Microsoft trying to squeeze others out?

All of the programs you mentioned are part of the Windows operating system not add ons. Which makes it very hard if not impossible to uninstall because all of the windows apps interact and are interdependent.

 

It doesn't need to be that way, it's only programmed that way, because M$ wanted this to happen.
MSIE is a good example. Why didn't M$ separate MSIE from their OS Windows.
Firefox can be installed and uninstalled, why isn't that possible with MSIE ?

 

Well as I see it, it is there product and they can do with it as they please and we can use it as is or find an alternative. I have looked for an alternative and have not found one I would trade windows for. Maybe some day.

 

In IE's case this is because Microsoft decided to integrate it into Windows, starting with Win98, in order to give it an "installed user base" advantage over Netscape (which was then being bundled with various ISPs). Outlook Express can certainly be removed with no ill effect (once you get around WFP's attempt to ressurect it) and Notepad/Wordpad are standalone applications - just delete the .exe file and away they go.

You can have debate what should be an add-on and what should be built-in to an OS, but "content viewers" (such as web browsers, email clients, video/audio players) should be up to individual choice, with a couple of alternatives included to start with. This is the case with Linux distributions (which may have several alternatives) but not with Microsoft - this allows MS to claim a greater user-base, to impose de-facto standards (as with its implementation, or lack thereof, of W3 web standards) and to use user-inertia (most won't bother to even search for the existence of alternatives) to gain advantage in other markets (the example of Media Player bundling giving them a major advantage in pushing WM-DRM to online stores and portable player manufacturers given above).

 

Very right. M$ rules. End of discussion.

 

OK, but which less-knowledgeable user is going to delete NotePad/WordPad or any other MS Application without being worried.
These users won't do that, unless there is an uninstaller.

 

Or lets say why would anyone want to remove ~120KB big application called Notepad? Or you prefer waiting Office/OpenOffice (usually takes far longer than Notepad) to open/edit some most basic plaintext? Or Wordpad? Don't say MS is trying to get rid of OpenOffice by leaving Wordpad in Windows!?
MS is corporation. And as such company they have ALL rights to enter ANY product segment they want. Just look at Hyundai. They're making cars, memory modules (RAM), ships etc... So if MS decides to sell candies and cakes under Microsoft brand, why not. It's their decision (even though it may sound funny).

 

i agree Whit you

in my case i just love MS OS, i can care lees if come bundle Whit 5 different Internet explorer or 5 different media player, MS Give me the choice of use it if i want to, and you know what i love WMP To, but i use also winamp itunes for music, for DVD zoom player, TheaterTek, so you see i got the choose to use what i like to use, same goes for IE, i can use firefox, opera, Netscape, blablabla, same goes for Outlook i can use any mail client that i want to,they don't force me to use IE, but then again i love IE Also

you can get XPLite and remove alot of MS Product

 

That's the arguement, MS is taking advantage of peoples lack of knowledge.

 

"explorer" is part of Windows. Open up Windows Explorer...browse your C drive so you have "C:\Program Files" or something in the address bar.

Now in that same Windows Explorer address bar, type in https://www.wilderssecurity.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=625228 or some website.

It's a full featured operating system. To stay ahead of other OS's, it needs options and features. That is what Windows has become. If you don't like all those features...well, there's always CrApple or something like Ubuntu for you (a recent full featured distro of *nix). (whoops..maybe a different "less full featured" distro would be better for those who don't want full features OS's)

It comes with THIS, if you choose to use something else, you're perfectly entitled to add that something else and use it instead.

Now if Microsoft coded the OS to prevent you from installing say..another brorwser, or another media player..then you'd have a point.

 

No-one's going to object to an operating system offering features and options - but it should be application neutral, providing those features regardless of whatever programs you choose to you. The examples given above of how Windows defaults to Internet Explorer and prevents its removal (which should I have an insecure, buggy application on my system if I don't use it?), whether another browser is used or not, should indicate that it fails on this.

