Quote: Microsoft has acknowledged the findings of a pair of bloggers who discovered that starting with the next major test release of Windows 7, Internet Explorer 8 will be able to be removed. Microsoft officials made this public acknowledgment via the Engineering Windows 7 blog. In a posting, dated March 6, Jack Mayo, the Group Program Manager for the Documents and Printing team, listed a set of Windows 7 features that will be able to be turned on and off by users after the initial Windows set-up.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2235

Interesting development. Although the author feels this is because of on-going or pending litigation against MS, I think it also is a result of MS losing a lot of users - myself included - over the last few years. This is a way for them to woo those lost users back and polish their stained image. I know I was so disgusted with Vista that I forced myself and my business to switch to Linux. At first when MS announced the pending Windows 7, I thought there is no way I would ever use a MS product again. With this latest development, I may reconsider that decision. Time will tell.

One of the advantages of Vista is that it doesn't rely on IE for updates any more.

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter): I know I was so disgusted with Vista

Why? Most of the "problems" I've heard about Vista revolve around incompatible drivers. It shouldn't have been a surprise since MS got fed up with Windows being blamed for problems caused by badly written 3rd party drivers. They put their foot down and one or two 3rd party manufacturers seem to have taken advantage by not releasing Vista-compatible drivers for older hardware - I wonder why.  

The other common complaint is that "it doesn't work the same way as XP". That's true but I still have one PC running XP and, having got used to Vista on two others, it's a real pain when I have to go back and sort something out on the XP machine.

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter): I forced myself and my business to switch to Linux.

I know a couple of people in the IT industry who have been assessing Vista for their organisations for the last few months and haven't yet found any reasons not to go ahead with it... apart from a couple of 10 year old printers.

I have no problems with Vista - I use it sometimes at work on one of the 19" laptop PCs (Vista Ultimate).

But normally I only use XP or Mac OS. Mac OS has most of the benefits of Linux, without being so ridiculously clunky.

I have no problems with IE integration, I just install Firefox and set it as the default. I still use IE7 frequently for testing purposes.

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter): Interesting development. Although the author feels this is because of on-going or pending litigation against MS, I think it also is a result of MS losing a lot of users - myself included - over the last few years. This is a way for them to woo those lost users back and polish their stained image. I know I was so disgusted with Vista that I forced myself and my business to switch to Linux. At first when MS announced the pending Windows 7, I thought there is no way I would ever use a MS product again. With this latest development, I may reconsider that decision. Time will tell.

I smell a canard. What difference does it make whether IE is installed or not? How did this affect your Vista experiences and how will its absence affect your Windows 7 experience?

It sounds like the EU who like many, is looking for anything they can to nail MS. The problem with having IE on the system is none. There is no problem other than some ruffled feathers by MS bashers. In fact, we often hear calls for MS to integrate various things into it os that do the very thing that IE did, put smaller competitors out of business, but improve the overall experience. They just can't win with some.

Anyway, they will live without your use of Vista, millions of people are currently happily running it with less problems than XP and plenty of computer media types are publicly saying it has become a very good os.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 3): There is no problem other than some ruffled feathers by MS bashers.

I think so as well. I use Windows every day I'd be interested if someone could tell me how having IE7 pre-installed caused problems?

This is far from newsworthy.

It's been known for some time that Windows 7 allowed the 'removal' of IE8. In fact, the earliest beta's I used allowed this. Even Vista allows this to a point.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 3): It sounds like the EU who like many, is looking for anything they can to nail MS. The problem with having IE on the system is none.

The problem is that MS attempted to leverage their OS monopoly into the browser field as well, overwhelming the competition simply by having IE pre-installed and requiring it for Windows update.

What made matters worse is the atrocious handling of web standards by IE which was apparently intentional, trying to make the net dependent on IE and ultimately on the use of Windows to further entrench the dominance of Windows not through attraction and quality but through sheer force and deliberate incompatibility with open standards as usual. The idea was to contaminate as many web sites with IE-specific, standards-incompatible code as possible, so to navigate the web you would just have had to have a PC with Windows to get around.

