Discussion on:

A petition to Microsoft: Give everyone Internet browser Choice Screen

Original post:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdojo/?p=1374

Hit the "Post a Reply" button below and make the title "Yes" and then put your name as the body of the post.

Trevor

I think it's a stupid idea. They presently don't block you from installing other browsers.

If this is now law. Apple should not be allowed to default install Safari
ChromeOS cannot default install Chrome

if you don't like IE just download your favorite browser and install, then go to control panel, add/remove programs, windows components, uncheck IE and press next. Follow the prompts and forget about.

Unfortunately, that doesn't uninstall IE. All that does is remove the desktop icons and Start Menu shortcuts.

I don't see a reason to include an option for other browsers in the installation routine. But integrating a browser, any browser, into the operating system is a opening an security hole via a utility that can't be removed.

John, but it is pretty easy to configure the default browser of choice anyway.

The comment is about having a browser stupidly integrated into the OS. It is, and always has been, just plain wrong.

I don't care if MS offers other browsers to choose from, but it needs to get IE out of the OS, and quit making some core features (e.g. help files) dependent on it.

and not to me. I'm not sure who 'John' is, though. Bill D. wrote the article.

I don't think an on-line petition has ever changed anything, but I'm not involved in any form of activism so I'm no expert.

First off, it's Microsofts operating system to begin with, if they want to install or integrate or place anything on their OS then let them, it's "their" property. If you don't like it then go to another OS.

I don't understand how a company can make a product and not be able to install what they want on it. That's like saying Lucky Charms cereal is being anti-competitive because they arent giving people the choice of having Captain Crunch berries in their cereal. Wake up people...wake up.

.

I didn't say anything about being anti-competitive. Sure MS can do whatever it wants with its code, but that isn't going to stop me, or others, from calling them on their stupidity.

It is a security hole. OK? Get it? Just plain bad design, period.

As for moving to another OS, I use others as well. Thanks for the helpful suggestion.

You mention the integration of IE, which oftentimes creates problems when removed...I'd go further to expand on that idea with website developers who develop their sites for only IE or IE and Firefox. Let's face it, to limit people on ANYTHING is shutting out part of your market. It's easy to design a page in your website that allows you to choose an alternate browser, taking you then to an alternately written page.

IT'S JUST PLAIN STUPID!

They can integrate anything they want in THEIR OS as it is THEIR OS.

I agree that MS was in violation of anti-trust law when they contractually or programmatically blocked other browsers, but to say they cannot use one product to build another, is like saying you can build an application in Visual Basic, but have to make it run with someone else's runtime library. It's also like telling Apple, since OSX is a derivitive OS based on unix/xenix, it should have to work on all flavors of the patent language.

I'm not trying to tell MS what they can or can't do, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your irrelevant example.

I don't give a fig about anti-trust hoo-ha.

My entire point was in agreeing with Palmetto and a million others that integration in this manner is bad design and an unnecessary security risk.

I don't need you to tell me what to do.

this is actually my biggest gripe about IE, that it is too integral to the OS, that sometimes it feels (and acts more like part of the OS than like an application)

I do take the point about the situation with other OS however, rather doubt that Chrome OS is going to offer a browser buffet?

It's a mistake that MS has made since early Office days when attempting to banish the MS DOS run Windows OS with a new model, albeit a lazy one. I believe they sorely regret moving alot of their platform onto IE, and though back then they may have thought it to be an idea of genius, it clearly has cost MS dearly. The reprocussions of 'undoing' the IE integration has caused just as much pain to companies as it does to individuals.

Take for instance, Office 07 (which I hate with passion and refuse to buy). Not long ago, I used to work for a mailing company (spammers, or call what you will!), and had almost impossible task of tailoring email campaigns for every type of browser and email client.

Thankfully, I no longer work for that company, but more recently, I was faced with creating an email campaign, which I thought would be a doddle. It worked fine with all versions up to Outlook 03. However, with Outlook 07 switching back to word for parsing online content, it was soon again becoming a-pain.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been effected by this change, as it would effect all VBA developers of the previous version of Office, as well as the overall performance of Windows OS (hence contributing to the Vista dibacle, and the BS antitrust laws IMHO).

So whilst dealing with all the anquish of appeasing the EU's backwards legislations, which was a majority complaint from one company (solely Opera), and the competitors, Mac OSX and Google Chrome OS gaining ground with their newly launched OS, (and with the backlash of Vista users), I'm thinking giving the MS Corp a little break.

My misunderstanding.

Thank you, no offense taken; I wasn't watching where I posted.

And what of any other browser that is developed in the future? How do they get on the ballot?

I agree with you... The option to install other browsers is a good idea but it should be instead of IE, not in addition to... too much of a security risk that will not go away.

be cautious ... attempting to un-install IE is not recommended, at least in WINXP. It is so tightly tied to the Operating System that to remove it causes many problems.

