-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Will we EVER see IE 7?!?!?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
off the top of my head, the've destroyed competition through "freeware" and bundling in:
Disk defrag & recovery
Email software
Fax software
File backup
File management
Media encoding
Media player
Web browser
Web server
they used a different strategy to destroy the market for C++ compilers, but then pretty much abandoned c++ upgrades for years while working on C# and vb.net instead.
earthman
Golden Member
perhaps the real truth is that the browser as a saleable standalone program is dead. Why shouldn't it be integrated in the system? Would you pay extra for a tuner program for your TV? Of course not, you expect it to come with that functionality. Why shouldn't Windows or any other OS come with an internet environment installed? If you don't like it, use a different product. Everybody complains that Microsoft doesn't include enough programs with Windows, then they turn around and say they included too much and it destroys all the competition. A software company, like Netscape, with only one product, would seem pretty vulnerable to me.
Nothinman
Elite Member
A tuner is required for a TV to do it's job, unless you buy a TV advertised only to watch FOX. An Internet browser is not required for the OS to work and do many other things and I'd like to be given the choice to remove it when it's not needed, I could care less if MS bundles it as long as I have the ability to remove it.
Netscape had a lot more than one product, perhaps you should do some more research.
Netscape had a lot more than one product, perhaps you should do some more research.
erikistired
Diamond Member
i tried mozilla and firebird for a month. ran into problems, tanked both. back to IE, no problems now. i'll stick with IE.
erikistired
Diamond Member
huh, one might think including all these things for free would be adding value to your operating system purchase. also, if you think MS fax killed anything perhaps you should try using it. there's a reason winfax ruled even when you had a free alternative. same goes for backup, ms backup is barely passable for a few folk, useless for others.
i'm not going to start complaining that i get things for FREE with my web browser. if they suck (ms fax and backup) people will buy other apps, therefore NOT destroying competition, but actually making the competition look better. if your applications work (internet explorer, windows media player in some instances, tho i'll stick with winamp thanks, outlook express) then people will use them and be happy they got something for free instead of having to dish out another 50 bucks for eudora.
it's amazing what people will complain about these days. "what, you want to give me some free software!! WELL **** YOU MS YOU EVIL PEOPLE!"
there are no tvs that only watch fox. in these days your example actually works against you. with the internet becoming an integrated part of using a computer having a browser with your OS is quite like having a tuner in your tv. for me my OS is required to get me on the internet, much like my tv is required to show me television channels. this is becoming the norm for just about everyone. if you feel so strongly about removing it (which imho is total bs and just a way for folks to harrass microsoft because they have nothing better to do) DON'T USE WINDOWS. it's integrated for a reason. oh? what's that? your job/hobby/social life/whatever requires you to? well then stop complaining. get a new job, new hobby, new friends or whatever else, and stop freakin complaining. linux has come quite a long way, and is quite usable, try it out, you might like it.
WobbleWobble
Diamond Member
I'm sure more people will be using a non-IE browser, but will that number be substantial enough?
I'm a web administrator for a local health authority where our target audience is the general public and over 95% of our users use IE.
That number will have to dramatically increase in order for any effect to be met. Personally, I'm pessimistic on a dramatic increase.
On the side note, I started to use Opera, but I had some scrolling issues with my ThinkPad, so I dropped it. I started to use Firebird, I still do, but I find myself using IE again anyways because some Internet applications don't support non-IE browsers.
Nothinman
Elite Member
I know.
Not at all. If I really wanted to I could physically remove the tuner for something like a store where I want only 1 internal channel displayed all the time. I can't even forcibly remove IE from Windows if I wanted to and there are places where a web browser isn't needed or wanted.
For my machiens I don't, but sometimes there is no choice but to use Windows.
Yes and the reason was to kill netscape and push MS-only technology like ActiveX.
How ironic you would post that directed at me. I've had Debian on my main machine for something like 4 years and Windows has been off of it for the last 2 or so, I'm even posting now from work my notebook running Debian.
erikistired
Diamond Member
if you wanted that you'd buy a video monitor, not a tv set. i believe they are used for security work? i still don't see you pulling a tv apart to wrench out the tuner. sorry, but i'm just not buying it. if you don't need it, DON'T USE IT. delete the shortcut. pretend it isn't there. but stop complaining and crapping in other people's threads because you don't like IE or MS or the sun or the way your hair parts or whatever else. the more i think about this the more i sit here and go "who would even think this is a good idea?!?" let's see, if i really want to use a regular tv to display only one channel, i can 1) glue a piece of plastic over the channel buttons (delete the link on my desktop) or 2) i can take the tv apart and tear the out tuner, altho this probably isn't even possible and definately not recommended (remove an integrated part of the OS).
amazing it also gave people a way to get on the internet and oh, by being integrated speeds it up because parts of it are already in use in the machine. if you haven't noticed, netscape isn't dead, but it still sucks just as bad as always. oh yeah, it's also owned by AOL. but we just ignore that company and it's craptastic software and what it's done to companies like nullsoft when it fits attacking another company we don't like.
if you weren't in a thread about 'when will we see IE7' spouting off about how you don't like the fact you can't remove internet explorer from windows (and using a lame comparison at that) then you wouldn't have had anything directed towards you.
