Should Microsoft include a browser selection screen for Windows 7 in Europe?

[Eice]

Should be self-explanatory, I think.

[Kerodo]

I personally don't see the problem with things as they are now. Everyone is free to choose and install whatever alternate browser they want. What's the problem then?

[funkydude]

Just, "yes". I want to choose my default installed browser.

[the Tester]

Yes. I'd like the choice of what I want to use for the default web browser.

[TOMxEU]

I do not care, I will use IE8 anyway, but I pity common users, who will have a lot complaints, since internet will not be installed by default, ehm I mean IE. ::)

[progress]

Yes - that would be great :)

[Saint Satin Stain]

Windows are Microsoft's to do as it will. Should Shredded Wheat include Coco Puffs in the package? I use SeaMonkey as default internet app, also use Firefox, K-Meleon, and KM Lite. I use KompoZer. I like Mozilla products, but if they want Microsoft to take out IE (though I seldom use it.) they are wrong. Instead Mozilla should make its own OS; I believe that it would be a good one.

The EU is wrong, but governments are known as bullies.

[progress]

However, I think ordinary Joe will select Internet Explorer :shifty:

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Everyone is free to choose and install whatever alternate browser they want. What's the problem then?" }-The difficulty is the average Joe who gets their computer for the first time won't know X browser from Y browser. We know about them because we've learnt about them from forums like this.

I hope the selection screen explains things well about the choice they can make.

[Pinga]

The decision has been made already:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136168/Microsoft_kills_Windows_7E_puts_IE_back_in_upcoming_OS

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "The difficulty is the average Joe who gets their computer for the first time won't know X browser from Y browser. We know about them because we've learnt about them from forums like this.
" }-
That isn't MS's problem at all, never has been. It's up to the user to educate him/herself and figure things out. I am glad MS made the decision to keep IE. Good for them.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "That isn't MS's problem at all, never has been. It's up to the user to educate him/herself and figure things out. I am glad MS made the decision to keep IE." }-True, but the argument goes that if it's handed to them on a plate some users will not use anything else. It could be said that some users will use IE and nothing else because it's always been there; "it's what came with the computer" so to speak.

On the other hand, there are users who will look around and try different things.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "The difficulty is the average Joe who gets their computer for the first time won't know X browser from Y browser. We know about them because we've learnt about them from forums like this.

I hope the selection screen explains things well about the choice they can make." }-
You make it sound like being able to choose browsers is something users are obliged to learn.

Why is that, exactly? If they're happy with IE, where's the evil in that?

[dw426]

A little late to the party, but no, they shouldn't include any other competing product. Why? Because it's THEIR product, it's THEIR money they spent. You don't like IE? Fire it up long enough to go download Firefox or whatever browser you choose, and shut up. You don't like Windows Media Player? Fire up your newly chosen browser and go download VLC, WinAmp, KMPLayer, who cares, just download it, install, and shut up.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "A little late to the party, but no, they shouldn't include any other competing product. Why? Because it's THEIR product, it's THEIR money they spent. You don't like IE? Fire it up long enough to go download Firefox or whatever browser you choose, and shut up. You don't like Windows Media Player? Fire up your newly chosen browser and go download VLC, WinAmp, KMPLayer, who cares, just download it, install, and shut up." }-
its kinda like saying if you buy a car you can have a second stero unit but you have to keep the original one installed...

Im surprised the monopoly of MS has been allowed tbh.
I dont see 90 percent of cars on the road being made by Honda and users pretty much having to buy honda cars because all the stuff they want only works with Honda cars?

yet in the computer world people accept if you get a computer you have some form of windows..

thing is if i dont use Internet explorer and i have it on my computer i still have to download tons of patches for it. thats why im glad windows 7 doesnt come with a mail client. one less program to patch that i dont even use...

[spm]

-{ Quote: "its kinda like saying if you buy a car you can have a second stero unit but you have to keep the original one installed...