To use another browser, one needs to install the *new* browser then set it to be the 'default' browser within Windows. Removing IE is an issue that can cause a re-installation of the entire O/S and possilble loss of data. NOT RECOMMENDED. I have had to rebuild a number of PCs where users have tried to *remove* IE - the result is always unsatifactory and usually expensive.

.

Its not difficult to uninstall IE. Add/Remove programs. Choose windows components. Remove CheckBox from IE. Click OK and your done, IE is removed. This doesn't stop things like, if you open a folder, and type a web address into the folder address bar, that folder will still morph into an IE window (Or in the case of IE7, just launch IE 7 and leave the window alone). This cannot be prevented.

Rich, you are correct. See my post.

A number of web sites only work properly with IE.

working order still leaves you open to some of the vulnerabilities in IE. Also, some of the updates MS push out will also reinstall and properly set up the 'corrupted' IE installation you have if you do manage to badly disable it - so you got no real choice about IE being on the system, anyway.

To all those who say:

- it's easy to uninstall IE
- it's easy to install another browser
- it's easy to set preferences not to use IE
- etc...

That's not the point. The ruling is not about us who find these things easy it's about those who find them difficult or daunting. The same people who walk in to a computer shop and trust the "expert" who tells them what to buy. The same people who from that day on will have the word Microsoft staring them in the face because, let's face it, 9 out of 10 of the computers in the shop will be running Microsoft OS. And so they will sit down and use IE every day whether they want to or not because these people don't have enough knowledge or have a little too much fear of breaking something to try to change the browser themselves. Unless that is, someone suggests an easy screen which allows them to change the browser with little knowledge and less fear.

like it or not thats exactly what MS marketing relies on.
You say 9 out of 10 computers run on MS OS and pretty much say the same dont realise there is a choice.... TOO TRUE, but to that I say fair play to MS (and Im not there biggest fan you will notice I do not write other than MS for L reasons) I have come across people that honestly thought there machine was an MS machine, so surely even though they may never never know there is a choice, surely taking that choice away is wrong?!?! isnt it? isnt that cornering the market? So amazing at killing off any competition, the Irony is though such a powerful predator when theres nothing left to kill, turn on itself ?

I understand your viewpoint on this. I really do. But couldn't the case be made that if a given computer user is so inept or inexperienced that he/she can't do something as simple as download and install another browser, then they probably don't know enough about browsers/computers/internet to even have an opinion or make an informed decision on installing any other type of browser? I think for those kinds users, the consideration of which browser to use would be akin to making the decision on which gas station to go to. "They both sell gas, so what's the difference". There are differences, but for the most part they only matter or come into play for those of us with a more intimate understanding of the nuances of each. The type of user you are attempting to defend is the type of user who just wants to buy a computer, hit the power switch, and have it work without going to the trouble of installing a bunch of other stuff.

No Microsoft shouldn't block installation of competing browsers, but does it really matter if they choose to supply their OS with a browser built in for the novices (the overwhelming majority) of us? Most of those people are probably appreciative of having IE, Outlook Express, and other apps built in, and would otherwise flood help desks with confused calls about "What do I need to do now to get on the internet and check my email?"

I used to support a large group of PC users, most of which would lock up at the question, "Do you use Outlook or Outlook Express?" When I would say, "Open a browser window" the response I would typically get was, "You mean get on the internet?"

Sometimes supplying something "ready to go" isn't such a bad thing for people.

Now... I'm going to go buy a new Hyundai this weekend, but tell them I want it with an Acura motor in it...

The everyday man is too stupid for his own good and needs govt to help him find his way?

You're being ridiculous.

Choice in life is every where. Not my fault if some take advantage of it and others don't.

A quick Google, Bing, Yahoo (see choice!) search and the world is at your finger tips.

And lo and behold, there are even websites for newbies that explain everything in plain English.

My position isn't for or against Microsoft, I'm against govt involvement where it isn't warrantied.

LOL.

Yep, I agree with you Jxbjni. What you say is correct. Yes, it's true, for many of us in this field, we are not intimidated by these things. But, not everyone is tech fearless. I had a friend who needed me to do her Sirius hookup because she was timid about connecting a couple of leads into the device.

One cannot judge another based upon what you are capable of doing. Not everyone has the same skill's set. Hell, not everyone in OUR FIELD has the same skill's set.

I can tell what's going on when the site won't work with my default Firefox but what about the same set of users you speak of? They picked Firefox, say, because the name sounded kewl. I think Microsoft is justified in installing IE as the default. If one knows about the alternatives, it's very easy to change to FF, Chrome or whatever. If not, follow the path of least resistance. At least in the US there are thousands of sites that only work with IE.

doing it that way, as any site designed to work with only IE will NOT work with all versions of IE as the restriction is due to non industry standard aspects of certain versions of IE which have changed. Also, MS have finally bit the bullet and the latest IE offering is fully industry standard compliant, making it non compliant with the old IE compliant only sites.

