Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU: Browser-free Windows Gives No Real Choice  
User currently offlinePNQIAD From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

EU: browser-free Windows gives no real choice

Quote:

European Union regulators said Friday that Microsoft Corp. was offering less choice, not more, by vowing to sell the next version of Windows without any Web browsers at all.

Microsoft said Thursday that it would remove its Internet Explorer browser — and not include any alternatives — in the Windows 7 software it will sell from Oct. 22 in Europe to soothe EU antitrust concerns.

....

A "must carry" option that would offer several browsers was a better option, the EU executive suggested, because "consumers should be provided with a genuine choice of browsers" on the software that manufacturers install on computers.

While I agree that forcing to use IE may be construed abusive - but forcing Microsoft to put competitors' browsers in its installation packet is a little overreach by EU IMO. So what's next? Forcing Oracle to put SQL server on its distribution disks or download packages?

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4891 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

Yeah this is stupid as hell. Why would they load FF etc on Windows installations. Ridiculous.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2156 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2179 times:



Quoting PNQIAD (Thread starter):
While I agree that forcing to use IE may be construed abusive - but forcing Microsoft to put competitors' browsers in its installation packet is a little overreach by EU IMO. So what's next? Forcing Oracle to put SQL server on its distribution disks or download packages?

I think you missed the point. MS was pushing their browser on people through the dominating market position of their OS thus undermining Netscape Navigator.

Hell Netscape Navigator doesn't even exist today so that part was quite successful. However it was not legal now was it? No it wasn't.

It is completely up to MS whether they include no browsers or options with Windows. The EU was simply pointing out that the «no browser» option was the less preferable one.

The EU is not forcing MS to include anything with their OS.

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

I really don't see the harm in Windows shipping their OS with just IE in the first place. However, preventing Firefox or another competitor's browser from running on Windows is wrong. It took me about three minutes to download Firefox when I first got it.


A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2162 times:



Quoting N867DA (Reply 3):
really don't see the harm in Windows shipping their OS with just IE in the first place. However, preventing Firefox or another competitor's browser from running on Windows is wrong. It took me about three minutes to download Firefox when I first got it.

Windows never restricted competitors products from running on the OS. Firefox, Netscape , Opera, Mozilla and Safari will all run on windows.

The EU took Microsoft to task for being a Monopoly and bundling in the IE. The fact that IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and others have all still remained free still has me shaking my head over the whole lawsuit, as it was a really big waste of time and money and really didn't change much.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 2):
It is completely up to MS whether they include no browsers or options with Windows. The EU was simply pointing out that the «no browser» option was the less preferable one.

NO SH&T! Who'da thunk it?

Had they figured that out 10 years ago everyone would have avoided this whole unpleasantness and gone on about their business.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 3):
However, preventing Firefox or another competitor's browser from running on Windows is wrong.

They never did that.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 2):
I think you missed the point. MS was pushing their browser on people through the dominating market position of their OS thus undermining Netscape Navigator.

All Netscape would have had to do is create and sell their own operating system and packaged it with Navigator. What? Too hard? Want to ride on the back of Microsoft? Poor babies.

Quoting PNQIAD (Thread starter):
but forcing Microsoft to put competitors' browsers in its installation packet is a little overreach by EU IMO

Absolutely. Anything that Microsoft puts on their disks is defacto theirs, and they are forced to support it. Why the hell should they have to support, let's say, Mozilla if Mozilla gives them faulty code that causes problems upon installation?

[Edited 2009-06-12 07:58:01]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWaterpolodan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

So if they ship it with no browser, I assume that means one must download a browser and install it, but how does one download a browser without a browser in the first place? Sort of confusing...

User currently offlinePNQIAD From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2146 times:



Quoting Waterpolodan (Reply 6):
So if they ship it with no browser, I assume that means one must download a browser and install it, but how does one download a browser without a browser in the first place? Sort of confusing...

I guess EU expects its citizens to either go online on someone else's computer and order a disk or mail in a good ol' paper based request for a disk?  Smile Unless likes of AOL still regularly mail coasters errr CDs in the mail.....


User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2124 times:



Quoting Waterpolodan (Reply 6):
So if they ship it with no browser, I assume that means one must download a browser and install it, but how does one download a browser without a browser in the first place? Sort of confusing...

Ahh, in the old days when browsers were new, there used to be these things called CD's and FTP sites  Smile



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

If the reporting is correct (these topics are like aviation, not the best journalism). I really see it as an unreasonable demand.

User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2090 times:



Quoting PNQIAD (Thread starter):
So what's next? Forcing Oracle to put SQL server on its distribution disks or download packages?

Theres just so much wrong with this analogy it just isnt worth replying! Oracle dont have a monopoly on databases, oracle dont include other oracle products bundled with their database in an attempt to bankrupt other companies... the list goes on.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 4):
Windows never restricted competitors products from running on the OS. Firefox, Netscape , Opera, Mozilla and Safari will all run on windows.