It took the former antitrust case in the USA and (after that had been scrapped by the Bush administration) the EU to force MS on a less destructive course, grudgingly conceding now that even IE will have to adhere to web standards which are not under control of Microsoft and apparently conceding at last to make IE removable from the system, hopefully without still requiring it for certain system tasks.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): What made matters worse is the atrocious handling of web standards by IE which was apparently intentional, trying to make the net dependent on IE and ultimately on the use of Windows to further entrench the dominance of Windows not through attraction and quality but through sheer force and deliberate incompatibility with open standards as usual. The idea was to contaminate as many web sites with IE-specific, standards-incompatible code as possible, so to navigate the web you would just have had to have a PC with Windows to get around.

I work in the web field - and that's a bit far fetched. I think you are over-dramatising that a lot.

You don't need IE to navigate the web.

And remember, it wasn't just MS doing this stuff - remember the BLINK tag? Which browser supported that... It was Netscape of all browsers, supporting one of the most evil tags ever created.

A web-designer should develop code which is compatible across all systems. It's not really that difficult to do. I work with CSS sites using ajax and all sorts of other dynamic stateless features and we get them to work across all browsers.

I'm just annoyed by the endless beat-up over this stuff. It's not too difficult to just install another browser and set it to the default. If someone wants another browser, they'll install it.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 7): I'm just annoyed by the endless beat-up over this stuff. It's not too difficult to just install another browser and set it to the default. If someone wants another browser, they'll install it.

   I still don't see how IE would make anyone ditch Vista. I'd be interested to know how many customers MS have actually lost because of this issue.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 7): I work in the web field - and that's a bit far fetched. I think you are over-dramatising that a lot.

Not really. What we actually see is the result of massive resistance against Microsoft's attempts to take over the web after they had initially failed to recognize its relevance at all.

If they could have had it their way, most if not all web sites would be infested with ActiveX content (or worse) which would only work on a computer with Windows installed on it. ActiveX was clearly an attempt to push for a Windows-dependency even on the web, they just largely failed with that approach, not least due to strong resistance from regulators in the US and EU.

It obviously failed to make the web dependent on Windows as intended, but it did in fact manage to make Windows vulnerable to all kinds of security threats from the net. Quite ironic.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 7): And remember, it wasn't just MS doing this stuff - remember the BLINK tag? Which browser supported that... It was Netscape of all browsers, supporting one of the most evil tags ever created.

I don't think I've never seen it in use "in the wild".

And extensions to HTML have been a necessity — the point is just that Microsoft usually doesn't cooperate with standards; They copy the standard, modify it enough that it isn't actually compatible any more and then hope that their OS monopoly will push the actual standard out of the way and make their bastardized version the "de facto standard" with the "nice" side effect that Windows will ultimately be the only system which works well with that one. The tortured history of IE is a case in point here.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 7): I'm just annoyed by the endless beat-up over this stuff. It's not too difficult to just install another browser and set it to the default. If someone wants another browser, they'll install it.

If people hadn't "beat up" MS "over this stuff", the internet would be hell today compared with what we actually have.

It took years to push back against the sabotage attempts from MS to the point where even MS today has little choice but to actually adhere to established standards.

This didn't happen on its own, let alone voluntarily on the part of Microsoft!



[Edited 2009-03-07 06:20:42]

Quoting Klaus (Reply 9): If they could have had it their way, most if not all web sites would be infested with ActiveX content (or worse) which would only work on a computer with Windows installed on it.

This piece of software development should reportedly allow one to run IE 6 and ActiveX under Mac OS X. In case I'm asked some time, would Klaus as a web developer please say if it's any good at it?

See link

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 10): This piece of software development should reportedly allow one to run IE 6 and ActiveX under Mac OS X. In case I'm asked some time, would Klaus as a web developer please say if it's any good at it?