Im surprised the monopoly of MS has been allowed tbh.
I dont see 90 percent of cars on the road being made by Honda and users pretty much having to buy honda cars because all the stuff they want only works with Honda cars?

yet in the computer world people accept if you get a computer you have some form of windows.." }-

I'm sorry, but this post reveals merely a lack of understanding of the issues involved. Just because a company has a majority of the share of a particular market does not make it monopolistic. The problem arises when such a company abuses its dominant market position to damage the business of a competitor through 'anti-competitive' practices. While Microsoft - like any other market dominant company - does at times engage in monopolistic behaviour (and then needs to be brought to task for it by regulators), the bundling of Internet Explorer can't in any reasonable way be interpreted as anti-competitive. Since you brought up the (false) analogy of the motor industry, what MS is doing by bundling IE with Windows is analogous to Honda building its cars using 'Honda genuine' parts. It would be ridiculous to expect that, when you buy a Honda car, you have to elect which vendor's brakes, engine cylinders, suspension systems, steering wheel, etc., you want it to include. This is the sort of nonsense, however, that the unelected bureaucrats at the EU are striving to impose on Microsoft, purportedly in the best interests of 'Europe' (or, in this case, a relatively insignicant but whingeing Norwegian company). Excuse me if I view what's really going on here as a barely-disguised political exercise targetted at a successful American company, which will result only in confusion, at best, for the European consumer.

If you want a closer analogy with the car industry, consider instead the widespread practice of car manufacturers protecting their business by making it all but impossible to diagnose faults at any but their own list of 'approved' dealers, due to the proprietary nature of their electronic diagnosis systems. How many of these manufacturers publish sufficient details of their systems to allow smaller, independent, dealers and service centres to offer a competitive service without crippling cost to themselves? How many of these car manufacturers have been targetted by the EU for this anti-competitive behaviour? Yet, MS have - frankly, rightly so - been forced to reveal and properly document all sorts of internal details about Windows in order to permit competitors to write software for Windows on a level playing field.

A vain hope I know, but it's about time the EU started to act in the best interests of its citizens, and to earn some credibility, at least.

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "
thing is if i dont use Internet explorer and i have it on my computer i still have to download tons of patches for it. thats why im glad windows 7 doesnt come with a mail client. one less program to patch that i dont even use..." }-

That's exactly why users should be able to uninstall IE completely.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "That's exactly why users should be able to uninstall IE completely." }-

It's also the only sensible criticism I've heard so far about why IE would be better off not being installed by default. Note I didn't say "shouldn't", but merely would be better off. It is their product and they have every single right to have it installed on their own OS. The rest of the criticisms is just plain whining, mostly uninformed, fanboy-ish or blind hatred whining. Oh, yeah, the "EU is looking out for its citizens" comment....I'll say this as nicely as I can: Whomever really thinks that has no clue about the situation. This is corporate bullying for financial incentives and instead of it being a fight between just the corporations, the government decided to play too.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I'm sorry, but this post reveals merely a lack of understanding of the issues involved. Just because a company has a majority of the share of a particular market does not make it monopolistic. The problem arises when such a company abuses its dominant market position to damage the business of a competitor through 'anti-competitive' practices. While Microsoft - like any other market dominant company - does at times engage in monopolistic behaviour (and then needs to be brought to task for it by regulators), the bundling of Internet Explorer can't in any reasonable way be interpreted as anti-competitive. Since you brought up the (false) analogy of the motor industry, what MS is doing by bundling IE with Windows is analogous to Honda building its cars using 'Honda genuine' parts. It would be ridiculous to expect that, when you buy a Honda car, you have to elect which vendor's brakes, engine cylinders, suspension systems, steering wheel, etc., you want it to include. This is the sort of nonsense, however, that the unelected bureaucrats at the EU are striving to impose on Microsoft, purportedly in the best interests of 'Europe' (or, in this case, a relatively insignicant but whingeing Norwegian company). Excuse me if I view what's really going on here as a barely-disguised political exercise targetted at a successful American company, which will result only in confusion, at best, for the European consumer.

If you want a closer analogy with the car industry, consider instead the widespread practice of car manufacturers protecting their business by making it all but impossible to diagnose faults at any but their own list of 'approved' dealers, due to the proprietary nature of their electronic diagnosis systems. How many of these manufacturers publish sufficient details of their systems to allow smaller, independent, dealers and service centres to offer a competitive service without crippling cost to themselves? How many of these car manufacturers have been targetted by the EU for this anti-competitive behaviour? Yet, MS have - frankly, rightly so - been forced to reveal and properly document all sorts of internal details about Windows in order to permit competitors to write software for Windows on a level playing field.