As for the media player, please read my previous posts regarding WS-DRM and Microsoft's EULA-given ability to disable any player using it. Pause also to consider how many online music stores are offering WS-DRM compared to alternative systems. Consider yourself in the shoes of an online music store manager considering what formats to offer - should they pay a premium for WS-DRM (which most Windows users can play, due to Media Player bundling) or another format (requiring a download of another player)?

If you decided that paying the WS-DRM premium was the most sensible business decision, even with cheaper alternatives available, then congratulations! You've just demonstrated an example of Microsoft leveraging its monopoly to gain an advantage in other markets! This is what the US/EU anti-trust actions have been about, and kudos to the EU for continuing, even though the US Justice Department dropped out (muzzled by the current administration perhaps...).

 

Notepad/Wordpad, were just examples and I also said ANY OTHER application.
Paranoid2000 gave much better examples and I fully agree with what he said in all his other posts, because that's the only way to do it right.

 

Source : https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=620767#post620767
This is another typical example of M$ policy.
If I don't like Windows Firewall, I can't uninstall it. Why not ?.
Maybe I can deactivate it, but that's not the same as removing it. I need that space to install Agnitum Outpost Firewall.

If it goes on like that, my harddisk will be full of double applications :
- MS Applications, I don't like, but can't remove AND
- my choosen third-party applications to replace these MS Applications.
Is that a clever solution ? For M$ yes, not for the user.
I'm looking forward to the unremovable Windows Anti-Virus. Pfffft

 

i doubt microsoft will make much money of this...

 

The thing is that MS has literally BILLIONS of people telling them that if they don't make the OS their way, then they won't buy it. Windows 95 didn't have all that stuff, and everyone complained (loudly) about "Why doesn't it just WORK?" Users demanded all this stuff, and now that they've done it, everyone complains (loudly) that they did so. What would you propose they do? Seriously ponder, if you will, just how you please billions of people all at once.. XP has actually come pretty close, if you ask me.

As for IE being integrated in the OS.. When I worked tech support for Earthlink, I spent a LOT of time trying to explain that Windows is not the internet, and that My Computer is not a web browser, and that "No, it shouldn't be" before MS went and actually did it. I hated the idea.. but.. people started understanding how to use their computers more easily, freeing up my time to deal with the real issues.

Yes, MS did all of this for money, but sales require demand. If there wasn't demand (in every sense of the word), those features wouldn't be there. User education may be one way to change the tide, but the majority of users don't have the time, and legitimately so. Computers and the internet have allowed science to accellerate at an unprecidented rate because of the facilitated mass communication among peers. Scientists spend much more time working than most people do.. and personally, I would rather they continue to do so, rather than pour the amount of time that I do into learning computers. The way that I see it is that I spend the time learning what I do so that they don't have to. Just as they spend the time researching all of the issues that plague our world so that we don't have to. It pretty much works out.. but to facilitate that, their computers need to "Just work", and that can even include things like media players and antivirus programs.

Personally, it took me quite a while to even realize that Windows came bundled with a media player. I use Winamp whenever I can, and when something doesn't work in Winamp, I use WMP because it "Just Works". If something else came along that "Just Worked" better, and offered sufficient innovation, I would gladly pay for it.. and I know that I'm not alone on that. XP can burn CDs, too, but Ahead and Roxio seem to be doing just fine.. and there are plenty of other examples just the same.

MS isn't the only one.. http://www.reckon.co.uk/open/iTunes

 

Your memory of Win95 differs from mine then - most people I remember seemed to regard it as a great improvement over 3.1 both in terms of interface and functionality (Plug'n'Play, WinG, etc).