Nothinman
Elite Member
You're missing the point. But to go along the lines of the video monitor, where's the Windows version without IE that I can buy?
That doesn't fix the problem. It's still there and it's still exploitable when there's a security problem, Too many things in Windows render HTML with the MSHTML control to have deleting the icon have any affect. Ideally I should be able to replace MSHTML with a custom control, like the gecko engine, but MS designed it so convoluted that noone wants to do that. It's only partly MS' fault, but I'm sure they had some alterior motives for making the interfaces so f'd up.
That's the problem. The integration is so deep it's irremovable. It's perfectly possible to have designed it in a way to make it easily removable, but MS decided not to because they knew people would do that. Now they're back-fitting things like security onto it in Win2K3 because it's too embedded to be removed.
Like every PC sold before IE 3 didn't have Netscape already installed. IE didn't give people anything that Netscape didn't. And it's not sped up by being integrated, infact it slows things down because now explorer has all those HTML pages in folders instead of just displaying the file listing.
Netscape is Open Source and as long as that's true even MS could own it and it wouldn't matter because we'd still have the source code to make good browsers like Mozilla. Is it AOLs fault WinAMP 3 sucked so bad? I thought they left creative controll to the nullsoft devs just like they did with Netscape.
All of my posts are within the posting guidelines, you complaining about them won't get you anything. I can voice my opinions in any thread I like.
jiffylube1024
Diamond Member
That's completely missing the point of what is being discussed in this thread. The point is that Microsoft has integrated IE, but now is allowing it to stagnate and isn't releasing any major upgrades to it at all.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
Linux does not have monopoly power on the desktop, Microsoft does.
During the Browser Wars, Microsoft would charge hardware companies more for Windows if a hardware vendor dared to pre-install Netscape on their computers. They also used Windows license terms that prohibited hardware companies from placing a shortcut for Netscape on the Windows desktop.
And the main reason why IE comes bundled free with Windows, according to MS executives, was to stifle competition or as one put it "cut off Netscape's oxygen." Not to help consumers.
But if you look at my original post, abuse of monopoly power isn't the point. The point is that once MS has destroyed competitors through bundling, they lose interest in that product and stop pouring development money into it.
Do you think you'd be able to buy a P4 3.0C for $269 if AMD didn't exist? intel works much harder to bring you better CPUs because they have competition. Once you destroy competition in an area the survivor has much less pressure to innovate except in safe, tiny increments.
Why does Windows still cost $90 when every other part of a computer dropped in price while doubling and re-doubling in power and capacity? Because MS is under no pressure to drop the price. They make much more on low-end computers than the hardware manufacturers do, because Dell competes with HP but everyone has to pay MS.
During the Browser Wars, Microsoft would charge hardware companies more for Windows if a hardware vendor dared to pre-install Netscape on their computers. They also used Windows license terms that prohibited hardware companies from placing a shortcut for Netscape on the Windows desktop.
And the main reason why IE comes bundled free with Windows, according to MS executives, was to stifle competition or as one put it "cut off Netscape's oxygen." Not to help consumers.
But if you look at my original post, abuse of monopoly power isn't the point. The point is that once MS has destroyed competitors through bundling, they lose interest in that product and stop pouring development money into it.
Do you think you'd be able to buy a P4 3.0C for $269 if AMD didn't exist? intel works much harder to bring you better CPUs because they have competition. Once you destroy competition in an area the survivor has much less pressure to innovate except in safe, tiny increments.
Why does Windows still cost $90 when every other part of a computer dropped in price while doubling and re-doubling in power and capacity? Because MS is under no pressure to drop the price. They make much more on low-end computers than the hardware manufacturers do, because Dell competes with HP but everyone has to pay MS.
BFG10K
Lifer
In order for Microsoft to have a monopoly then there'd have to be a total lack of choice of OSes. That isn't the case as nobody is forcing you to use Windows and you can use something else if you don't like it. Microsoft is not physically forcing anyone to use Windows.
Now if on the other hand you choose to use Windows because there's no viable alternative then that's still your choice, but do not confuse inferior competition for a monoply.
If true then that's a business decision that the companies didn't have to accept. They can use Linux if they don't like it.
Netscape was doing a fine job of cutting itself. Don't even try to pretend that it was superior to IE after IE started gaining popularity.
Since when does operating a business when there is no competition suddenly become a bad thing? It's not Microsoft's problem if the competition isn't capable of producing competitve products.
Because as their product it's Microsoft's right to charge whatever they like for it.
It isn't your place to tell them otherwise and if you don't like it then use something else. Or better yet, release your own OS and charge whatever you wish for it.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
Monopoly power does not require 100% control of a market, it's much lower (as low as 51% IIRC). Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop market.
There is nothing illegal in possessing monopoly power, but companies that possess it are held to a different standard of behavior than those who do not. Abuse of monopoly power is what Microsoft was convicted of.