A vain hope I know, but it's about time the EU started to act in the best interests of its citizens, and to earn some credibility, at least." }-

A browser isnt a needed componant. you can run an operating system without a browser. so surely all os's could ship without a browser?
a media player isnt a needed componant of an operating system eiether.

IMO at the install stage you should be able to choose which applications you wish to install that MS provide such as paint,calulator,media player,media centre,IE etc etc. that way only the applications people use will be installed. it will reduce overall footprint,reduce security issues and other benefits.

It is not hard to do so why doesnt MS do this?

I see an operating system as a blank canvas. it provides the platform for me to use. I then install what I want to use on top of that.

lets me give you an example of me thinking outside the box: MS provides the essentials such as running water,electrics and maybe bathroom and kitchen. the rest i get from a third party.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "A browser isnt a needed componant. you can run an operating system without a browser. so surely all os's could ship without a browser?
a media player isnt a needed componant of an operating system eiether." }-
That may be a valid opinion for you, but the only problem is that there's a hell lot of people who disagree with you on that. Ever wondered why Ubuntu is a far more popular distro than Arch?

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "That may be a valid opinion for you, but the only problem is that there's a hell lot of people who disagree with you on that. Ever wondered why Ubuntu is a far more popular distro than Arch?" }-
IF people was given the choose of which MS applications they wanted at first start or even during install then im sure people would find it useful.

well ubuntu is far easier to install and setup.

having the option to choose which MS applications you want installed during install would be very useful. if people had the choice it would be a different story.

im pretty such windows 95,98 and NT4 had a custom install option which allowed you to untick applications you didnt want to install.

Why the hell did MS take that option away?

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "im pretty such windows 95,98 and NT4 had a custom install option which allowed you to untick applications you didnt want to install.

Why the hell did MS take that option away?" }-
It never really went away, except that the installer skips that step. You can do the same post-install via the Control Panel.

[Seer]

-{ Quote: "thing is if i dont use Internet explorer and i have it on my computer i still have to download tons of patches for it. " }-

No you don't, why would you want to patch an app you don't use?

-{ Quote: "A browser isnt a needed componant." }-

What's a needed component? Personally, I have an even more radical opinion, so let's expand your quote to Desktop, the Window Manger, File Manager, Notepad, the Calc, firewall...
But this has gotten very silly now.

I voted of course.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "What's a needed component? Personally, I have an even more radical opinion, so let's expand your quote to Desktop, the Window Manger, File Manager, Notepad, the Calc, firewall...
But this has gotten very silly now." }-
Gotta agree with that. If you really want to argue this point, then only the OS kernel is strictly necessary. Maybe that's the only thing all operating systems should come with, and nothing else.

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "No you don't, why would you want to patch an app you don't use?
" }-

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you do have to patch IE whether you use/like it or not because it's an integral part of the XP operating system.

[Seer]

-{ Quote: "If you really want to argue this point, then only the OS kernel is strictly necessary. Maybe that's the only thing all operating systems should come with, and nothing else." }-

Which will leave all of us Wilders members (not to mention our friend Joe) clueless as to what to do with the OS. TBH, I am of the opinion that this issue is better left alone then be pursued to such extents.

-{ Quote: "Instead Mozilla should make its own OS" }-

If I hadn't took a second look at the comments I'd missed this one and would've said it myself. A good point.

-{ Quote: "you do have to patch IE whether you use/like it or not because it's an integral part of the XP operating system." }-

Why separate updates for the OS and IE then? Shouldn't they all be titled "Update for OS" if they are so entwined? AFAIK, every patch is documented in detail and you can read up before deciding to apply it.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "No you don't, why would you want to patch an app you don't use?



What's a needed component? Personally, I have an even more radical opinion, so let's expand your quote to Desktop, the Window Manger, File Manager, Notepad, the Calc, firewall...
But this has gotten very silly now.

I voted of course." }-
Hello,
of course you would patch IE even if you dont use it. a program could still install and take advantage of a hole in IE so even if i dont use it malware still could.
its like leaving open a backdoor in your house. even if you dont use the door you would still lock it so no else can use it.

You dont need to go that far. you can replace the file manager with something like directory opus if you wanted to.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "of course you would patch IE even if you dont use it. a program could still install and take advantage of a hole in IE so even if i dont use it malware still could." }-
How, exactly?

The whole point of "holes" in IE is to let programs install silently. Why would a program that's already installed still need to take advantage of "holes" in IE?

