| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Would Windows be better without a bundled Internet Explorer? | |
|
||
| Time: 14:34 EST/19:34 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The EU has thrown another speed bump in front of Microsoft, this time charging the Redmond giant with crushing web browser rivals. Is it time for Microsoft to now unbundle Internet Explorer from the OS? Wouldn’t Windows be a better and safer OS if users could choose the browser that best suited their needs? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 321 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:38:27 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 1/18/2009 6:29:38 PM |
| Bah! No modern OS comes without a browser. |
| #2 By 21705 (74.57.67.145) at 1/18/2009 8:41:57 PM |
|
I have no problem it comes with... just add an uninstall option that removes it completly. The user should have the choice.
MSN messenger and another one I forgot does not come preinstalled with Windows 7 this time, people who are using it will need to install it and this is a very great news. |
| #3 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/18/2009 10:32:58 PM |
|
ooooohh careful.... a very large number of third party applications use IE's rendering engine.
Like it or not.... IE is an integral part of Windows. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.214.159.82) at 1/18/2009 11:20:18 PM |
| mshtml.dll (i.e. the renderer) and shdocvw.dll (i.e. the com web browser control) can still be distributed without any need to have IE installed by default. No need for browseui.dll and iexplore.exe unless the user wants IE. |
| #5 By 13997 (69.144.82.159) at 1/19/2009 9:36:15 AM |
|
#4 Be Careful of what you ask for...
Do you really want developers distributing different incarnations of the HTML rendering DLLs? Really? Talk about a security nightmare... (Let alone more work for software developers.) Right now I have an application written in 2000 and it automatically uses IE8 with all the security fixes over IE5 that was around when it shipped. So the developer had to do nothing to keep it updated and secure, and the user is not subjected to an outdated version opening their system to massive exploits. And most users don't even realize when their software is using the HTML rendering engine DLLs, if they are IE or some other OSS project. At least when the developer users IE, they can be sure MS keeps it patched for them. (Linux users also have this assurance for most distributions as the HTML rendering engines are also automatically updated for them.) HTML was argued by MS that it should be a function of a modern OS application layer, and they were right, as you can new even see applications on Linux and OS X tapping into HTML rendering aspects of the OS, let alone projects like AOL and older companies that DEPENDED on the OS providing these features for their application. (Even when AOL owned Netscape, it was far easier for them to let MS maintain IE and use the IE engines.) HTML is just like a TrueType font or a Bitmap, the OS should know how to display it properly and applications should be able to ask the OS to display it for them. This argument has long been laid to rest. |
| #6 By 16302 (64.201.211.159) at 1/19/2009 11:02:54 AM |
|
a - it would be a breaking change and would affect a number of ISVs negatively
b - how would you download a browser on a new machine without a browser? c - only if every other OS was required to unbundle their browser as well - what is good for the goose is good for the gander... |
| #7 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/19/2009 12:14:19 PM |
|
The EU doesn't give a fig about competition - if they did they would foster it rather than the cradle to grave socialist command economy they loosely mask with language designed to keep their people in line and gasping for skim milk at the government teat.
Seven - appropriate that the next Windows is 7... BUT Seven, count it (7) is the greater factor people in the EU report in sick each year - 37 freaking days on average - Seven (7) times the rate that workers in the US turn in a "Gelben Urlaub Schein" So they once again want to dip their fingers into someone else's pockets - and it is no coincidence that 7 is coming up on its ship date - they pull this crap each time a new version of Windows comes out. It's the "Shipping Tax" and "The Euro Drama" |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/19/2009 12:18:13 PM |
|
#6:
a - time for those ISVs to get with the times and start supporting an open web and not 'The Web by Microsoft'. b - who says you wouldn't have a browser? You can use whatever browser your OEM installed to download the one you want. If you buy a shrink-wrapped retail copy of Windows at Best Buy, they can include IE in that. But OEMs selling their own systems should have full say in which browser gets installed, and that includes the option to remove IE (and not just hide it). c - sounds good to me. btw can you point out the other OS company that has a monopoly position, and thereby subject to antitrust laws designed to keep monopolies from illegally using their power to thwart competition? There's Microsoft, and there's....? MS doesn't get this grief because everyone's jealous of their wonderfulness. They get it because they have a track record of abusing their power to kill competitors, and antitrust law is designed to keep such predatory monopolists in check. The fact that the US had this case first and bungled it due to political expediency doesn't mean that the case isn't valid. Unfortunately, it's like closing the barn after the horse has escaped. It's too late to go back in time, and nobody could have predicted so long ago how integral the web would become, and how powerful the browser would be as a platform. |
| #9 By 2960 (72.196.201.130) at 1/19/2009 12:24:40 PM |
|
HELL YES.
