Reader Comments

"I mean, think about it: If Windows Vista wasn't so impressive and comprehensive, then why would the European Union (EU) even care about it?" It's a sad fact that we must look to monopoly threats from the EU for affirmation of Vista's relevance. :) Staging a mock trial seems a little odd, but I guess when you've got that much money (and that much at stake), you can afford it.

If they take out those thigss, what will be left of Vista?

If they take out those thigss, what will be left of Vista?

Microsoft should build in security, rather than duplicating efforts of other vendors to patch the holes left in the dam afterwards. That way, they'd accomplish two things: They'd have a bulletproof operating system they could be proud of, and they'd shut up the nosy Euros once and for all. Everyone wins.

Come on, they don't seriously expect MS to remove IE7 from Vista? If you look at it, the OS itself is "currently available elsewhere, either from Microsoft or from other companies." Crap!

I guess Windows N is going to get even "better". Seriously, unless Microsoft majorly drops it's price point I don't see anyone wanting a stripped version. Now I loved the ability to hide front ends, but in Windows, front ends are pretty small and I hate the idea of paying $50 for software which is just a front end for all the heaving lifting done by the OS. It's rediculous, IMO, to think that an OS can be restricted to an arbitrary set of functions. Operating systems have steadily been growing in functionality. Saying no more now is just arbitrary.

I think it's ridiculous that MS has to go through courts to ship a browser and a media player with Windows, when OSX and Linux are perfectly ok to bundle apps. I might have missed something somewhere, but that's how it comes across to me.

If MS is stupid enough to make non-OS software an unremovable part of their OS, they deserve to go to courts. They have obviously not learned from the past and should be punished as hard as possible for that. If Vista is such a well designed OS, nothing sould be easier than letting the user choose what software will be installed in addition to the base OS. But alas, maybe Vista is probable just the biggest driver update the the mess that is called Windows 95...

Im honestly tired of the whinners, Microsoft should be allowed to do what they want(within reason) with their products. How is it unfair for Microsoft to make MSN the default search engine in it's own browser? How is it unfair for them to include their own browser with their own operating system? How is it unfair for them to tie their browser and OS together in such a way that it delivers a very enjoyable user experience? Browsing the web and reading email are common tasks that everyone does these days, an OS without a browser or even an email client is actually lacking an essencial feature. Bluring the line between the desktop and the web is the next step in the OS evolution and thats where Microsoft is heading with Vista. What the EU want is to send the OS back to the pre-internet era. In any case, forcing Microsoft to strip down it's products just so that others can use that to their adventage is an unfair tactic against Microsoft. If others want to compete with Microsoft, they should try and play fair and offer a better alternative. Complaining and filling lawsuits against Microsoft because you are unable to is a low and dirty tactic. The ramifications of what the EU is doing to Microsoft are disastrous. I mean, will Dell be sued because they only offering a certain type of graphic card? Will HP be sued for bundling some of their apps with the computers they sale? This sort of things destroy the very fabric of the computer industry and in the end it is only bad for the users.

If they want to remove items from Microsoft OS then they should do so for all other OS. The playing field should be level. Perhaps they would prefer to have Microsoft delivering DOS only. :-) There again someone would complain about the add-ins there!! I have to support a large number of PCs and it is bad enough as it is having to addin various other viewers - Quicktime Real etc. having to then addin all the MS ones as well would be an absolute ....

So, if Microsoft is not allowed to bundle IE, how the hell am I supposed to be able to download a different browser on a new box?

The average IQ on this site seems to be rather low or do most of you really don't get the difference between bundling application software and tying it to the OS? Don't you remember the "oh, but we can't remove IE because its a vital part of the OS" stupidity of MS. So if Vista is so much better, how comes that MS is still not able to make their OS modular enough to make things removable which don't belong to the OS in the first place? With OS X, you simply delete Safari and its gone. With Unix/Linux, you simple deinstall the browsers which came with your favorite distro and its gone (or don't install it) With Windows you simple deinstall IE ... oh, no, sorry. You can't. Better prepare to patch a cheesy software for the whole OS lifecycle just because MS won't let you remove it.

"The average IQ on this site seems to be rather low or do most of you really don't get the difference between bundling application software and tying it to the OS?" Reread the article. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to uninstall IE. In fact, EU doesn't want IE to be a part of the OS, since rival companies have their own browsers. What dodgetigger says makes sense. If IE is not part of the OS, how do you download an alternate browser?