Would I install a piece of software from a chinese source on my system which supposedly does something which is rather much in doubt knowing the complexity of the task?

Not a chance in hell. And I strongly advise anybody else to ignore it as well. Most likely it is malware in form of a trojan horse.

[Edited 2009-03-07 08:56:16]

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): Would I install a piece of software from a chinese source on my system which supposedly does something which is rather much in doubt knowing the complexity of the task?

Well,

Kronenberg Informatik Lösungen
Bahnstrasse 28
CH-9435 Heerbrugg
Switzerland

does not sound Chinese to me, but if we suppose it is China, would it make a terrible difference to you?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): Not a chance in hell. And I strongly advise anybody else to ignore it as well.

Well, if you type "ies4osx" in Google, you'll find quite a few nice references. I thought the word would have reached you, that's why I'm asking.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): Most likely it is malware in form of a trojan horse.

Ok, but 1) see above 2) I thought Mac OS X was "by design" trojan-free? At least we should report this one, should we not?

Would you actually mind if someone HAD created a working IE and ActiveX environment for the OS X? I thought it would be terrific. How would you know a priori the task would be impossible?

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 12): does not sound Chinese to me, but if we suppose it is China, would it make a terrible difference to you?

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 12): Well, if you type "ies4osx" in Google, you'll find quite a few nice references. I thought the word would have reached you, that's why I'm asking.

I was extremely short on time when I made my post. I didn't have the time to really investigate, but my "personal firewall" went nuts on several levels immediately:

• Circumstantial: The apparently chinese reference. At this time, China is one of the main sources for malware.

• Technological: Providing IE under OS X to the point where it could actually serve for validation of sites or other uses would basically require a VM such as Parallels Desktop or VMWare with a Windows installation. Or, as seemingly in this case, wine without one. But that would most probably limit its usefulness for testing.

• Legal: I don't think Microsoft permits free distribution of IE. Any "free" package containing it or its essential parts would most probably be in violation of the law.

Even without a really thorough examination this recommendation looked extremely dodgy, even if it should actually just do what it says (and nothing nefarious on the side). Hence my semi-automatic warning.

Trojans can only spread by being invited in by the user, pretty much like the vampire in popular mythology. Which makes them almost impossibly to defend against on purely technical grounds and which puts almost the entire burden on the common sense and the alertness of the user. My suspicion in that respect may sometimes border on the paranoid, but from my perspective it's just a necessity.

By the way: If the package should actually (just) work as advertised, the use of wine would basically open up the Mac environment to any vulnerabilities of IE which I would never do nor recommend to anybody. If I need to actually run IE, I would rather start up a proper VM which isolates the guest system from the host and does not permit access from within (except maybe for an explicitly shared folder). But fortunately it's been many months since I actually had to do that.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 12): Would you actually mind if someone HAD created a working IE and ActiveX environment for the OS X? I thought it would be terrific. How would you know a priori the task would be impossible?

If there was another trustable and legal way to run IE from within MacOS X I'd not be opposed to it (competition is a good thing), but given the wealth of much better browsers my own interest would be decidedly marginal.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 12): Ok, but 1) see above 2) I thought Mac OS X was "by design" trojan-free?

Says who? Quote and link, please.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): I was extremely short on time when I made my post. I didn't have the time to really investigate, but my "personal firewall" went nuts on several levels immediately:

Well, I can see that, not much investigating here. I mean, take your time if you feel like it, we're not on a tight schedule here. It almost looked as if you and your personal firewall were somehow upset by this discovery.

I'm glad you came to the conclusion that it will work, after all ies4osx is based on the well-known Wine and ies4linux, which are open source programs as well. Have you really somehow missed all these developments?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): I don't think Microsoft permits free distribution of IE

Well, hello what is that now? IE has always been downloadable for free from MS in case you did not know. Actually, the fact that IE can be run as an application under Wine in OSX is an counterindication to what you've maintained -- that IE is an integral and inseparable part of Windows.
http://toastytech.com/guis/wine.html

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): My suspicion in that respect may sometimes border on the paranoid, but from my perspective it's just a necessity.

