God YES! Common sense in the news! People *not* lying to me for a change. What is this bizzarro world? Day-of-reckoning? Whatever it is, I will take it.

...Anyone who doesn't understand the difference posts "waaah! But firefox is bundled with Ubuntu!"

"Mozilla back an anti-trust campaign against Apple bundling Safari with OS-X. "

EU - Butt out. Most people don't want or care about any other browser. If you give customers the options all you'll get is "Eh?".

Surely Microsoft could quite easily find some EU law that makes a point of making sure that all companies are treated in the same way. This would then find the EU abusing their own laws.

Would this not then just make the case err dead in the water. Treat everyone the same or let them all do as they will. First option preferred.

When dropping IE for Mac in OSX they stated the reason was that they could not compete with a browser built into the operating system.

Are you all goldfish or something? Or is MTV generation taking over???

Brave of Firefox (Mozilla)... EU commisioning to remove IE from Windows... last time I checked most primetime OS are bundled with some browser and quite a few Linux distro's bundle Firefox. Mozillo biting off the hand that feeds it.

And let me ask: can you update OS/X with other browsers than Safari? Or does OS/X, like Ubuntu Linux, have a special built-in facility for updates that has nothing to do with web browsing?

Make no mistake about it, MS quite deliberately integrated IE into Windows in order to fuck over Netscape. Just go back and read the news at the time of the update to Win95 that did this. (First release of Win95 didn't even include a TCP/IP stack!)

The EU will have to be very careful what remedies they prescribe, if they find against MS. MS is a very devious, slippery organization, and will do everything they can to weaken the effect of said remedies.

Safari isn't tied to Mac OS. You can put it in the Trash and empty the Trash, or you could even go into /Applications and rm -r Safari.app. Apple does bundle alot of software with a clean install, but you can remove it, or just leave it there and never use it. Microsoft has tied their browser to the OS and you can't uninstall IE, and what's more you can't update your computer without running IE (this is the case in XP, but not Vista).

Yup, so kill off the copyright. Let each company do as they will. First option prefered...?

All companies should be treated the same way, except when one has sufficient power as to be able to unduly influence a market (ie a monopoly)... Monopolies need regulation to prevent abuse of the position.

MS have a monopoly, Apple do not, so Apple are free to bundle additional products with their OS.

Its not down to bundling : its down to tying which is a totally different thing. IE is TIED to the operating system, you can't get rid of it, you might try but its rather like that dog shit that you stepped in on the street which was buried under the snow, its still there lurking in the corners.

Firefox is NOT tied to Ubuntu. I have an Ubuntu install with NO browser on it at all because it doesn't need one. Try saying that about any Microsoft server product.

...M$ made IE compliant to full HTML standards, the problem would go. The EU is saying to M$, don't force the M$ version of HTML on the hoi-poli. Give them a real HTML rendering.

When is El Reg going to replace the BG icon's with Balmer icon's? It's about time!

OK, so let's say that IE gets removed.

So ... how is Iam TotallyClueless, the user, going to get a browser to begin with? Are we going to instruct the average user on the uses of command line FTP to download Mozilla, or the like?

I guess what I'm getting at - isn't it better to have something, than nothing? Download Firefox - never use IE again. Seems kind of simple.

And if one argues that "since its there (in all its evil!), people aren't encouraged to download an alternative ..."

I guess I don't understand "The Browser Wars" - its a fight over territory where no one is making any money (Opera had to switch to giving it away to even get in the area of the 1% utilization mark), so what's the big deal?

Would it be nice if it could be removed - sure. Does it haunt my days and nights that it can't? Not really.

Really - for all the evil that MS does do, it seems like this is distracting from the big issues (like OEM and MS dealings for the OS, etc.).

(Not an MS apologist/fan boi/linux hater)

Paris - because she doesn't understand it, either.

Do MS prevent you from installing another browser? Nope, I didn't think so.

Do MS bundle in masses of highly sophisticated software applications (GIMP, OpenOffice, Transmission; to name but three)? Nope, I didn't think so.

Do MS constrain you to only installing their OS on hardware that they themselves have built? Nope, I didn't think so.

The problem is deep integration? Three letters "K", "D" and "E". Best get them on the line and tell them to unbundle Konqueror. They can't? Aww.....diddums. Mac OS has Safari....deeply integrated...can we get rid of that too? What? We can't?

The hypocrisy of the freetard/mactard community is just staggering. On the one hand they pillory MS for bundling in IE (amongst other things) and then they go and do, not just the exact same, often extending it into many other areas of the software business and thus stifling innovation EVEN MORE than MS ever could.

Freetards, it may come as a shock to you but most people have a life beyond their screen. Their friends are flesh and blood, the computer is just another tool. They want to plug-in, switch-on and get things done. The DO NOT want to have to spend hours crafting shell scripts, compiling and playing "sudo apt-get" ping-pong to try and get a working PC. Bundling lets people do that ("distros" in your quaint little parlance). So why is it OK for you freetards (and your thick-walleted mactard buddies) to bundle (and bundle MORE!), yet not for MS?

Hypocrites.

