netko]

I'm still waiting for the day when people start complaining that Microsoft packages Wordpad into Windows for free, thereby providing a free word processor that unfairly knocks out the competition (which consists of... hmm... can't think of anything. OPenoffice doesn't count).

And Microsoft is also going to provide a basic antivirus apparently. Are they going to have to purposely gimp that so it doesn't "unfairly compete" with money-making applications out there?

Why do you think Wordpad, Notepad and a host of other applications are utterly basic and fundamentally unchanged since Windows 3.1? Precisely because MS doesn't want to be accused of unfair competition. It is also one of the primary reasons why you won't, by default (they will have to be downloaded), get a mail client, movie maker and all the other apps that used to be bundled but are now considered "Live" apps.

System applications tend to be treated somewhat differently then user applications and there is less of a focus on them when looking at unfair competition. MS is also almost certainly doing the weird "hosted service" dance with Morro at least partially to allay any monopoly considerations - by basic design, Morro is utterly unacceptable to enterprise customers which is where the money is primarily in the antivirus market. And even conceptually, its hard to fathom that an OS maker would not be allowed to secure its product more competently against threats.

[Kurgan]

There's a windows 7? This is what I get for not reading slashdot in a blue moon...


Let's see...

Windows 1-3.11...
Windows for Workgroups
Windows NT
Windows 95A-C
Windows 97
Windows 98-98SE
Windows Millennium Edition
Windows 2000-2kPro
Windows XP (and all those funky editions, including Windows 2003 Server)
Windows Vista (and all its editions)
...

I guess it's the 7th consumer edition, and the non-32/64 bit editions don't count in the chronology?

[Netko]

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/window ... why-7.aspx

Basically, you have versions 1 through 3 named by version names, 95-Me are all in the version 4 family, 2000 and XP are in the version 5 family, while Vista is in the version 6 family. There are also corresponding server versions in each of those families.

Where it gets screwy is that internally, Windows 7 is actually version 6.1, for compatibility reasons as well as the fact that it isn't much of a change architecturally. The server version of 6.1 is actually going to be named Windows Server 2008 R2.

So basically, on the one hand some sanity was added to the Windows naming scheme (really, 7 is much much better then yet another "clever" "aspirational" name), on the other they are making a product with the version in its name that internally is a completely different version.

[Phantasee]

I think it's understandable that they would want to try and make a break with Vista after the horrible public perception of it (can I please get this awesome laptop with 6GB of RAM with WinXP please?). It wouldn't help them much if they sold it as Vista 2 or whatever (even if it is).

[Uraniun235]

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/window ... why-7.aspx

Basically, you have versions 1 through 3 named by version names, 95-Me are all in the version 4 family, 2000 and XP are in the version 5 family, while Vista is in the version 6 family. There are also corresponding server versions in each of those families.

There were also NT versions 3.1 through 4.0. Windows 2000 was originally going to be named NT 5.0. The product lines were merged with Windows XP.

[Uraniun235]

Windows 97

Windows 2000-2kPro

Windows XP (and all those funky editions, including Windows 2003 Server)

There was only one Windows 2000 workstation version: Windows 2000 Professional. All other versions of 2000 were Windows 2000 Server variants (including Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server).

Server 2003 isn't a version of XP.

[Uraniun235]

Forgot to note: There is no Windows 97. You may be thinking of Office 97.