Mas stylie por favor...
13th April 2005
Pretty tame for our standards but I propose this request for comments... FOXNews.com - Windows 7 Has Secret 'Off' Switch for Internet Explorer - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News Windows 7 Has Secret 'Off' Switch for Internet Explorer
Monday, March 09, 2009 SEATTLE — A single check box deep in the guts of the next version of Windows is giving Microsoft Corp. watchers a peek at how the software maker plans to keep European antitrust regulators from marring a crucial software launch. Windows 7, the successor to the much-maligned Vista, isn't expected to reach consumers until next year, but more than a million people are already testing early versions. A pair of bloggers tinkering with settings stumbled upon one they hadn't seen before: The ability to "turn off" Microsoft's own Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft lost a long-running battle with EU antitrust regulators in 2007 over the way it bundled media player software into the Windows operating system. The dust had barely settled when a similar claim was filed, this time over Internet Explorer's place inside Windows.
Opera Software ASA, a Norwegian competitor, claimed the practice gives Microsoft's browser an unfair advantage. In a preliminary decision in January, the EU agreed. Since then, makers of the open-source browser Firefox and Google Inc., which entered the browser market six months ago, have offered to provide more evidence that Microsoft is stifling competition. In the media player dispute, the EU heavily fined Microsoft and forced it to sell a version of Windows without the offending program installed. This time, Microsoft appears to be offering the check-box solution as a way to head off a similar ending. The company declined to comment Friday on the connection between the check boxes and the EU's preliminary decision. But in a recent quarterly filing, it said the European Commission may order PC makers to install multiple browsers on new PCs and force Microsoft to disable parts of its own Internet Explorer if people chose a competing browser.
The check boxes, which were described on Microsoft enthusiast blogs http://www.aeroxp.org and http://www.chris123nt.com, also give Windows 7 users a way to disable the media player and hard-drive search programs, among other components, both of which have drawn scrutiny from regulators. After Windows Vista landed with a thud, Microsoft needs a hit, said Michael Cherry, an analyst for the research group Directions on Microsoft. Beyond appeasing the EU, he said he didn't see much use for the Internet Explorer check box. "Windows 7 is becoming more and more important for Microsoft," he said in an interview. "You don't want anything that gives anyone even a doubt as to whether or not they should upgrade." So while Im open for open sourced anything... why the hell must microsoft allow for any other company to run software on its own platform? This is not an argument I will live and die by, but cant users just use another operating systems if they want more freedom? Couldnt microsoft technically create an OS that doesnt allow you to install anything if they wanted to? And only allow programs developed by itself? Complete with proprietary connections for peripherals and sell those too? Obviously I realize that OS wont go very far. But the my point is that people are free to choose other OS's. I dont know if I necessarily agree with this stuff. MS should be able to do whatever the hell it wants. There is no monopoly here as far as I can tell. There are other OS's in the world.
wasn't around for some years
10th June 2004
This is the list of features that can be turned of most likely in the final version.
- Windows Media Player - Windows Media Center - Windows DVD Maker - Internet Explorer 8 - Windows Search - Handwriting Recognition - Windows Gadget Platform - Fax and Scan - XPS Viewer and Services
Of these, I'd probably turn off all because I use custom software. So that is a big plus.
But when it comes to market rights, I'm not very erudite. Concerning software that is a complex system. I don't know why, but somehow it needs to be modular. OS and applications are considered 2 different pairs of shoes. Microsoft boosted spread of its applications by adding it into the OS, claiming that it is inseparable. But somehow, somewhere, somebody must have defined that an OS should be the base for applications, but not an application itself.
If somebody is into this, bring us enlightment.
Edit: Oh, and let me add this. The complete industry concerning soft- and hardware is in child's schoes. The statues of the markets are about to be formed. That is as rough as the wild west. I'd almost compare this to the beginning of railways, when tycoons controlled markets and could define the rules of the market themselves. I think the last word isn't spoken here. The statues of the market are still to be constituted.
13th May 2004
well you gotta ask yourself , do you want to buy an operating system, or an operating system with 4587512 in 1 software package?
They dont leave you a choice, you are forced to buy internet explorer , you are forced to buy media player , you are forced to buy windows movie maker.
They arent included for free, cause the development costs are included in the windows operating system.
They arent just added programs like for example firefox, they dont have their own program folder with the exe and dlls, they are very heavely interweaved into the operating system which makes it impossible to effectivly delete them, it also makes the whole windows OS alot less secure and more bloated. Not to mention the windows 7 release wont fix that , it will simply remove the icons etc ( to explain it in layman terms)( i dont even know if layman is the right english term haha )
I am also [130.Pz]Gef.Elche Pz
6th December 2005
This is why I use a mac for anything that isn't game related, because windows is retarded.