By all means sit down and research before you post, what you did in effect was calling a real-life developer by the name of Mike Kronenberg a malware spreader and that really seemed odd and peculiar.

So we are now in a situation where some fears over something unspecified will make you permanently unable to run a test of ies4osx in your system, did I read you right?

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 14): It almost looked as if you and your personal firewall were somehow upset by this discovery.

The first rule of IT security: By default, distrust anything.

Trust is optional and can can earned through validation.

When I'm presented with a dubious product from an apparently dodgy source, rejection is the the first response. Anything else is optional.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 14): I'm glad you came to the conclusion that it will work

That is a dangerous misunderstanding. It may conceivably work. It may also just be a camouflaged piece of malware. Or just a dodgy hack. Hence the need for validation.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 14): IE has always been downloadable for free from MS in case you did not know.

And they permit installation outside of Windows under wine? I may of course be wrong about that, but I'd rather want anyone to check first before relying on that for any professional use.

That the home site of the package makes no mention of this aspect just adds to the somewhat dubious impression overall.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 14): Actually, the fact that IE can be run as an application under Wine in OSX is an counterindication to what you've maintained -- that IE is an integral and inseparable part of Windows.

No. Wine attempts (and only partially succeeds) to provide a Windows-like environment under a different host OS. If IE can somehow be installed on it would only say that IE can exist without Windows, but it says nothing about Windows without IE, which is the whole point. Assuming the wine installation is even legal.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 14): By all means sit down and research before you post, what you did in effect was calling a real-life developer by the name of Mike Kronenberg a malware spreader and that really seemed odd and peculiar.

Nonsense. On first glance I see little evidence that it's a reliable and legal tool for professional use. That leaves the whole spectrum between more or less dodgy hack and outright malware open.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 14): So we are now in a situation where some fears over something unspecified will make you permanently unable to run a test of ies4osx in your system, did I read you right?

I have little to no interest in letting IE loose on my Mac without it being contained in an isolated VM, which is exactly what this hack seems to be doing, bringing the disadvantages and insecurities of IE under Windows to the Mac. Why would I (or anybody else, for that matter) want to do that when it's not even fully compatible under wine?

If somebody is really forced to use IE on a Mac, I would rather recommend installing Windows in an isolated VM (preferably with snapshot functionality). If you want actual compatibility for testing of IE's bugs and idiosyncrasies, there's no alternative anyway.

Fortunately separate testing under IE is becoming less relevant as time goes on.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 15): Nonsense. On first glance I see little evidence that it's a reliable and legal tool for professional use. That leaves the whole spectrum between more or less dodgy hack and outright malware open.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 15): That the home site of the package makes no mention of this aspect just adds to the somewhat dubious impression overall.

A Dodgy Hack? Come on, Klaus, the source code is available for all components in the emulator package should you want to inspect if for yourself, is it not?
I don't think you could point out a single software component in the setup that would not be freely available from MS somehow either?
Somehow I would have thought the user community would have reacted to this "malware", were it really malware of course. By all means be the first to report it, no reason to be shy about it!

On the legal aspect you were worried about:


Think of Wine as a compatibility layer for running Windows programs. Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely free alternative implementation of the Windows API consisting of 100% non-Microsoft code, however Wine can optionally use native Windows DLLs if they are available. Wine provides both a development toolkit for porting Windows source code to Unix as well as a program loader, allowing many unmodified Windows programs to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and Solaris.

With ies4osx, installing Internet Explorer on OS X is a simple double-click of the installer. All of the necessary files and requirements are automatically downloaded - including default Windows IE fonts and browser plug-ins like Macromedia Flash player. All of that, and the download is completely free. Make sure to send Mike feedback or feel free to donate for his hard work.
http://5thirtyone.com/archives/869
(my emph.)