Nobody demanded the integration of IE4 into Win98 - indeed when IE4 was released many considered it a disaster, causing system conflicts and severe slowdowns (Active Desktop still does slow things down, but not so noticeably on modern systems). Since Win98, you can argue that many of the additions are there to suit Microsoft or to damage competition (Product Activation, WS-DRM, a Media Player that, from version 8, started reporting back to Microsoft). Finally, since Windows is pre-loaded on most systems, MS's "customers" are really the PC suppliers, not the end-user - and you can consider the skyrocketing hardware requirements of subsequent Windows versions as one consequence of this.

Well, demand in this case is largely fueled by the fact that computers can't do much without an OS - and that Microsoft is very quick to withdraw old versions from sale. In addition, requiring PC vendors to preload Windows on all PCs inflates "demand" further by ensuring that people pay for multiple licences - I have 3 - Win95, WinME and Win2K, even though I'm only using one!

Things were "just working" in the pre-MS days of Unix systems - if anything, university IT support has to work far harder now trying to recover from the effects of the latest IE security vulnerability.

Well, you must have missed the version of Win2K I got, with a WMP entry on the Quick Launch Bar, Start Menu and desktop - and just in case you decide to get rid of it, Windows File Protection resurrects it for you...a courtesy lacking for other media players.

And that is one key point here - you, and most others, would use WMP and other bundled applications "by default". If something else did "Just Work" better, the only chance that you would bother looking for it, let alone downloading and using it, would be if you encountered a problem with WMP serious enough to spur a change. And the longer most people use a piece of software, the more reluctant they are to consider alternatives.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with IE. Despite that fact that other alternatives are available for free, despite the fact that they are technically superior at webpage rendering, despite the fact that they offer usability enhancements and better security - 90% of web users are still using IE. What better example of the effects of bundling a program - despite it being inferior on so many grounds - can you have than that? And how much more damaging to consumers, when you consider how IE has fuelled the spyware epidemic - which also affects non-IE users who get hit by spam and worms from hijacked systems - can this be?

And how does Apple behaving in a monopolistic fashion somehow justify MS doing the same? As far as I am concerned, it is an abuse (which the EU is investigating) but since Apple is a minority player, the spotlight should go on MS first.

 

Does any remember the farce of trying to shoehorn active desktop onto NT4 ?!?

You needed to install sp3 but not higher or else you will loose the option to install active desktop, then install ie4, then you have to remember to install sp4 if you need the option pack stuff, then finally you can install sp6a, but if you install sp6 at any time your machines dies.

 

Hehe Notok i totaly forgot about CD burning It's there but i never used it.
Except to erase CD-RW's since it's just right click away and twice to burn some MP3's directly from Windows Media Player 10 (this actually works pretty well).
Btw engine used in WinXP to burn CD's is actually Roxio in very limited edition
I'm using Nero and CDBurnerXP but it's nice to know you have a backup always waiting there in case Nero fails from some weird reason...

 

Paranoid, the statistic you quoted of 90% of people using IE just shows what Microsoft rely on and take advantage of-the dumb majority.

 

That's normal. People buy a new computer with winXP and all the mediocre MS Applications pre-installed. Why would they look for other softwares, they don't even know there are better alternatives.
Once they are familiar with MS Applications, they don't want to change anymore, because people are usually afraid of new things.

At work, each time when we try to install a new version of a software, users complain, just because the GUI has changed a bit.
If we try to replace a software with a total different one, they are angry.

 

And what's wrong with the "average Joe computer user" expecting a bundled system? A lot of IT people fail to remove the blinders they have, they can't see outside the box and think about the average home user. That average home user is a bigger chunk of sales in MS's pocket than use in the IT profession are. A bunded OS works better for those people, they don't want to go purchase a plain desktop OS, then have to go out and find, and purchase, a browser.

Lets stop here for a minute, nobody in their right mind could think that if MS didn't include IE in Windows, that alternative browser would be free, do you? LOL. They're only free now because they're trying to squeeze into the percentage, what is is, 14% so for for FF, slowly falling as Opera rises past..what, 5% now?

Then they'd have to go choose which media player to go out and purchase. Because, again, I doubt that alternative media players would remain free.