Abuse of monopoly power takes place when you use your monoply in one market to crush competitors in another market and take it over. Microsoft was guilty of this in more than one way, by bundling and by denying competing products the right to be pre-loaded on vendor machines by vendors.
Another abuse of monopoly power is when you use that power to stifle potential competitors to the core monopoly, for example by threating to stop selling your product to any vendor that also offers a competing product, or punishing those vendors by charging them more of licenses than you charge other vendors. Microsoft was guilty of this too.
There were other abuses, such as not offering equal access to windows internals, if you care you can read up on the MS vs DOJ trial.
There is nothing illegal in possessing monopoly power, but companies that possess it are held to a different standard of behavior than those who do not. Abuse of monopoly power is what Microsoft was convicted of.
Abuse of monopoly power takes place when you use your monoply in one market to crush competitors in another market and take it over. Microsoft was guilty of this in more than one way, by bundling and by denying competing products the right to be pre-loaded on vendor machines by vendors.
Another abuse of monopoly power is when you use that power to stifle potential competitors to the core monopoly, for example by threating to stop selling your product to any vendor that also offers a competing product, or punishing those vendors by charging them more of licenses than you charge other vendors. Microsoft was guilty of this too.
There were other abuses, such as not offering equal access to windows internals, if you care you can read up on the MS vs DOJ trial.
BFG10K
Lifer
Then I guess Bush has a monopoly on American voters?
And cars have a monopoly on public roads?
And jet planes monopolize the skies?
But Microsoft isn't a monopoly. And this different standard is nothing more than communism - one person is better so the state intervenes and forces them to endure disadvantages in order to be "equal" with everyone else who can't compete on their own merits.
So if you have a majority market share it is now illegal to produce superior products that people choose to use over others'?
Microsoft didn't "deny" anyone anything. If anything the OEMs accepted the deal as part of their Windows licensing agreement so if anyone was denying someone anything then it was them. By themselves Microsoft have absolutely zero control over what is installed on a desktop PC.
If you were at all familiar with software engineering then you'd know that it is common practice to promote the concept of least privilege in shared code. This is done for a number of important reasons, none of which even remotely relate to killing competition.
Who decides what is a vital part of the OS? The person who made it of course. And Microsoft have decided that in their OS the HTML renderer forms a core component. The HTML rendering engine is used by many things in Windows including the online help and similar.
And Linux will still continue to operate?
Damn, you must really love MS, I can't think of any other reason to defend them the way you do, at least Ameesh works there.
Take Intel vs AMD.
Intel is a far larger company, with far greater resources, but AMD can still compete because they can make fully compatible chips, so AMD does, to a great degree, make it's own fate.
This isn't the case when a company tries to compete with MS, because of the above mentioned reason.
It may or may not be illegal, but it certainly isn't desirable for the customers, less competition always means you pay more for less, I don't quite understand why you fancy the though of one company controlling an entire market so much?
I would prefer to have several companies competing, it promotes innovation, better prices, and overall better products, see the video vard market for example, but if this isn't something you want...well you're just a strange fella I guess, from my point of view anyways.
An OS won't work without a memory manager, all OS's I know of, except Windows, work fine without a HTML rendering engine, hence, a memory manager is needed and a HTML rendering engine is not.
They accepted it cause they had no choice, cause MS is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly in the desktop/office market.
Supperior products? That's not what it's about, it's about MS locking it's customers into an MS environment since their products are intentionally made to be uncompatible with all other products on the market(except of course, when MS actually has to be compatible with something to compete).
Take Intel vs AMD.
Intel is a far larger company, with far greater resources, but AMD can still compete because they can make fully compatible chips, so AMD does, to a great degree, make it's own fate.
This isn't the case when a company tries to compete with MS, because of the above mentioned reason.
It may or may not be illegal, but it certainly isn't desirable for the customers, less competition always means you pay more for less, I don't quite understand why you fancy the though of one company controlling an entire market so much?
I would prefer to have several companies competing, it promotes innovation, better prices, and overall better products, see the video vard market for example, but if this isn't something you want...well you're just a strange fella I guess, from my point of view anyways.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
Sorry, but you just don't seem to understand antitrust law, monopoly power, and abuse of monopoly power. You might not agree with the legal system of the United States but the laws do exist and Microsoft was convicted of breaking them.
LOL, I've been developing software since before college (BS CS) and for a decade after it, and have been following Microsoft's flouting of antitrust law since the days of Windows 3.0.
A monopoly (which Microsoft is in the legal sense, whether you like it or not) can't use it's monopoly to stifle potential competitors by, as in my example, threatening to cut off access to internals information to one Microsft partner solely because it is also working with one of those potential competitors, while still allowing the internals access to other partners.
A monopoly also can't deny reasonable access to internals if it offers that access to other, unrelated divisions of its own company, as Microsoft did when giving Office developers the use of undocumented APIs that it denied to other application developers.
All of this comes down to Microsoft not being (legally) allowed to use its OS monopoly power to unfairly create new monopolies in browsers, file and web servers, Office suites, etc.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
