Europe to get only full version of Win7E and no browser as ordered.

[AlanHK]

And if this is Anti-Trust, and not Anti-Microsoft, why does it not extend to OS X

Because MS has over 90% of the market.

Thus legally a monopoly. Thus they need to be restrained from using their market dominance to crush competitors.

Also, European countries have enacted laws to open iTunes formats, because Apple dominates that market.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4828296.stm
No one gives a shit about Zune. So it's not about "Europeans hate Microsoft". (Though I think that's an entirely reasonable attitude myself.)

[edDV]

What about Nokia? Don't they have dominant cell phone browser share?

I'm trying to think of an example where EU dominates.

[G)-(OST]

MS should be able to offer their own browser with "their" operating system, full stop.

They ARE allowed to OFFER it, Exclamation mark.

Your not getting it are you? why has MS been asked to recode Win7E just because EU thinks that someone else should have a go at leading the browser war, maybe MS should stop creating IE all together, but then again, MS should be asked to stop creating opperating systems that apparently, so many hate.

Maybe they should ask them not to bundle image viewer, media player etc even a small app like calculator could be avoided with there opperating system.

I say again, it is their opperating system, they should be allowed to bundle it with their internet browser.

[AlanHK]

What about Nokia? Don't they have dominant cell phone browser share?

I'm trying to think of an example where EU dominates.

There isn't a law against being dominant. It's using that to prevent competition that is the issue.

[AlanHK]

I say again, it is their opperating system, they should be allowed to bundle it with their internet browser.

That's YOUR opinion. But fortunately it isn't the law.

You like unrestricted capitalism?

It's their bank, they should be able to give loans to whoever they want!
That worked well for the finance industry, didn't it?

[G)-(OST]

You like unrestricted capitalism?

NO!

It's their bank, they should be able to give loads to whoever they want!
That worked well for the finance industry, didn't it?

WTF!

I'd rather be arguing about what brand of beer tastes better.

[bacardi/avt]

This browser thing is just one of those times when nobody wants to back down and admit that they where wrong (politicians loosing their face! not good).

I, for one is NOT looking forward to this since it will surely make my life harder (I usually get the calls from friends and relatives when their computer is acting up.).

But WE do have some laws and regulations inside the EU that one might find a bit strange (or in some cases just insane).

Like the rule that french radio MUST play music in french a minimum of 75% fo the time (or something like that).

[stiltman]

IE is not 90% anymore
EU said MS must include other vendors browser within MS's OS, or they must not carry any at all. MS decided to not include other vendors browser, that left them with one choice, no browsers at all.

I agree, If the UE considers IE to be against the law, then that means EVERY included app with Windows is against the law.

All Mac OS computers break the law. All Linux OS distributions break the law. As all these OS's do not include every competitors app.

I also agree this is just the EU commision doing a shake down on MS in this case...Once the UE thinks they got all the money they can get out of MS, they will move on to the next largest company and do the same thing. That's what the EU commision was set up for...Not to help the consumer. They're set up to bring in money. They've proved that by their actions.

[AlanHK]

IE is not 90% anymore
EU said MS must include other vendors browser within MS's OS, or they must not carry any at all. MS decided to not include other vendors browser, that left them with one choice, no browsers at all.

I agree, If the UE considers IE to be against the law, then that means EVERY included app with Windows is against the law.

All Mac OS computers break the law. All Linux OS distributions break the law. As all these OS's do not include every competitors app.

I also agree this is just the EU commision doing a shake down on MS in this case...Once the UE thinks they got all the money they can get out of MS, they will move on to the next largest company and do the same thing. That's what the EU commision was set up for...Not to help the consumer. They're set up to bring in money. They've proved that by their actions.

Very funny.

[disturbed1]

And if this is Anti-Trust, and not Anti-Microsoft, why does it not extend to OS X and Safari/iLife etc., or any Linux Distro that chooses to ship with only a single browser. The EU (and it's predecessor) has a long history or inconsistent and just plain dumb decisions, and this is just another one.

I've wondered the same thing. However, I can see what was attempted to be accomplished. The EU wants Microsoft to bundle and/or make available other browsers on the installation medium. A good way to go about this, would be upon first install a dialog prompts the user to choose a web browser, then Windows will download and install the application. Similar to how Internet Explorer prompts you for choosing the default search engine on first run. This opens a can of worms though. Which browsers should be offered? Who would decide this? What if only IE and Firefox are offered? Could Opera and Google then sue for being left out?

I see this as an opportunity for Mozilla and retail stores. They can now bundle a branded USB stick with the Firefox installation application. I'm sure Microsoft will capitalize on the event. They can recoup the discounted OS cost buy selling a boxed retail copy of Internet Explorer. Throw in an aquarium screen saver, and the boxes will fly off the shelf.