And why stop there? Damned those Microsoft people for including a built in Calculator...3rd party companies should have the right to sell end users that too. Oh...and that freebie Disk Defragmenter (that Microsoft did indeed pay Executive Software for), and..wait..gotta get rid of Microsoft Backup also (which they paid Veritas for). Lets see...what other programs can we get rid of, ...Wordpad, Notepad, ahh...yes....Windows XP Remote Desktop client and Host...people should have to purchase that directly from Citrix themselves (God forbid...anyone here know how expensive Citrix software is? ) Because the Remote Desktop that Microsoft paid Citrix for..well...that shouldn't be bundled for free. We should all have to purchase from Citrix, or Symantec PcAnywhere, or Netopia Timbuktu, or Compaqs CarbonCopy, ..in that non-free market I have my doubts UNC flavors would remain free. Lets see..what else can we get rid of...Hilgraeve's HyerTerminal?

Where are the lines drawed. Because once you start removing the very first thing....the ball will get rolling. Once the precident it set, where does it stop?

Some people, when they go shopping for a car, they'd like it to include the engine, the wheels the doors, the steeringwheel, the windshield. In other words.....the whole thing so they can immediately hop in..and get full use of it.

A small percentage of people like to customize, have them custom built..and that's great. Similar to computer users...there are alternatives here too. Is someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to use Windows? Will you be arrested if you walk home with a CrApple computer? Or install SuSe? Sure...you're now limited....because the reality of the computer world is...there HAS TO BE a majority company out there. It simply wouldn't work if we had 88 different brands of OS's to choose from. There has to be a compatiblity.

And the vulnerabilities....whoever is in the spotlight will be the targeted one. Microsoft is the big bad guy, if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. When Firefox first gained in popularity...everyone saying how safe and secure it was...I kept saying "Just watch...as they grow in popularity..just watch". Sure enough, now that there are a lot of FF users out there...we now have vulnerabilities coming out. Opera will probably follow. (BTW, I'm an Opera user, and used FF a lot. Currently using IE from my home PCs because I'm fiddling around with running my home LAN on ISA 2004...but otherwise, I'm FF and Opera)

I don't see why it's such a big deal as to wether you must be able to remove a component or not. It's not like most of us are still trying to run on 2.1 gig hard drives and must save every precious meg. If you don't want to use part of the OS for one function...fine...go download an alternative product. I've yet to see Microsoft prevent you from installing a competitors product. I have not seen Windows do something like de-activate itself if I try to install Winamp, or Opera, or Cobian Backup, or a Reflections terminal (glorified Hyperterminal), or use some 3rd party calculator, or install VNC or PcAnywhere.

OS updates and fixes are free from MS. Did you know that a few versions back, when vulnerabities were found in Apples OS, they didn't even offer updates? They flipped users the bird and told them "Go purchase the newer version".

Regardless, main point is...It's Microsofts product...they have the right to make it as they see fit. The point is not wether it's better or worse than alternatives out there...because quite frankly, as mentioned, if it wasn't Microsoft, it would be the next guy getting heat, compliants, etc. There will always "be something better" no matter who is in the spotlight. That's the reality of it.

The other reality is, yes Microsoft has the market share...by a huge margin. But again, no one is holding a gun to your forehead. At least I've never seen this happen where I am. If you're calling yourself an educated consumer, compared to the blind sheep out there, then you know there are alternatives like the various distro's of *nix.

 

Well as long M$ doesn't force me to use their applications, I can live with them, but nothing more than that.

I sincerely hope I never get these messages from Windows :
"You can't install ZoneAlarm Free, because you have already a firewall : the unremovable MS Windows Firewall.".
"You can't install Firefox, because you have already a browser : the unremovable MS Internet Explorer."
"You can't install KAV, because you have already an AV : the unremovable MS Windows Anti-Virus."