No, but they did restrict access to Windows Update and other Microsoft based services, and use APIs that were not available to other developers to integrate IE into the operating system.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 4):
The EU took Microsoft to task for being a Monopoly and bundling in the IE. The fact that IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and others have all still remained free still has me shaking my head over the whole lawsuit, as it was a really big waste of time and money and really didn't change much.

Thats exactly why this lawsuit should have gone ahead! Where is Netscape in that list? Netscape made money out of selling a browser, Microsoft abused their position and forced them to go bust, Microsoft then abandoned IE6 as their objective was complete. The only way anyone could compete was to offer the browser free of charge. Microsoft abused their position, and should be brought to task over it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
All Netscape would have had to do is create and sell their own operating system and packaged it with Navigator. What? Too hard? Want to ride on the back of Microsoft? Poor babies.

How absurd! Why should they? They had a perfectly good business selling a product for PC's that Microsoft had no interest in. then one day MS decided they wanted a piece of the pie, and abused their position to force them out of the market.

Lets keep your suggestion going, and have tire manufacturers build their own cars to be used with them, TV manufacturers could build their own electricity grids and power stations to supply their TVs....  Yeah sure

I think I prefer the free market myself...



That'll teach you
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2081 times:



Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 10):
Thats exactly why this lawsuit should have gone ahead! Where is Netscape in that list? Netscape made money out of selling a browser, Microsoft abused their position and forced them to go bust, Microsoft then abandoned IE6 as their objective was complete. The only way anyone could compete was to offer the browser free of charge. Microsoft abused their position, and should be brought to task over it.

Netscape tried to sell an eterprise version with mail(Communicator 3 and 4). The base OS was always free. (at least to college students and anyone who went around the public licensing).


The truth of the argument is that Lynx (text browser) was always free, and Microsoft rightly saw what the Internet was. A platform that needed to be accessed to enable functionality. Paying for a browser was not the way to get people to that content. Netscape even new it was not the way to go, but unfortunately they got bought by AOL and destroyed. Netscape did not go bust because of IE.

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 10):
No, but they did restrict access to Windows Update and other Microsoft based services, and use APIs that were not available to other developers to integrate IE into the operating system.

Because it was their software. The funny part of the whole arguement is that the EU was pissed off at Microsoft for not allowing others to access their code, because they treated Microsoft as a Monopoly. Which Microsoft isn't as Apple and Linux continue to prove.

In all honesty the EU action was a waste of time and money and accomplished nothing.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePNQIAD From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2066 times:



Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 10):
Theres just so much wrong with this analogy it just isnt worth replying! Oracle dont have a monopoly on databases, oracle dont include other oracle products bundled with their database in an attempt to bankrupt other companies... the list goes on.

In strictest terms of the word monopoly - neither does Microsoft have one - there are plenty of options if users choose to buy - Unix, Linux and a gazillion different variations of those. The fact is that consumers also want it cheap. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And before you go bashing - I am very much against monopolies and abusive trade practices - the browser issue just does not rise to the level IMO....

This is like saying that an airline in a country X which does most of domestic routes in that country (for whatever reasons - may be the market is just not attractive enough commercially for others) with very tiny competition should offer on its flight or website the tickets and promotions and other goodies from another airline just so others can get their choice. It just doesn't work that way....


User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2038 times:



Quoting PNQIAD (Reply 12):
In strictest terms of the word monopoly - neither does Microsoft have one - there are plenty of options if users choose to buy - Unix, Linux and a gazillion different variations of those. The fact is that consumers also want it cheap. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And before you go bashing - I am very much against monopolies and abusive trade practices - the browser issue just does not rise to the level IMO....

We are discussing desktop PC market here, so unix doesnt count. The fact is microsoft has 93.72% of the market (Source - Dec 2008), thats as close to a monopoly as you are ever going to get.

If you go by the wikipedia definition -

Quote:

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition.

... then microsoft have a massive amount of control and influence over the market, and that is what the EU are trying to prevent. Whether it truly fits the definition of 'monopoly' is irrelevant, it is not good for the market.

In any case, the US ruled on April 3, 2000 that Microsoft was indeed a monopoly. They came very close to ordering MS to be broken up, but in the end a lesser settlement was reached.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 11):
Because it was their software. The funny part of the whole arguement is that the EU was pissed off at Microsoft for not allowing others to access their code, because they treated Microsoft as a Monopoly. Which Microsoft isn't as Apple and Linux continue to prove.