13th May 2004
Moose12;4832034This is why I use a mac for anything that isn't game related, because windows is retarded.
Apple is no better , they even have a monopoly on the hardware you use.
18th April 2007
God i hate macs, it annoys me how they simplify things.(im not sure how to explain this, i just like the plethora of options and settings in windows)
In Vino Veritas
28th August 2006
The problem isn't that Windows is supplying these pieces of software, its that the average consumer is not aware of the alternatives, if there was a wider range of software which could be sold, on license to Microsoft, and optional upon a Windows Installation, there may be more use of the other software. As a well established computer freak (nerd) I am more than aware of such programs as iTunes, Quicktime, Mozilla FireFox, Google Inc., and many others, so when it comes to choice I'm not at a limit.
What companies should do is work out deals with Microsoft to supply information about their programs, and offer them as options in the Instillation or Configuration modules of Windows, not only would the Companies be making money due to the Licenses, but Microsoft would broaden its horizons and probably sell more of their operating system than they currently do, as the options would be looked upon kindly amoungst he average consumer. "Wow, they give me choices, and info! now I can use what I like!".
GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*
5th October 2007
Microsoft should be allowed to bundle whatever they want. If they can't bundle browsers, how do you download a browser without a browser? How about not being allowed to bundle windows explorer? Could just keep going on. But there should definately be the posbillity to remove it completely yes.
The dilemma here is Microsoft ALMOST has a monopoly in the PC market. Its nearly impossible to find laptops for example without windows (except for mini-laptops).
I didn't make it!
What I hate about macs are the people in college that insist on using them and make everyone else bend over backwards to accommodate them when they can't open any files they need to view for class, projects, etc.
Write heavy; write hard.
11th April 2005
stylie;4831855...So while Im open for open sourced anything... why the hell must microsoft allow for any other company to run software on its own platform? This is not an argument I will live and die by, but cant users just use another operating systems if they want more freedom? Couldnt microsoft technically create an OS that doesnt allow you to install anything if they wanted to? And only allow programs developed by itself? Complete with proprietary connections for peripherals and sell those too? Obviously I realize that OS wont go very far. But the my point is that people are free to choose other OS's. I dont know if I necessarily agree with this stuff. MS should be able to do whatever the hell it wants. There is no monopoly here as far as I can tell. There are other OS's in the world.
I see exactly what you're saying. But this stuff is complicated, primarily because of MS's own long and rich history of trying to be a monopoly.
First of all, MS doesn't "have" to do anything: no one is forcing them to configure their OS to accept other browsers. It's just that if they want to get into the highly regulated Euro market, their OS cannot be toxic to competing browsers. Their choice; just like it is with the chicken farmer who can't sell his birds in Green City unless he can prove he doesn't use steroids, hormones and antibiotics in his chicken feed. It's essentially the same principle and same choice, writ large.
But it's not that simple, and it's hard to know where your principles will take you in a situation involving a mega-corp like MS. For example, while I might generally be leery of government controls on business in most questions, it's a really different situation when you're talking about MS, which is itself more powerful than many nations. And MS is certainly no friend of the free market and open competition, having done everything it could to destroy its competition for over 25 years.
MS is the nearest thing we have today to the old "robber baron" monopolies of the late 1800s. Bill Gates, just like Andrew Carnegie in his day, is a very generous philanthropist. But Gates, just like Carnegie, built the vast wealth which permits his philanthropy by being utterly ruthless in destroying any business, or man, which competed against him; and both used any means, lawful or not, to crush their competition.
So I can't generate any sympathy for MS. It's allegiance is to nothing: no country, system or principle - except its own success and profit. As far as MS is concerned, if it can prosper in a free market and an open society, fine, it'll be all for that "free market" stuff, yippee. But if it determines it would do better in a totalitarian system that gives MS an exclusive contract*, well, you'd see Steve Ballmer working hand in glove with the secret police to crush dissent, if it made Ballmer richer...and then you'd see Fat Steve skipping across the stage at the annual meeting, screaming how fantastic it is that MS is now going to be the exclusive OS for all computers in Freedonia, and all because MS helped the dictator arrest a few hundred regime opponents who probably used Linux anyway.
Short answer: things get too complicated when you're dealing with anti-trust legislation. And the argument I'd use for Sal's Neighborhood Grocery is different from what I'd use for MS.
* Here's a thought experiment:Let's say that within the next year the Anti-Christ has come to power, and now rules the world. He has instituted his new world government and worldwide economic system in which no one may buy or sell unless they have his official mark of registration on the hand or forehead. Violators of the government registration rule are arrested and put in concentration camps, never to be seen again.
Do you think MS would have the least problem in developing and offering to the Antichrist's regime, for sale under terms which would be extremely profitable for MS, software which would greatly enhance the government's ability to locate and arrest violators?
But we already know the answer, don't we?