 

Probably not a difference in memory as much as a difference in experiences. The people I'm speaking of were the new users, that couldn't use a command line if their lives had depended on it. I don't mean that as an insult, they were just very new. Again, I'm speaking of tech support for one of the nation's largest ISPs.. my experience combined with my peers equated to thousands of calls per day of pretty much the same thing.

Nobody demanded integration, that's correct. They demanded easier use, and they very frequenly confused the internet for their computer. That was the whole premise of that kind of integration, was to make the whole experience more seamless. I remember MS spouting about how it would make it easier, as their OS itself would be a portal to the internet, and they were right. People understood IE better than they understood My Computer. There were pleny of people that you would tell them to go to a certain directory, and they'd be looking at IE asking where to click, or vice versa (using explorer in place of IE for the internet).. you'd spend 5 mins trying to figure out that the "Not Found" error they're talking about is actually a 404 error.. once the integration happened, it didn't matter as much.

Of course it was a disaster to us tech types. To the new users, though, it was a great thing. Maybe there wasn't a lot of demand for integration specifically, but there was a lot of demand to include everything a user would need. There was a lot of people thought that the purchase price of Windows should include everything they'll ever need and more, without having to find and install anything else.. they thought it wasn't right that they have to pay so much for an OS, then have to pay $500 on more software just to use it.. that idea was absurd. Not only that, but they wanted it to all work seamlessly, it should all be the same.. "why should I have to learn all this extra stuff? I don't have time! Why can't it Just Work?" Not to mention developing countries where the OS can still cost a full year's income.. seriously, I emplore you to think on the scale of millions and billions of people.. I can't even fathom that kind of number, nevermind trying to please them all at the same time. There were as many different demands as there were users, now that's calmed down.. no, instead the demand is that MS take out the things the users wanted in there in the first place.

Stonecat said it perfectly in the first paragraph of his post (great points, YeOldStonecat )

Shh.. I'd prefer that we not encourage MS to go on a subscription model like they've been talking about forever...

You'd be surprised. I've seen plenty of people with money go to a store, or a tech, and ask for "the best", once they get a grip on how to use the system and realize that there's more they can do with their computer. My favorite client now has bought every version of Photoshop since v3, because the techs told him it was the best.. and all he does is import phots, resize/crop, and maybe tweak the color settings a bit, then puts them into his storybook.. all of this stuff could be done with what came bundled with his custom built PC for free, but he chose to buy hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars of software instead. I think a lot of people migrate to other apps once they get a handle on downloading and installing.. the bundled components are mainly there for new users and those that don't have time.

Except that now that Firefox is doing more advertising, more people are migrating. More are migrating to Opera now, as well, now that the ads are being removed. My father sticks with Firefox with no extensions and apps that are readily available, because he's too busy working on his own software to go searching for new stuff. Get more advertising and people will use it. It's just the same as AVs, where most people think their choices are limited to Norton and McAfee. Most average users aren't as addicted to searching out good software as we are. They also don't know about technical superiority, just how easy it is to use the app. Usability enhancements? Takes time to learn.. Security? "I've got Symantec" Plenty of users of IE shells, too, and many of them do know about Firefox and Opera. As things become more common knowledge, the majority behavior will change.. but the majority still needs their hand held, they need things there and ready to use.

You don't really think that malware writers only started writing malware because of IE, do you? There's plenty of malware that doesn't rely solely on IE, and there's more and more coming out that exploit other programs as well (like Java), to get those that aren't running IE. Real security will come when developers start coding securely.. that's not just limited to MS. And then they'll still find ways around it.

It doesn't, it illustrates that MS is not the only player there. Apple does pretty much own the MP3 world. iTunes is not a small thing, and many people believe that Apple invented the MP3 player.

 

Nothing - where the problem occurs is when the "bundler" (MS in this case) uses this tactic to drive competitors out of business (and there are plenty of examples of MS doing this over the last decade) or to gain an unfair advantage in other markets (see posts above for examples).