Ok, take care Klaus! Stay clear of that IE!

You are free to try it if you find it so fascinating.

I for my part have explained at length why I don't care to.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17): I for my part have explained at length why I don't care to.

 

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 14): Well, hello what is that now? IE has always been downloadable for free from MS in case you did not know.

Not anymore, at least it's not exactly the way it used to be. You can still download IE freely, but it won't let you download it if the system detects that your Windows copy isn't legit.

You see, Windows now has this Windows Genuine thing, which can actually detect if your Windows copy is legitimate or not. It is eventually downloaded with Windows Update on XP and maybe Windows 2000 systems and can't be removed or unselected. Which means that in fact, you must have a legitimate copy of Windows, or else you can't download IE.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 19): You can still download IE freely, but it won't let you download it if the system detects that your Windows copy isn't legit

Because Microsoft takes its commitment to help protect the entire Windows ecosystem seriously, we’re updating the IE7 installation experience to make it available as broadly as possible to all Windows users. With today’s “Installation and Availability Update,” Internet Explorer 7 installation will no longer require Windows Genuine Advantage validation and will be available to all Windows XP users.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/200...04/internet-explorer-7-update.aspx (dated 2007)

Quoting David L (Reply 1): Most of the "problems" I've heard about Vista revolve around incompatible drivers.

My problems with Vista have nothing to do with incompatible drivers. On the contrary, the handful of PCs remaining in my office that continue to run on Vista run just fine for every day computing purposes. My issues with Vista are that it is extremely bloated. In addition, MS tried to achieve the zenith of integration with Vista - integration with all things Microsoft.

The point is, until someone looks at an alternative, they will never appreciate or understand how archaic the Windows OS is.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 3): What difference does it make whether IE is installed or not? How did this affect your Vista experiences and how will its absence affect your Windows 7 experience?

It's not whether IE is installed or not per se. It's the fact that MS seems to be relinquishing some control back to the end user. An OS should be just that - the platform (foundation) that is used to run other independent applications. It should not be a springboard into other applications that are being pushed by the OS owner.

If this development is true, it will appear that MS is going back to the basics. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): My issues with Vista are that it is extremely bloated

Fair enough. I just haven't noticed it making any difference on my two Vista PCs and neither have the guys assessing it for professional use. As I said, having got the hang of Vista, I hate having to do anything on my XP machine.

It's certainly true that each successive version is more bloated than the previous version but I'd be very disappointed if the hardware advances left the OS advances behind. The two advance side by side - each taking advantage of the other's improvements.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): The point is, until someone looks at an alternative, they will never appreciate or understand how archaic the Windows OS is.

Having used other OSs in the past, I'm fully aware of that. However, it's not nearly as bad as some would have us believe and XP is certainly not "better" than Vista for those who have reasonably current hardware.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): It's not whether IE is installed or not per se. It's the fact that MS seems to be relinquishing some control back to the end user.

Well, OK, but it's control that makes bugger all difference.  

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): An OS should be just that - the platform (foundation) that is used to run other independent applications. It should not be a springboard into other applications that are being pushed by the OS owner.

How many OSs don't come with additional tools and utilities? I just don't see why an OS shouldn't be shipped with everything most users will need to get up and running "out of the box" - internet and e-mail being the most commonly used functions. If MS had made it impossible to install alternative tools and utilities I could understand the complaints.

Quoting David L (Reply 22): How many OSs don't come with additional tools and utilities?

That's not the point at all. IE is being forced on the users by making certain update functions dependent on it, thereby skewing the playing field against the competition and leveraging the OS monopoly into the browser market.

That is the problem.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 9): the point is just that Microsoft usually doesn't cooperate with standards; They copy the standard, modify it enough that it isn't actually compatible any more and then hope that their OS monopoly will push the actual standard out of the way and make their bastardized version the "de facto standard" with the "nice" side effect that Windows will ultimately be the only system which works well with that one. The tortured history of IE is a case in point here.