Not sure about OS X, but most Linux distrobutions have a package manager that can install applications from the internet. This package manager is not intertwined with a default browser. You could install Linux with no web browser, then simply apt-get install firefox/seamonkey,epiphany,opera,$WHATEVER (or use yum, emerge, slackpkg, pacman, depending on which Linux you use).

[Rudyard]

My view of all this is that at the end of the day all this does is make life harder for some consumers and makes nothing easier.

Where do they stop? What legal right does VLC or GOM media player now have to force MS to not bundle WMP? WMM is in competition to all the video editors out there yet it is bundled.

In a nutshell, in 2009 an internet browser bundled with an OS is not to much to ask, nor is it to much to expect that the company making the OS to use its own products.

There is competition, if you hate MS, use apple and its bundled gear, if you hate apple and ms use linux and its bundled gear, if your retro use a C64 and break the 100m dash record in summer games with your joystick but at the end of the day lets not waste so much time and money over essentially nothing.

Last I checked you can use any compatible browser at your choosing on windows.

[Rudyard]

Also, what is anti-trust? the American term for anti competative?

[edDV]

Also, what is anti-trust? the American term for anti competative?

Yes, goes back to the late 1800's oil, rail and steel "trusts" and T.R. Roosevelt as the trust buster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust-busting

[G)-(OST]

Also, what is anti-trust? the American term for anti competative?

Yes, goes back to the late 1800's oil, rail and steel "trusts" and T.R. Roosevelt as the trust buster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust-busting

Interesting wiki reading

[gll99]

I always believed the problem with IE is you can't uninstall it. It's built into the window shell. I thought that this was the "Anti-Trust" part of the argument. Had it been a standalone program that is installed and removed the same as any other browser, there would have been no case otherwise where does it end. No disk or file manager (My Computer, Explorer, Management tools), no media player, no network setup, no default desktop etc..??? I was sure that this was all about MS not integrating everything into the OS and then having an unfair advantage over competitors who are forced to work on the periphery of the OS. No one minds if MS benefits from the OS that they developed and they are free to design and include standalone applications but many don't want them to incorporate browsers, media players etc.. into the OS itself. When it comes to those external programs, they want them to compete with everyone else on a level playing field.

I can see why this would cause upgrade issues for MS versions but I'm not convinced that MS can't release a standalone version of their browser or the option to download one from their site as long as the user can choose. If MS refuses to do that then IMO, they are just playing games with the ruling. (see btw for self rebuttal)

btw) Now I'll contradict my last 2 statements by playing the devil's advocate. If what is reported in that lead-in article is true, then I find the part of the ruling that would see MS release another company's browser a bit puzzling. What if 1000s of developers come forward some freeware, trialware and others for outright sale only. MS cannot filter these programs or they will be accused of bias. Is MS expected to become a merchandise intermediary coerced to act as a distribution or even troubleshooting point for these third party vendors without compensation? What of the legal ramifications if they provide links to or supply a copy of other companies browsers and they accidentally cause harm or turn out to be malware? Even if MS was guaranteed to be absolved of any responsibility it could mislead people into thinking that MS is endorsing these products and tarnish their reputation if they disseminate them or provide links on their install discs. After all who reads the disclaimers? Surely MS has obtained legal advise that suggested to them that they must avoid this scenario and that is why, if the options are all or none, they have chosen to release a version without a browser included on their install discs. Under the circumstances, rather than find fault with this decision I think they chose the only logical course. Frankly as the devil's advocate given those two choices that would be my unsolicited counsel.

[AlanHK]

I can see why this would cause upgrade issues for MS versions but I'm not convinced that MS can't release a standalone version of their browser or the option to download one from their site

Of course they can. I just do not believe "No upgrade possible" as in the original article.

You can get versions of IE on Macs, Linux, WinCE, etc. So of course they can make one that installs in their own OS as a separate application.

They just mean that "you can't unpgrade unless you get the file not included in the base system"
Which IS THE WHOLE F***ING POINT.

I can think of dozens of ways they could do this painlessly, so even the clueless idiots that other posters say will be bamboozled by this will be able to handle it without drama.
Eg, if email works, send an message to MS to get the small bootstrap program sent to you that downloads and installs IE (like Sun Java or Adobe's Flash installer).

It would actually be much better to ensure that users had the latest patched version right from the start, rather than an outdated version that gets the PC pwned the moment it's turned on.

Anyway, this won't happen overnight. There will be plenty of publicity and plenty of alternatives offered long before the neutered version is released.
Though I suspect that somehow MS will subvert the process and almost everyone will end up with IE installed regardless.