Well Opera isn't free in the sense that the "free" copies are being paid for by Google. However it is an example of commercial software that is having to compete in an unfair market - not only due to IE being subsidised by Windows but also due to some websites being IE-only. As for Firefox, that has always been free in every sense of the word and would be regardless of IE - this also applies to other open source browsers (Lynx, Konqueror, Mozilla, Galeon, Epiphany, etc).

There are two issues being raised here - the ability to gain influence in other markets by product bundling (e.g. MS bundling a browser gives them the ability to create proprietary features for their web server software, bundling a media player does ditto for their DRM and WMV licencing). This obviously does not apply to standalone products like backup software or calculators.

The second is the ability to harm competitors by including a "free" version of their software. This does not apply where MS is paying to licence such software, but there have been many cases where they have not (the most notable example being Stacker disk compression). The result? A commercial software industry that is generally now afraid to release anything that may compete with an MS product - consumers may benefit from bundled (not free) software in the short term, but the long-term harm should be obvious.

A poor analogy IMHO - a car cannot function without the items you list, while an OS can function without bundled applications. A better one would be to consider a car which included non-standard components making it difficult for you to go to third parties for replacement tires, oil or car stereos - this is in a sense happening with proprietary engine management systems locking out independent servicing and the harm to Joe Consumer (having to pay more for "official" mechanics) should be clear here.

Try buying a PC without Windows - a point that has been made above.

Why? This does not apply to other industries so why should the computer industry be any different?

Well things did work when other OSes were around and, if you jog your memory a little, this was when Microsoft put most effort into improving Windows (e.g. Win95 to counter OS/2). And the Linux world seems to do pretty well having dozens of distributions available.

Yeesh - go look at the vulnerability lists for IE, Firefox and Opera first would you? The gulf between IE and the others isn't going to close because the others "get more users", there are several reasons why IE has more holes and while continue to do so (larger code base, non-browser functionality and Windows integration for starters).

And there you have it - someone having to use one Microsoft product they (presumably) don't favour because of another one on their setup. Another clear example of market leverage.

To improve system security (especially in IE's case), to improve system performance (IE again), to save wasted resources (IE again - you do know about parts of it being preloaded during Windows startup don't you?). Shouldn't this be obvious?

Fixes are, updates aren't. Try asking for a free "update" from Windows NT to XP.

As with Notok's iTunes comment above - this thread is about Microsoft, not Apple, and Apple doing wrong does not justify Microsoft doing likewise. Now can we please ditch the Apple comments? When/if they control 90% of the market, all the comments made above will apply to them but they do not do so currently.

Well this has been an option for businesses for a while now and one of the possibilities of WinXP's Product Activation is that MS can more effectively "obsolete" WinXP by closing down the activation service, thereby preventing any new (legitimate) installs, making a full subscription service (with DRM enforcement) the next logical step.

Yes, but this example is more to do with getting new software rather than searching for alternatives to bundled programs (unless you wish to argue that MS Paint is a competitor to Photoshop ) - and it also sounds like the techs in this case may be doing a disservice since the likes of Paintshop Pro would have sufficed with less cost and learning needed.

Which should illustrate how ridiculous the situation is. You have a free product with a number of advantages over a bundled one - you have repeated warnings against using the bundled product (including from the Computer Emergency Readiness Team) and yet the Mozilla Foundation has to spend money on advertising and still can't get a level playing field with IE?

The proper solution here is to either require MS to bundle alternative products for every one they include with Windows - or to make the bundled a chargeable extra. If consumers are given a choice between say, Windows-Basic at U$100 without any bundled software (save possibly for free/trial versions - especially those items needed online like firewalls and browsers), and Windows-Home at $150-200 (with media player, etc) then there would be a level-playing field for competitors, both commercial and non-commercial. The current setup where you have to pay extra to remove unwanted programs is so clearly wrong that I cannot see how anyone here would try to justify it.

 

A lot of good points made here but I think P2K is winning this.