This is known as the "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy.

Let others do all the work to come up with workable standards.

Then twist them just enough so MS gets all the benefits of other's work yet make sure no one else gets the benefit of interoperability with MS products.

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

Quote: "Embrace, extend and extinguish,"[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate,"[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe their strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

Some examples of MS's handiwork:

Quote: * 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] * Instant Messaging: In 2001, CNet's News.com described an instance of "embrace, extend, extinguish" concerning Microsoft's instant messaging program.[20] * Adobe fears: Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support, citing fears of EEE.[21] * Employee testimony: In 2007, 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.[22] * 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."[23]

Quoting Klaus (Reply 9): If people hadn't "beat up" MS "over this stuff", the internet would be hell today compared with what we actually have. It took years to push back against the sabotage attempts from MS to the point where even MS today has little choice but to actually adhere to established standards. This didn't happen on its own, let alone voluntarily on the part of Microsoft!

  

It's strange how some cast this as an EU vs. US thing.

MS killed off many, many more US competitors with this strategy than EU ones.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 24): It's strange how some cast this as an EU vs. US thing.

And the antitrust case in the US was already well on its way when the incoming Bush administration killed it off pretty much at the last minute.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): IE is being forced on the users by making certain update functions dependent on it

But not from Vista onward.

[Edited 2009-03-09 08:41:17]

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): That's not the point at all.

Actually that was precisely the point of the comment to which I was responding.

Quoting David L (Reply 27): Actually that was precisely the point of the comment to which I was responding.

The point is "how many OSes force you to use one of their brand of browser to do an OS upgrade? On the Linuxes there are always non-browser ways to update the software, same is true for MacOS, not true for MS Windows.

By requiring you use their browser to maintain their OS, Microsoft is requiring you install their browser, which puts other browsers at a competitive disadvantage.

It's all water under the bridge, any remedy that Netscape could have enjoyed is pointless now. It seems Opera is willing to fight on, though.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28): how many OSes force you to use one of their brand of browser to do an OS upgrade?

MS Vista does not need IE to be opened for that.. MS XP requires IE to initialize the update engine (those awful ActiveXs bite again), and from that point on one can delete iexlore.exe if they so wish.

Of course there's nothing to prevent the users from monitoring MS developments manually and downloading patches from MS by hand as they see fit.

MS To Enable "Turn-Off" Of IE-8 In Windows 7

Everything about it is a turnoff. What's new here?

     

Quoting David L (Reply 22): I just haven't noticed it making any difference on my two Vista PCs and neither have the guys assessing it for professional use. As I said, having got the hang of Vista, I hate having to do anything on my XP machine.

I have to disagree on that point as my preference would have been to continue with XP. The only difference (besides security) from XP to Vista is the window dressing - the fancy Aero GUI. As far as I'm concerned, the Aero interface wasn't worth the upgrade.

Quoting David L (Reply 22): It's certainly true that each successive version is more bloated than the previous version but I'd be very disappointed if the hardware advances left the OS advances behind. The two advance side by side - each taking advantage of the other's improvements.

I was never one of those that bemoaned having to upgrade our hardware for Vista. On the contrary, I'm one of those types that prefers to upgrade to the latest-and-greatest whenever feasible. I was just disappointed when all that upgrade effort and cost resulted in systems that were not any faster than the XP boxes and, in most cases, were actually slower.

As I said, the Vista boxes run fine; indeed, they are probably more stable than XP was. But the sheer bloat and Microsoft's method of cramming their products down the end-user's throat has simply not been worth the effort or cost.

Quoting David L (Reply 22): How many OSs don't come with additional tools and utilities? I just don't see why an OS shouldn't be shipped with everything most users will need to get up and running "out of the box"

All of them come with additional tools and utilities, as they should. But they don't necessarily come with their own proprietary software. The different flavors of Linux come pre-packaged with all kinds of goodies, but they are all from different sources and none of them lock you in to any one particular source. They are all interchangeable.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 24): It's strange how some cast this as an EU vs. US thing. MS killed off many, many more US competitors with this strategy than EU ones.