Not because I hate IE. But because IE is too damned intertwined with the OS, making it an easy job for Malware. Make IE a brower, operating in it's own little world, and I'd be MUCH happier. TL |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/19/2009 12:38:05 PM |
| #7: Yes, because if there's anything that will foster competition, it's wall-to-wall Microsoft everything. It takes a different way of thinking to call a move to restore competition in a market segment as being anti-competitive. If there's anyone who doesn't give a fig about competition, it's you and the other MS supporters who dream of total Windows/MS domination in all IT market segments. Either that, or it's a faux appreciation of the benefits of real competition; you love it just so long as MS always wins. |
| #11 By 13997 (69.144.82.159) at 1/19/2009 12:49:49 PM |
|
#8 -Wow, not about not living in reality...
b) - OEMs can already install their own browser, set it as default OS wide and the person buying the computer will never see and IE icon. Why do you think they can't already do this? Where have you been? Even before the anti-trust issue with MS, as an OEM at the time, you could ALWAYS do this. And MS didn't care - they even installed shortcuts to download and install AOL, Compuserve and others that competed with their new MSN online service. The whole 'bundling' issue from the MS lawsuit really gets people confused, and they go stupid it seems. The only thing MS didn't want OEMs doing was 'altering' the desktop with different Shells or other specific things that would take away from the OS and even things that would make the OS less stable. OEMs could even modify the startup screens, brand IE, do whatever they wanted and install whatever they wanted - ALWAYS. This just gets crazier, and so do the people... |
| #12 By 13997 (69.144.82.159) at 1/19/2009 12:52:49 PM |
|
#9 They did this, it is an OS called Windows Vista, you can buy it on the shelves now...
The HTML rendering DLLs are still in the OS, but the Shell (Explorer) no longer uses them for display folder contents or other things like previous versions of Windows did since Win98. |
| #13 By 13997 (69.144.82.159) at 1/19/2009 12:58:38 PM |
|
#7 - Ok you need to check your facts.
The '7 times' you refer to also include their personal days. Most countries in the EU give their employees paid sick and personal days, and so they can and do take them, as they also usually build up from year to year. So the employer's expect the employee to use them and provide them for the employee. In contrast, in the 'great' USA, people seldom even get SICK days, let alone personal days, and they are usually unpaid when they do get them. So people working at Walmart or McDonalds in the US, will go to work sick, because they have to because they need the money or are afraid of losing their job. I love it when people talk about crap they don't understand the basic premise behind. #7 Are you Sean Hannity by chance, cause this is something stupid like he would say and not understand. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/19/2009 1:18:24 PM |
|
#11: Why do you think they can't already do this?
Where did I say that they couldn't do this? Where have you been? Where have I been? Right here, which is where I was when I wrote this in post #8: "But OEMs selling their own systems should have full say in which browser gets installed, and that includes the option to remove IE (and not just hide it)." Note the "remove IE" part. #12: Wow, you seem like a really smart guy. Could you please tell me how to remove IE from Vista? I'm a FF user and I don't need IE. I want it removed, gone, exit, finito, nevermore. How exactly do I do that again? #13: You must be new here. When St. Ketchum says something, no matter how asinine, you're supposed to blindly nod in agreement. |
| #15 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/19/2009 4:35:42 PM |
|
right... look, I base 7 above on what I saw.... 15.5 years of direct experience... I lived all across the EU and so much of what I saw in this context made me ill... and a little sad...