Not so much access to the code - but access to the API's. Microsoft were using functions that were not documented and not revealed to give their products an edge.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

Isn't this exactly what they were demanding from Microsoft? I seem to remember Klaus et al telling us here that Microsoft was somehow killing competition by not allowing Windows to be installed without IE.
Personally, I haven't used IE on a daily basis for many years but like having it here for the odd website that won't run right on FF. I'm not a great Microsoft fanboy either but I see the Eu with some kind of vendetta.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

Some interesting background reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 4):
Windows never restricted competitors products from running on the OS. Firefox, Netscape , Opera, Mozilla and Safari will all run on windows.

In the old days, the saying at Microsoft was "DOS is not done till Lotus doesn't run!".

Later on, MS just killed off competitors by bundling or via "embrace extend and extinguish".



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1984 times:



Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 13):
Not so much access to the code - but access to the API's. Microsoft were using functions that were not documented and not revealed to give their products an edge.

All compaines have internal API's that don't get exposed to the customer. It's called good coding practices. Each develoment group in Microsofts product lines have Interfaces that other subsystems use to perform operations. These API's don't need to be released to the public, just to those other subsystems that require them. It was all microsoft's internal stuff. If they optimized IE it was their perogative. They get the edge and the money for it. The competitor product takes the optimization hit, by not having their own OS and instead relying on Microsoft.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1984 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
Later on, MS just killed off competitors by bundling or via "embrace extend and extinguish".

Microsoft has not killed off the competitors. they are still strong. Apple. Linux, Opera and Mozilla are all making headroads in.

Sun has a free office suite now.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1960 times:



Quoting CasInterest (Reply 17):
Microsoft has not killed off the competitors. they are still strong. Apple. Linux, Opera and Mozilla are all making headroads in.

Sun has a free office suite now.

Believe what you want.

One can hardly call Sun a healthy company, being just bought out by Oracle.

And from the linked article above:

* Browser incompatibilities: The plaintiffs in the antitrust case claimed that Microsoft had added support for ActiveX controls in the Internet Explorer web browser to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator, which used components based on Java and Netscape's own plugin system.

* Breaking Java's portability: The antitrust case's plaintiffs also accused Microsoft of using an "embrace and extend" strategy with regard to the Java platform, which was designed explicitly with the goal of developing programs that could run on any operating system, be it Windows, Mac, or Linux. They claimed that, by omitting the Java Native Interface from its implementation and providing J/Direct for a similar purpose, Microsoft deliberately tied Windows Java programs to its platform, making them unusable on Linux and Mac systems. According to an internal communication, Microsoft sought to downplay Java's cross-platform capability and make it "just the latest, best way to write Windows applications."[16] Microsoft paid Sun US$20 million in January 2001 to settle the resulting legal implications of their breach of contract.[17]

* Networking: In 2000, an extension to the Kerberos networking protocol (an Internet standard) was included in Windows 2000, effectively denying all products except those made by Microsoft access to a Windows 2000 Server using Kerberos.[18] The extension was published through an executable, whose running required agreeing to an NDA, disallowing third party implementation (especially open source). To allow developers to implement the new features, without having to agree to the license, users on Slashdot posted the document (disregarding the NDA), effectively allowing third party developers to access the documentation without having agreed to the NDA. Microsoft responded by asking Slashdot to remove the content.[19] The Microsoft 'extensions' to Kerberos introduced in binary form in Windows 2000 have since been described in RFC 3244 and RFC 4757 and these extensions have since been listed in Microsoft's Open Specification Promise. This document relates to "Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement" the technologies listed. Microsoft's legal statement concerning unrestricted use of Microsoft intellectual property also includes the Kerberos Network Authentication Service v5 (RFC 1510 and RFC 1964).[20]

* Instant Messaging: In 2001, CNet's News.com described an instance of "embrace, extend, extinguish" concerning Microsoft's instant messaging program.[21]

* Adobe fears: Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support in Microsoft Office, citing fears of EEE.[22] Current versions of Microsoft Office have built-in support for PDF as well as several other ISO standards.[23][24][25]

* Employee testimony: In 2007, Microsoft employee Ronald Alepin gave sworn expert testimony for the plaintiffs in Comes v. Microsoft in which he cited internal Microsoft emails to justify the claim that the company intentionally employed this practice.[26]

* More Browser Incompatibilities (CSS, data:, etc.): A decade after the original Netscape-related antitrust suit, the web browser company Opera Software has filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the European Union saying it "calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious 'Embrace, Extend and Extinguish' strategy."[27]

* ODF Spreadsheet non-conformance: In 2009, Microsoft released Office 2007 SP2, which included support to ODF. As it turns out, simple files generated by Excel could not interoperate with other applications. [28] [29] [30][31]



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1920 times:



Quoting Asturias (Reply 2):
I think you missed the point. MS was pushing their browser on people through the dominating market position of their OS thus undermining Netscape Navigator.

Hell Netscape Navigator doesn't even exist today so that part was quite successful. However it was not legal now was it? No it wasn't.