  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 25): Quoting Revelation (Reply 24): It's strange how some cast this as an EU vs. US thing. And the antitrust case in the US was already well on its way when the incoming Bush administration killed it off pretty much at the last minute.

  

I was hoping the EU would take their case a lot further than they have been able to. Inasmuch as I'm proud of the technological advances the U.S. has been able to contribute to the globe, there is nothing advanced about Microsoft's products. It's a dirty monopoly without any innovations, plain and simple, and I hope one day someone is able to cut off the head of this beast and kill its monopolistic hold on software.

The majority of end-users do not realize what is available out there. I know whenever I have shown someone either a Mac OS or Linux OS, they are clearly impressed and desirous being able to one day switch OS'. Of course, I tend to shy away from Mac as well because it, too, is capable of forcing one into using its products exclusively. But at least it is an alternative, and a superior one at that. My preference is Linux, but if I had to, I would still pick a Mac over MS-Windows any day.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): That's not the point at all. IE is being forced on the users by making certain update functions dependent on it, thereby skewing the playing field against the competition and leveraging the OS monopoly into the browser market.

Are these update functions Windows updates or something else?

I'm wondering because I hardly ever use IE. Only time really is to access mozilla.com to get Firefox, unless there's updates going on on the background that I don't know of that use IE.

[Edited 2009-03-09 11:42:53]

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 20): With today’s “Installation and Availability Update,” Internet Explorer 7 installation will no longer require Windows Genuine Advantage validation and will be available to all Windows XP users.

That's news to me. When we installed IE7 on our corporate computers back in 2007 and when I first installed it again after having re-installed XP, it did ask for validation.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28): The point is "how many OSes force you to use one of their brand of browser to do an OS upgrade?

No. The point I was responding to was this...

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): An OS should be just that - the platform (foundation) that is used to run other independent applications. It should not be a springboard into other applications that are being pushed by the OS owner

In any case, as I and others have pointed out, Windows 7 is not the first to ditch the requirement of IE for Windows updates. Vista has already done that so I don't see how the IE issue is a black mark against Vista.

You might have noticed that I have not commented on the "evils" of IE in versions before Vista.  

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 31): The only difference (besides security) from XP to Vista is the window dressing - the fancy Aero GUI.

The only differences you can see on the surface, yes. However, there are also extra layers between the hardware and the OS, for example, making it much less likely that a badly written driver will bring the OS crashing down... and not before time. It's been so long since I looked at the advantages of Vista over XP that I just can't remember what else there is.  

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 31): I was just disappointed when all that upgrade effort and cost resulted in systems that were not any faster than the XP boxes and

That's pretty much what I'd expect. When I upgraded to XP it was no faster on my new hardware than Windows 95 was on the previous system.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 31): in most cases, were actually slower.

To be more accurate, I upgraded to XP before I upgraded my hardware. XP was slower until I took care of that.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 33): That's news to me. When we installed IE7 on our corporate computers back in 2007 and when I first installed it again after having re-installed XP, it did ask for validation.

Judging from the wording of the MS text, the "liberation" of IE7 was effected about a year after the release, so that would have been quite possible.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 35): Judging from the wording of the MS text, the "liberation" of IE7 was effected about a year after the release, so that would have been quite possible.

So it took them from IE4 release in 1997 till what, 2006, to do it?