How the heck does a phrase like "The, or 'a' Golden Vacation Ticket" become popularized by the very people leveraging such a system without there being something to it? The numbers are what they are and I maintain that this latest action is not about supporting competition at all - it's about using authority to muscle a company out of billions. TL, IE 7/8 on Vista/Windows 7 execute in a highly restricted space with permissions even lower than standard user space. What you recommend has already been accomplished. This post was edited by lketchum on Monday, January 19, 2009 at 17:18. |
| #16 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 1/19/2009 4:42:55 PM |
|
So, if I buy a Ford it can't have mirrors unless I buy them from GM?
I can see having the ability to remove IE during an install or after. |
| #17 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/19/2009 5:16:16 PM |
| test |
| #18 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 1/19/2009 5:57:50 PM |
| Can't MS just buy Opera? I don't believe this would raise any red flags (there are now many companies making browsers for multiple platforms). It could then move operations to India where some real work would get done. |
| #19 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 1/19/2009 6:49:24 PM |
|
#5 "Do you really want developers distributing different incarnations of the HTML rendering DLLs? Really?"
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my original comment - what I meant in response to Lloyd's comment was that Microsoft can distribute those dll's without including IE itself and nothing will break. i.e. the sky isn't going to fall if you remove IE. As for distributing dll's with your application - I'm not sure if you've noticed but just about every single application does this. They're called prerequisites, it's nothing new and it's no more and no less a security risk than any other application. The dll's can be installed into a shared location whereby they can be updated just once in one spot, side-by-side or in the application specific directory as required. But as I've said, there's nothing wrong with Microsoft including the 2 dll's with Windows. "And most users don't even realize when their software is using the HTML rendering engine DLLs" They don't need to - it's the last thing they should care about. The developers of that software that create the installation packages on the other hand have no issues knowing exactly which prerequisites are required and how to install them - e.g. Visual Studio will automatically build an MSI for you that can reference the prerequisites from within the MSI itself or download them automatically from their source. So even the really really lazy half assed developers can do it! #13 You have to realise that Lloyd is as anti-Europe as he is anti-anything-non-Microsoft. |
| #20 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/19/2009 8:25:05 PM |
|
#19 Are you kidding... I loved Europe. I fought for it. In fact, one of the few times I have shed a tear was when I had to leave Europe. I had stayed there so long that speaking English actually hurt for a few months - the muscles in one's mouth grow used to making sounds inherent to a language.
I despise socialism. I hate it. I saw it extinguish the human spirit. As gawd awful as capitalism can be, it is vastly superior to the crush the human soul weight of socialism. I do not see the actions of the EU being in any way consistent with the people of Europe at all. I do believe that they are overreaching and doing more to hurt their own people than they are trying to help. So forget it. I'm not anti-anything, but pro pick yourself up and do something and get and keep all governments as small as possible. I hired three new men this weel - all of them badly needed jobs. I could not allow myself to NOT hire them. Neither I or any of you need a dang government to do a thing for us. I do not need them to help me compete. Neither do any of you. |
| #21 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/19/2009 8:42:10 PM |
|
#13, the 37 days was for sick days taken and from a study whereby investigators had caught people defrauding the state. Workers in the US also receive personal days as well as vaction time, but skip that.. let me tell you what we do and what I see among other small business owners.
The "people" make up a company - so no one keeps score. If people need time off, they get it and with pay. I have hired men off the street, trained them and paid them much more than a living wage for a very long time. I hired one man who lost his wife within a few days. I paid her entire medical expenses out of pocket. Her husband took ill, and I paid that in addition to his wages and he had yet to report to work for even one day. When he was well, and only when he was well, he came to work. When he was in hospital we visited him each day to keep up his spirits. We take care of one another - most especially in small business. So spare me the personal attacks. I'm calling a currupt system what it is - socialst and anti-competitive and anti-growth. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 321 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:38:27 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