"If IE is not part of the OS, how do you download an alternate browser?" Each computer would come with a Browser CD that includes all available browsers, so that you choose which one ot install. I of course disagree with that, but there is a solution. As far as this: "you really don't get the difference between bundling application software and tying it to the OS? Don't you remember the "oh, but we can't remove IE because its a vital part of the OS" stupidity of MS." Microsoft's integration of Internet Explorer with Windows is trully a wonderful thing, you get your favorites, history, adress bar, etc in every window and can access the internet from any place. Forcing Microsoft to untie IE from their browser is being unfair to Microsoft. If you don't like IE then don't use it and install something else instead and set it up as your default browser, IE will stay out of the way.

"I think it's ridiculous that MS has to go through courts to ship a browser and a media player with Windows, when OSX and Linux are perfectly ok to bundle apps." OS X and Linux aren't monopolies, and the apps they ship are removable, unlike Windows Media Player and Messenger. "How is it unfair for Microsoft to make MSN the default search engine in it's own browser?" Because it's a cheap trick to leverage a monopoly by making everyone use MSN Search by default and making it so it's difficult to change the search engine used. "How is it unfair for them to include their own browser with their own operating system?" It's unfair if they threaten OEMs who dare ship competing browsers. "How is it unfair for them to tie their browser and OS together in such a way that it delivers a very enjoyable user experience?" Because 1.) it DOESN'T deliver a very enjoyable user experience, and if you're calling IE that, you're insane. 2.) Microsoft has already untied IE7 from the Vista shell. So the point is moot. 3.) It's unfair because IE only existed to kill off a competitor, Netscape, after Microsoft heard they were writing a shell replacement for Windows 95. Read up history, Microsofties. Your favorite company was a total evil empire all throughout the 90s. "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run." Remember?

"The ramifications of what the EU is doing to Microsoft are disastrous. I mean, will Dell be sued because they only offering a certain type of graphic card? Will HP be sued for bundling some of their apps with the computers they sale? This sort of things destroy the very fabric of the computer industry and in the end it is only bad for the users." OEMs will provide the bundled software. They were already doing that in the 90s before Microsoft started threatening their Windows licenses because they were shipping competing software to Microsoft's. The answer to your question about Dell and HP is, obviously, no. They can bundle what they want. NOW do you get the point of the antitrust trial? I repeat--OEMS ARE THE ONES WHO SHOULD DETERMINE THE BUNDLED SOFTWARE ON THE COMPUTERS THEY'RE SELLING. Not Microsoft. Get a clue, people. You don't think it's a little odd how Microsoft forced Messenger on every XP startup and made it uninstallable? Hmm, why do you think they did that? If they were benevolently providing IM software, they didn't need to force it on every startup (sucking up system resources) and make it so you couldn't uninstall it. None of you will ever provide a justifiable answer. You also can't explain why Windows Media Player isn't uninstallable. I can freely remove iChat, Quicktime Player, and iTunes on a Mac by just dragging them to the Trash.

" You also can't explain why Windows Media Player isn't uninstallable." I removed Windows messenger by using the "Add/ Remove Windows Components" tab. You can also remove WMP that way. Microsoft doesn't force one to use WMP any more. Most people who don't have iPods don't bother to install anything else. "... it's a cheap trick to leverage a monopoly by making everyone use MSN Search by default and making it so it's difficult to change the search engine used." HAve you even used IE 7? I easily changed my search engine to Yahoo. It's just as easy as it is in Firefox. Microsoft changed after the 90s. They don't threaten OEMs any more. They are free to provide any software that they want to. That's still no reason for IE not to be bundled with the OS. When I got my computer from HP, it had IE6 with the google toolbar installed and ITunes was the default player.

OEMs in the US don't seem to have any problems with Microsoft. They are free to customize the OS the way they want to and install any software that they want to, even if it is made by Microsoft's rival. The whole EU thing is crap.

When you think about these things, you have to forget about your hatred for MS for a while. Bonch, you are too prejudiced to have an objective view about this whole issue.

1. The companies in the EU courts are Oracle, IBM, etc. - alle "US companies" by the (rather limited) definition of some people here. Obviously its not a EU vs. a "US company" but a US vs. US company thing fought on a territory where courts are less influenced by political changes. 2. Add/remove Windows MediaPlayer? Well, yes! *LOL* 3. Seeing share47 lecturing others about prejudices is really funny.. 4. I pitty those who need IE to be tyied to the OS to get the "favorites, history, adress bar, etc in every window and can access the internet from any place". A don't need IE to do that, thank you. 5. You can change to Yahoo search in IE7? Well congrats MS! And can you (completely) replace IE with FF? 6. I still see no reason to tie IE (or MediPlayer, etc.) to the OS. Again: everybody who knows Windows knows exactly that IE is not just simply "bundled" and saying that IE will be "bundled" to Vista disregards the truth that it will be "tyied" to Vista, no matter how euphemistic the laguage is used to describe that.