[blacknight]

-{ Quote: "A browser isnt a needed componant. you can run an operating system without a browser. so surely all os's could ship without a browser?
a media player isnt a needed componant of an operating system eiether.

IMO at the install stage you should be able to choose which applications you wish to install that MS provide such as paint,calulator,media player,media centre,IE etc etc. that way only the applications people use will be installed. it will reduce overall footprint,reduce security issues and other benefits.

It is not hard to do so why doesnt MS do this?

" }-


I agree totally ! :) ( my vote:Yes, and other measures should be taken as well )

[blacknight]

-{ Quote: "This is the sort of nonsense, however, that the unelected bureaucrats at the EU are striving to impose on Microsoft, purportedly in the best interests of 'Europe' (or, in this case, a relatively insignicant but whingeing Norwegian company). Excuse me if I view what's really going on here as a barely-disguised political exercise targetted at a successful American company, which will result only in confusion, at best, for the European consumer.

" }-

I'm an European citizen too. Often I disagree with the " unelected bureaucrats ", but in many situation they try to defend and to enhance the market freedom. A man named Adam Smith in the XVIII° ;D explained as the free competition in the Market is the best choice for the users, for the economy, for all... And what you call " a relatively insignicant but whingeing Norwegian company " is making in these years one of the more sure, more rich, more innovative browser.

[Seer]

-{ Quote: "And what you call " a relatively insignicant but whingeing Norwegian company " is making in these years one of the more sure, more rich, more innovative browser. " }-

A company making a browser, no matter how good it is (and it is not THAT good) is certainly insignificant when compared with company who is making what Microsoft's making.

May I just repeat what's already been said in this thread - the only way Opera, Firefox and whoever wants to pursue this issue should fight MS monopoly is to make a competitive OS of their own.

[noone_particular]

None of this would have been an issue at all if Internet Explorer hadn't been permanently bundled with the OS and supposedly unremovable. Users could have downloaded another browser, then removed IE if they chose to. Offering all the other browsers isn't practical. Unlike MS, they update their browsers more than once every few years. They'd be offering outdated browsers with security risks of their own. Microsoft had to be stubborn and adopt a smart@ss attitude about it (no browser at all) until there was a backlash. Now it would appear that the fight itself is more important that the original issue.
-{ Quote: "May I just repeat what's already been said in this thread - the only way Opera, Firefox and whoever wants to pursue this issue should fight MS monopoly is to make a competitive OS of their own." }-
Is this a joke??
Microsoft already controls the hardware vendors and those who produce drivers, firmware etc. Linux is well established and struggles to get any cooperation from them. Microsoft has made real competition impossible for anyone who doesn't produce everything in house. They'd stand about as much of a chance as you would competing with automakers by building cars in your garage.

[blacknight]

-{ Quote: "

A company making a browser, no matter how good it is (and it is not THAT good) is certainly insignificant when compared with company who is making what Microsoft's making.

" }-

There is not history between security, features, innovation, creativeness by Opera and FF - and Konqueror in Linux too - and IE. The only problem is that 80% of the users get Windows and boot the pc. They could find inside IE as Opera, FF, NetScape, Maxthon... they will use anythingh. This is the only handicap of Opera and FF. The only reason for I use IE is that sometimes I want to do online update.

p.s.what are making Microsoft with IE that Opera and FF have not already done ?

[Gullible Jones]

I don't see why. It's their OS, they should be able to ship their browser with it. I have no issue whatsoever with that.

However, I do take offense to being unable to fully remove their browser. That's just dumb.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "I don't see why. It's their OS, they should be able to ship their browser with it. I have no issue whatsoever with that.

However, I do take offense to being unable to fully remove their browser. That's just dumb." }-

THIS I will agree to.

[Seer]

-{ Quote: "Is this a joke??
Microsoft already controls the hardware vendors and those who produce drivers, firmware etc. Linux is well established and struggles to get any cooperation from them. Microsoft has made real competition impossible for anyone who doesn't produce everything in house. They'd stand about as much of a chance as you would competing with automakers by building cars in your garage." }-

While I agree with your decription of the current market state, I would also like to hear your opinion on how to approach this issue. Somehow, grabbing Microsoft by the horns and whining "oh please include my software into your OS", doesn't seem appropriate to me, neither professionally nor morally.