It was only illegal in the BS minds of the Eurocrats who wanted to take Microsoft down a notch. It was perfectly normal competition--MS had a huge advantage because they could bundle their browser with an operating system while Netscape had to make deals with computer OEMs like Dell and Gateway to get their browser on computers.

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 10):
Thats exactly why this lawsuit should have gone ahead! Where is Netscape in that list? Netscape made money out of selling a browser, Microsoft abused their position and forced them to go bust, Microsoft then abandoned IE6 as their objective was complete. The only way anyone could compete was to offer the browser free of charge. Microsoft abused their position, and should be brought to task over it.

Funny thing is, the last time I downloaded Firefox it was free. Netscape couldn't compete and what the Euros want to do is force everyone to suffer because of it. Lawsuits like this form government diktats drive up the cost for everyone who buys Microsoft's products.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3380 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1910 times:



Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 10):
No, but they did restrict access to Windows Update and other Microsoft based services, and use APIs that were not available to other developers to integrate IE into the operating system.

This is kind of moot now if you have Vista where Windows update is a control panel window. I assume that 7 will keep that format because it is one of Vista's best new features.

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 13):
We are discussing desktop PC market here, so unix doesnt count. The fact is microsoft has 93.72% of the market (Source - Dec 2008), thats as close to a monopoly as you are ever going to get.

Maybe so but what has MS done in recent years to repress Apple or the Linux markets to seriously compete with them?

Apple systems run on a uniform software and hardware base making them very stable but not as versatile where PC's don't have this constraint. Also they are happy with their market as it keeps their systems safer and more stable, there have been many articles written that Vista is more secure than Leopard but is a much bigger target.

If Apple wanted to they could seriously challenge MS as the prime computer systems but I think they know that their software would be vulnerable to the same issues as Windows is this risking their taglines. Most errors that occur on a Windows system usually have to do with 3rd party software and drivers crashing windows and not the MS software itself.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

I can just see a 12 cm installation DVD-ROM disc for Windows 7 and a little 8 cm Mini CD-ROM disc for browser installation that comes with new computers sold in Europe.

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 21):

Who says it has to come in the box or with new computers. AOL **still** hands out free AOL Installation CDs with a million free internet hours at Wall Mart. . .

[Edited 2009-06-12 18:28:03]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2156 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1852 times:



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 19):
It was only illegal in the BS minds of the Eurocrats who wanted to take Microsoft down a notch. It was perfectly normal competition--MS had a huge advantage because they could bundle their browser with an operating system while Netscape had to make deals with computer OEMs like Dell and Gateway to get their browser on computers.

What bull, as a lawyer I can say for sure that what MS did was a complete disregard for the EU laws of competition. When MS bundled IE with Windows they became a schoolbook example of how one company can abuse their advantage in one market to advance in another.

No idea how things work in the US nor do I care, but in the EU we believe in a FREE MARKET. Thus the verdict of Microsoft. It wasn't in the «minds» of any beaurocrats.

MS broke the law in the EU and was made to pay heftily for it. This is just the result, excluding the immense fines MS had to pay to the EU for this.

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2803 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

I'm no expert, but isn't Internet Explorer and Microsoft losing their dominance already? Sure, Microsoft Windows might still have a 90%+ market share around the world, but in the past few years the market share for IE has already dropped around 20%. Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox and even Google Chrome are growing while Microsoft Internet Explorer is shrinking.

25 Nighthawk : ... and the US, who ruled in 2000 that microsoft had abused their position. The US ordered Microsoft to be broken up (later reversed, in favour of he
26 AverageUser : Windows should be delivered with a deck of cards as games such as Solitaire have put the playing card industry at an unfair disadvantage.
27 MD-90 : Bad laws and too much government on both sides of the Atlantic.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Employee Free Choice Act posted Tue Oct 28 2008 10:05:40 by Victrola
EU Finally Gives Up On 'metric Britain' posted Tue Sep 11 2007 09:59:05 by Kieron747
Congress Says No To Free Trade posted Thu Jul 19 2007 02:18:01 by MaverickM11
EU's "no-liquid Policy" - Terrorists' Victory? posted Mon May 14 2007 23:25:18 by L410Turbolet
No Cheap Alcohol/cigarettes Through Web In EU posted Thu Nov 23 2006 12:04:07 by 777236ER
No Anti Virus Needed For Windows Vista? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 20:44:18 by Tmatt95
Is This Video Real? (No, It's Not That Model A320) posted Sun Oct 29 2006 02:56:18 by Kaneporta1
MS Says No To EFI Booting For Windows Vista. posted Fri Mar 10 2006 13:35:46 by Gordonsmall
Free Software Disk Mirroring On Windows 2000? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 11:31:58 by Kay
Why No Referendum In All EU Countries? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 22:04:34 by RootsAir