What of the legal ramifications if they provide links to or supply a copy of other companies browsers

This doesn't seem to be an issue for all the OEMs who preinstall all kinds of crapware with Windows.
All it takes is a few pages of small print disclaimers. MS already takes no responsibilty if their software blows up your PC.

[edDV]

As said in the article and above the "no upgrade" issue relates to the need to format your disk and install Win7E fresh. There will be no upgrade of existing Vista installs without reformat and fresh install. From there you install all your apps and the browser that you acquire elsewhere. This will be a pain for existing Vista owners*.

In the rest the world Vista can be upgraded to Win7 without reformat and reinstall of all apps.

MS has stated repeatedly that separation of the browser from the OS requires a near full rewrite of the OS.


*XP upgraders to Win7 need to reformat anywhere in the world.

[fitch.j]

What is stopping Euro's buying a US win7 copy and using that?....just out of interest?

Just like Windows XP N that was for euros....but how many people use that!?

If your not sure what i'm on about here.... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/886540

[edDV]

It would be illegal for MS or any retailer to sell a US version to a EU location.

[fitch.j]

I've bought many copies of XP (probably about 10 copies now), one only a month ago....yet none of them have ever been XP N.

I dont see how 7E will be any different.

[AlanHK]

As said in the article and above the "no upgrade" issue relates to the need to format your disk and install Win7E fresh. There will be no upgrade of existing Vista installs without reformat and fresh install.

That's just an assumption made by the guy who wrote the article.
We're a long way from seeing the actual implementation.

Why couldn't a new install inherit an already installed version of IE? As long as it's not bundled, MS would be within the law to just keep the old version.

If they force you to nuke your old install, it would only be bloody mindedness on MS's part.

It would be illegal for MS or any retailer to sell a US version to a EU location.

And how do you know that?
It isn't now.
Actually American software companies may refuse to sell to other markets because they get a much fatter profit from the local retailers. It's not "illegal", it's just market segmentation. But you can still purchase via resellers.

Do you imagine that customs inspectors are going to force travellers to delete their US versions of Windows on arrival?

[SatStorm]

Only few Europeans replayed in this threat. Why?
(an answer could be that probably less and less Europeans are active on the forum those days, but this is another story)

I like this option, with no media player and no ie browser.
The installation of Media Player Classic, VLC and FireFox/Opera is very easy.

In Europe, building your own PC is much more common that in the USA. Ready solutions are not so popular for various reasons. So, the installation of third party software is a much more common practice here that there.
In the past, the same have been told for Linux and to explain the popularity it has in Europe.

Personally, I gonna buy this windows version, if it is cheaper the other versions. But overall, I try to migrate to Linux. I hope I'll make it one day!

[stiltman]

Only few Europeans replayed in this threat. Why?
(an answer could be that probably less and less Europeans are active on the forum those days, but this is another story)

Posts (note, I lumped all unspecified locations into USA)
USA = 28
HongKong = 16
Australia = 2
UK = 2
Canada = 1
Sweden = 1
Greece = 1

Doesn't look bad to me

[SatStorm]

My point exactly! Thanks stiltman!

[edDV]

It would be illegal for MS or any retailer to sell a US version to a EU location.

And how do you know that?
It isn't now.

I assumed that was what this was all about.

So, if MS can just sell the US version in Europe without EU commission opposition then why don't they? Maybe they can sell it at a premium.

[fitch.j]

Shops won't stock 7E over here if its like XP N was.

And of course the US stockists will sell to EU. They'll sell it at a higher price than the 7E would be, but after a while most independant computer shops here will have it in stock. It would only ever be the biggest major PC Superstores that wouldnt stock it, and even then they still stock US XP and not XP N.

[stiltman]

My point exactly! Thanks stiltman!

OK let's look at it a different way.
Looks to me that USA stats are trending down!!!

[stiltman]

Back on topic.
I was reading that the EU commision could still force MS to include IE and other browsers and not accept MS's current method of compliance

Wait and watch, I'm sure their will be changes coming. Opera is trying their hardest to get thier browser on the desktop as an option.

[RabidDog]

MS are looking over their shoulder (or into their crystal ball) and see in the future Chrome OS. Incidentally MS were fined for anti-competitive behaviour, which included among other things, Only including IE and stating it was inextricable from the OS.
Whether we are getting a better deal I don't know .. But the end of the monolithic OS is in sight/. I think MS can see the Fatted Calf has laid the last of the Golden Eggs. £200 for OS in days of £250 hardware is simply unpardonable.

To paraphrase "Never, in the course of Desktop computing, has so much, been made by so few, for so little".

[edDV]

I can't wait to see what a browserless Chrome looks like.