-{ Quote: "There is not history between security, features, innovation, creativeness by Opera and FF - and Konqueror in Linux too - and IE. The only problem is that 80% of the users get Windows and boot the pc. They could find inside IE as Opera, FF, NetScape, Maxthon... they will use anythingh. This is the only handicap of Opera and FF. The only reason for I use IE is that sometimes I want to do online update. " }-

I don't know what to say on this as I don't find IE to be a "lesser" browser anymore. The year is 2010 and not 2000. All that you mention - security, features, innovation are things of personal preference and concern.

But I can see where this bundling of 3rd party apps will, in the end, benefit Microsoft greatly.

[noone_particular]

-{ Quote: "While I agree with your decription of the current market state, I would also like to hear your opinion on how to approach this issue. Somehow, grabbing Microsoft by the horns and whining "oh please include my software into your OS", doesn't seem appropriate to me, neither professionally nor morally." }-
I don't think anything short of restricting or splitting up Microsoft under anti-monopoly laws can level the field. Computers and the internet are too much a part of our infrastructure and daily lives to be controlled by one company. Anti-competitive business agreements with hardware vendors needs to be annulled to prevent terms that keep hardware from supporting other operating systems. Hardware vendors need to make the code that's needed for drivers available to all OS developers.

Policies forcing both hardware and software vendors into planned obsolescence need to be voided. That policy harms users and the environment. Users are forced to replace perfectly good hardware because of it. That hardware, much of it containing toxic materials end up in landfills because of it due to a lack of recycling facilities. That is the most anti-environmental policy possible, discarding completely functional (and toxic) hardware solely to force sales.

As for the original question, browsers, the simple solution would be for Windows to come with a mini-browser that's used to download and install a full browser. All it would need is links to the vendors sites. For users with no alternate preference, it can download IE.

When you get down to it, this is about separating the OS from the user software, and giving use the ability to build their own package if they choose to. The usual full package that Windows is now is fine for some but shouldn't be forced on everyone. It wouldn't be so bad if there were real options to Windows but all of the options are limited in some way, much of which is a direct result of Microsoft policies.

[progress]

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/02/19/microsoft-reveals-browser-ballot-screen-rollout-begins-next-wee/

-{ Quote: "
Starting next month, users in the EU will begin receiving a Windows update which finally implements the browser ballot screen which was approved in December 2009." }-

;D

[Noob]

I think they shouldn't remove IE 8. Neither include a screen selection for browsers.

It's their product they can do what they want with it. Actually they're not forcing customers to use their web browser. If they don't like it they can go and install another one without issues.
So this is all ******** on EU part. :dry:

[Daveski17]

I think this has less to do with actual browser choice & more to do with dodgy Microsoft business practises. This has all come to a head now over browser choice (which is a tad absurd in many ways). I firmly believe that if it was up to Microsoft there would be no alternative choice of browsers. I don't need or want the ballot screen & I won't manually install it. I rarely (if ever) use IE 8 but it's there if I need it. It won't alter the fact that my main browsers of choice are K-Meleon & SRWare Iron.

[SirPeterPan]

The way it ended was the right way.

IE8 included in Windows + a ballot screen out of IE prompting users with several other random browsers to pick.

[firzen771]

my view is no, they shuldnt have removed IE in the first place, simply because, its their product, their OS, their choice, if YOU have a problem with something its doing, its quite simple, DONT use it... ther ARE alternative that u can install on ur own time, i dont understand all this complaining the EU is doing about it, its ridiculous.

[ProrokX]

I think the same. Next reason could be fact, that a few of software is using IE libraries. And next step: maybe browser selection screen for main Linux distribution? I dont wanna use Firefox at all!;D

[ameyap]

i don't care as i am not in europe anyways

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "The way it ended was the right way.

IE8 included in Windows + a ballot screen out of IE prompting users with several other random browsers to pick." }-


I understand Opera's problem with many of Microsoft's business practises, & the way that M$ have tried to squeeze out other browser producers by trying to monopolise the market with underhand & devious devices, but this ballot screen seems rather pointless as an update to me. I worry about the EU sometimes... :wacko:

[Daveski17]

I just got an update from MS, the browser ballot screen is among them, however, not having IE 8 as my default browser it hasn't loaded (the box was un-ticked next to the update list) so I haven't seen it. 8)