Discussion in 'polls' started by Eice, Jun 18, 2009.
Should be self-explanatory, I think.
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?
Just, "yes". I want to choose my default installed browser.
Yes. I'd like the choice of what I want to use for the default web browser.
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.
Yes - that would be great
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.
However, I think ordinary Joe will select Internet Explorer
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.
The decision has been made already:
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
It never really went away, except that the installer skips that step. You can do the same post-install via the Control Panel.
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.