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

Quote: In October 1997, Internet Explorer 4.0 was released. The release party in San Francisco featured a ten-foot-tall letter "e" logo. Netscape employees showing up to work the following morning found that giant logo on their front lawn, with a sign attached which read "From the IE team." The message also read "We Love You." The Netscape employees promptly knocked it over and set a giant figure of their Mozilla dinosaur mascot atop it, holding a sign reading "Netscape 72, Microsoft 18" (representing the market distribution).[citation needed] Internet Explorer 4 changed the tides of the browser wars. It integrated itself into the operating system, a move broadly criticized, especially by IT professionals and industry critics, variously for being technologically disadvantageous and an apparent exploitation of Microsoft's monopoly on the PC platform with Windows OS, in order to push users to become IE users simply because IE was "already there" on their PCs.

Not sure this is much relief for any Netscape investors out there.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36): So it took them from IE4 release in 1997 till what, 2006, to do it?

I don't know what you mean by "it", but my literature says WGA (the MS anti-counterfeit scheme) was instated in April 2006. This would make the early versions of IE7 the only versions with a requirement for bundling with an OS, and your early version of IE7 you were referring to might have required an WGA authorisation.

If IE4 had been an integral inseparable part of Windows, there would have been no standalone versions (see e.g here http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone ) nor would it have been possible to run it on the old Mac OS, see, http://news.cnet.com/IE-4-for-Mac-coming/2100-1001_3-206755.html

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 37): If IE4 had been an integral inseparable part of Windows, there would have been no standalone versions (see e.g here http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone ) nor would it have been possible to run it on the old Mac OS, see, http://news.cnet.com/IE-4-for-Mac-co....html

The issue was Windows being dependent on IE, not the other way around.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38): The issue was Windows being dependent on IE, not the other way around.

Then Klaus you should really retrace and read the whole thread. Feel free to take your time!
Windows just does not require IE to function. You'll be fine using other browsers, the fact that you yourself have underlined several times.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 39): Windows just does not require IE to function.

The Windows Update functionality has long required IE, at least up to and including XP. And if MS has abandoned that forced use of IE more recently, just guess the reason why... It has been a convenient pressure point to keep IE usage high and to keep all other browsers at a disadvantage.

I'm sure they'd have abandoned the enforced use of IE just as well without the massive pressure first from the US DoJ and later from the EU Commission. They would never try to leverage their OS monopoly into the next emerging markets, would they?   

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40): The Windows Update functionality has long required

We were not discussing Windows Update, this was something you've picked up along the line, and the point was actually discussed already. In Vista, you do not have to enter IE at all to define autoupdates. If you do not like automatic updates, just drop using them any time.

As I said already, feel fre check the previous posts.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40): the enforced use of IE

If there were such a thing. I hope I've been able to present the facts in the above for my humble part.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 41): We were not discussing Windows Update

Since it has thus far been the crux of the problem, we are.

This whole thread would have been completely unneeded if MS hadn't chosen to force IE on Windows users for years. That they seem to abandon their anticompetitive conduct at long last and even so only under severe duress is just a case in point.

If things had always been as rosy as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 42): chosen to force IE

Well to each his or her own fixation.  

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 43): Well to each his or her own fixation.

If people were just imagining it, this thread would not have been news.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): If people were just imagining it, this thread would not have been news.

  

I know I wasn't imagining when I turned away from MS in total disgust. It took quite a lot of effort and some cost (primarily training related), but my company found a much more cost-effective and superior alternative to the ubiquitous MS-Windows OS. And I only have MS to thank for it.

That is not to say I'll never consider an MS solution again, but I'll only do so if MS makes some fundamental changes to the way they do business.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): If people were just imagining it, this thread would not have been news

I don't think fixations are imagined, that would indicate a clinically unsound mind.
I know, and I think you'll agree with me, that one can always depend on you having an informed and well-founded opinion on a range of MS products, even without having much active user experience on them!

[Edited 2009-03-11 10:23:29]

Do you have anything else beside attempts of personal slights to contribute here?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 47): attempts of personal slights

Pardon me, so I was mistaken and you are in fact a regular MS software user? If you're not, you're in effect just repeating other people's words and opinions, also known as memes. That is nothing bad in itself, it's what most of us do daily in fact.

I have made statements to the topic. Either discuss those or leave it.