There are thousands of machines still running IE6 and Office XP, and the sites still expecting it ....

of them will be using IE 8 through having bought new retail computers with Vista or Win 7, and many others will have upgraded from IE 7 to IE 8 because their XP systems are set to the defaults of auto-updates and had their browsers updated by just clicking on 'Yes' (as part of their automatic routine of accepting everything MS wish to push to them) when asked if they want to update to IE 8.

Thus, websites that do not render properly in IE 6 or IE 7 will have trouble getting people to buy from them. This will result in sales and visit downturns which will see executives wanting to know why they are losing business. They may or may not work out why, but the fact they had designed their websites to work with only one specific browser will be working against them and cost them money, which is what they deserve for not even wanting to cater to any potential clients who use other browsers. And THAT is the point I was making.

I consider myself to be on the Internet alot. And I have never seen a website that didn't work with any version of IE 6 or later.

Certain functions may have been imperfect but still functional.

Can someone please enlighten me where these sites are so I can check them out?

designed to industry standards, but web sites designed to be optimised in IE 6 or IE 7 that have some of the extra MS IE 6 or MS IE 7 code in them that do NOT render properly in any other browser - kind of like a more modern version of the old Netscape HTML 'BLINK' tag.

A similar issue is some of the websites that are optimised for IE by using aspects of the MS .NET capabilities that are only available if you have that, or a later version, of MS Windows with the MS .NET installed and active and are viewing with either IE or another browser with the .NET add in on and active - - - kind of like building a web site that works only on Adobe Flash, which some idiots do.

I don't have a list of past sites I've seen done like this, but will happily post their URL the next time I find one.

But if they do it I think it should be fair for Microsoft to then bury the competitors choices in little tiny fine print that is impossible to read! Socialism I tell you!

anything else, and he's upset that the courts are forcing him to be fair.

No other OS allows you to choose your Internet browser in this way.
You can always install any browser of your choice in any OS.
If MS is forced to do it, then Apple and other Linux distribtion should do it as well.

Not every other OS out there has their web browser embedded so deep into the kernal (the CORE of the OS, below the GUI & API's) that the only difference between that OS's web browser and file manager is just the skin that you're looking at because they are the same at the core.

True, some versions of Linux have GUI's where the file manager ~CAN~ double as a web browser (KDE's Konqueror, I'm looking at you), but that doesn't stop the system from playing nice with any alternative web browsers (such as Firefox) you download and install (unlike Windows NT 5.1/5.2, NT6 & NT 6.1 (aka: XP, Vista & 7) with Firefox 3).

Apple's Safari isn't integrated into the OS, and Apple doesn't have a virtual monopoly on the desktop. Yes, there are other players, but if you're going to be honest with yourself, no one else has a serious chance at taking them out--yet.

This new ruling is like saying my dealership couldn't give away free trimmers with purchases of tractors because it's anti competitive. WHy on earth should we offer competitor products for free as well? If it breaks, it makes us look bad, even though it is not related to us because it is not our product.

Microsoft is not a monopoly. Whats wrong with success?

I completely agree with your comments, SinisterSlay.

Greyguard

I agree, this is a stupid idea. If you don't like IE then install another one. If Windows has to offer this, I agree with SinisterSlay that Apple can't install Safari by default and Google can't install Chrome for the upcoming ChromeOS etc, etc.

but what's supplied as an integral part of the OS - and that's how MS are doing this.

Many Linux installs have a basic installation of Konqueror as the default browser - if you know what you're doing, you can tell it not to install this browser at all (in most versions). This browser is installed as an application, not as part of the OS. It can be removed and any other browser safely installed.

However, MS have built IE into the OS and it's installed as the default browser and there is no way you can install the OS without it being loaded and set up as the default browser - hell, you can't safely fully remove it afterwards either. Because it's forcibly installed, the EU has insisted they provide the ability to install other browsers as a default option at the start.

This whole issue can be closed out by the simple expedient of MS adjusting the code so IE is NOT installed as part of the OS and it's installed as an application from another disc after the OS is installed and operational. But, MS refuse to do this, despite the fact they used to do it.

To reply to SinisterSlay, Currently, to eliminate IE from display, you have to jump through hoops. If you have a business, and you don't want the browser to DISPLAY on a particular machine, it is a cumbersome process.

Then, if you want to REMOVE IE, you have lost the ability to remote into that machine, at least through LANDesk (our organization's remote management software).

Creating the choice would most likely require the modification of these two issues.