"2. Add/remove Windows MediaPlayer? Well, yes! *LOL*" Before you post one of your illogical anti-MS rants on this site, learn to use Windows. The fact that you don't know how to do something in Windows doesn't mean it can't be done. "A don't need IE to do that, thank you." What the heck does that mean? "You can change to Yahoo search in IE7? Well congrats MS! And can you (completely) replace IE with FF?" Why would anyone do that? Firefox doesn't completely replace IE. There are situations where IE is required. "Seeing share47 lecturing others about prejudices is really funny.." Nice to know that I'm entertaining some mac fanboys.

MysterMask, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Why is it that all you fanboys argue just for the sake for arguing? Half the time you don't make any sense. The Al Qaida needs people like you. Go join it.

"OS X and Linux aren't monopolies", That is totally irrelevant, isn't that how Microsoft "allegely" became a monopoly? Then why allow the same thing to happen with OS X and Linux? Why not stop them before they become another Microsoft? ."..and the apps they ship are removable, unlike Windows Media Player and Messenger." Another irrelevant issue, being not able to remove an app does not forces you to use it. Since we are speaking about IE, as I have said already, you can set Firefox, Opera or whatever browser you want as the default and every link you open will launc it, even if you click a link in an Outlook 2003 email and (gasp!) even MSN Desktop Search Toolbar will launch it whenever you do a web search from the task bar. "Because it's a cheap trick to leverage a monopoly by making everyone use MSN Search by default and making it so it's difficult to change the search engine used." It is not hard to change the search engine and IE 7 makes it even easier to do so. It is not a cheap trick to set up your own search engine as the default in your own web browser, it is just a rational decision and a smart business practice. Is it unfair for Apple to bundle iTunes with the iPod? or to make their Music Store the default (and only) in iTunes? How about making Google the default search engine in Safari? Is that a cheap trick? Don't give me the "their are not a monopoly" excuse, it is quite poor.

About IE being tied to Windows... "it DOESN'T deliver a very enjoyable user experience, and if you're calling IE that, you're insane." And what's exactly wrong with it?

."..and the apps they ship are removable, unlike Windows Media Player and Messenger." Tell me what you mean by remove. I have uninstalled windows messenger so that there are no more tray/ start menu/ desktop icons and the program doesn't consume any resources. What more do you need? Okay, the standard add/ remove programs cannot be used, but it can definitely be removed. I've not tried it with WMP, since I use it, but I'm pretty sure it can be uninstalled too.That's not the main issue here, anyway. The EU just doesn't want MS to include WMP11 and IE7 in their OS (remember Windows XP N?). You guys are arguing about something totally different.

shark47: if you insist on calling people who disagree with you terrorists... you must be an american patriot (running out of arguments) The whole EU-trial is to keep MS from using it's OS-monopoly to push competitors (in other software-branches) out of bussines by making their own software solutions hard/impossible to remove... LIKE THEY HAVE DONE MANY TIMES BEFORE. If you don't get that, you're either stupid or don't know anything about history.

Look, Pricko, I haven't run out of arguments. I'm not calling you guys terrorists. I'm comparing your mindset to theirs. You guys seem to behave like the Al Qaeda terrorists - you refuse to look at the facts . Your hatred for MS is like the Al Qaeda's hatred for the US .You despise and ridicule anyone who defends MS. "The whole EU-trial is to keep MS from using it's OS-monopoly to push competitors (in other software-branches) out of bussines by making their own software solutions hard/impossible to remove..." They have never stopped people from downloading other software, have they? The consumers don't seem to have any complaints, which explains the failure of Windows 'N'. The only people who seem to have any complaints are the mac fanboys.

Typical fanboi: Windows sucks because I don't like MS. No, I hate MS. MS is full of infidels. Anyone who likes MS is an infidel. Kill MS! Tell me how different it is from the rantings of a terrorist?

"Okay, the standard add/ remove programs cannot be used," If you can answer the question "why?" you got the answer why truly fair competition might be a good thing. About the "terrorist" thing. I alreay knew that you are totally unbiased and that you own the truth. If somebody is critical with "your side" (the US, MS, whatever..), then that person must be a) prejudiced b) blinded c) a fanboy of something else d) a terrorist e) stupid f) hating your beloved g) ... So actually, discussing anything with you is totally useless right from the start. I guess you don't have many friends, hm ..

"If somebody is critical with "your side" (the US, MS, whatever..), then that person must be a) prejudiced b) blinded..." It's one thing to be critical and another to be prejudiced. There's a clear distinction between saying, "I don't like IE6 because it is not secure enough," and "I don't like IE6 because it is made by Microsoft." The first is normal criticism, while the second reflects your prejudiced views.