If people start whining about how Ubuntu bundles Firefox and

Apple bundles Safari, please give them ten lashes with a cat o' nine tails

and close this post.

Thanx

Anon

I have a great idea. Why don't we have the entire EU judicial panel (individually) each try to install Windows XP Pro on a new computer without including browser integration. Then let's have them try to run Windows or Microsoft Update.

Any bets on how many of them have to call a professional in to get the damn thing working?

Any bets on how fast that PC is P0wned after trying to download the updates unsucsessfully from somewhere other than Microshaft because of browser incompatability?

Use some common sense, anyone can add a browser after the fact; even the idiots at the EU.

If you want a Windows OS, you still want IE because you will need it for commercial and banking websites that aren't compatible with (non MS browser flavor of the week).

Also, quit bitchin about the integration because that "functionality" often works in favor of (non MS browser flavor of the week) being able to work similarly to IE so LUSERS can get some use out of the computers they bought.

This isn't difficult. So for you hard of thinking Windows fuckwits...

@Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 9th February 2009 15:21 GMT and Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 9th February 2009 15:30 GMT, ODFO!!!

UNINSTALL IE FROM WINDOWS. GO ON. OH. YOU CAN'T.

I can uninstall Firefox from Ubuntu and the OS still works (and for the record EPIPHANY IS THE DEFAULT GNOME BROWSER). I can remove Safari from OS X and the OS still works. I CANNOT remove IE froM Windows WITHOUT BREAKING IT. The EU are not saying that Microsoft are to supply Windows without IE. Opera and Mozilla aren't asking the EU to enforce that. Jesus.

For some reason I read that as:

"...out comes the gummy Mozilla to get a dig into the scrOTum."

Something about how I see IE in a Freudian way, no doubt.

"Firefox is NOT tied to Ubuntu. I have an Ubuntu install with NO browser on it at all because it doesn't need one. Try saying that about any Microsoft server product"

_____________________________________________________

Server Core?

Talk about bias! The EU just want easy money because their a bunch of thieving, unelected socialists

Most commenters are missing the point: it isn't that IE is included with Windows. It is the fact that ever since IE4.0, it is *impossible* to remove IE, and that some critical systems actually depend on a fricking browser! (Windows Update)

And because MS has a guaranteed install base of "everyone who has Windows" for IE, they can shamelessly lock down their Web Application solutions to Windows by making them IE-only (*cough*Silverlight*cough*) when there is no credible reason to do this; websites are multiplatform by mere definition.

MS saw off Netscape, then took their eye off the ball and let IE fester, allowing Mozilla to nip in. Good on Mozilla!

I think this is a good judgement as it may mean some OEMs package Firefox/Opera/etc and 'real people' get some exposure to something other than IE. Those purchasing an MS OS will probably just receive a complementary CD with IE on it anyway!

Linux distros generally include SEVERAL browsers: Konqueror, FireFox, Opera, Epiphany, etc. It would be ludicrously easy for Microsoft to simply include in the install package most or all of the browsers with over 1% market share - including IE - and, as part of the install, ask the user to pick one. To be fair, the display order should be randomized so that the first choice isn't ALWAYS IE, but what the hell, at least offer a choice.

Microsoft could also just as easily use a proprietary update application to provide downloads: Linux distros do this (my SuSE uses YAST to manage updates and add-ins). The update part is NOT the issue of integration. The real bottom line is that the browser is NOT included JUST to manage updates, or JUST to provide a convenient "hook" for displaying HTML.

No, the ONLY reason Microsoft includes and is FIGHTING to keep IE in the mix is to prevent competitors - like Mozilla or Opera - from being able to offer a product that COULD unseat their web SERVER market. IIS is still the predominant web server in major corporations, and as long as IIS provides non-standard HTML that only IE can render properly (or blocks the attempts of other web browsers to access or render pages - which happens regularly to me at several corporate sites when I attempt to log in to PAY MY BILLS!!) then MS has done its job.

Yes, I know that corporate IT can decide to use different technology - like Apache and Linux - instead of Windows. And, eventually, they might.

But...remember all those unpatched server that Conficker infected over the past month? All those old copies of Windows that have NOT been patched for YEARS? The reason is that companies are even cheaper than Freetards: those servers are probably still running Win2K and won't be updated - ever. And a BUNCH of those systems are running IIS, which won't be replaced - ever. And THAT's why MS is fighting all this browser-mania. If even 30% of the browsers out there quit working against the old MS systems still operating in most companies, then those companies will HAVE to upgrade them. And there's a high probability that they WON'T be replaced with Server 2008 or Windows 7 Enterprise...but with Linux running in a VM on a blade. And once MS loses the corporate server world...well, can they REALLY survive selling Zunes and Xboxes?

Ya know, come to think about it, this might be the BEST thing that happened to Microsoft! Think of it: Microsoft suddenly is getting its crap products tossed like week-old fish from businesses left and right. Maybe it'd kick their ass hard enough to make them start creating really GREAT products again - like back in the Windows 3 days, when their products really were breakthrough.

Or not.

(steps off of soap box, gets into MG and leaves)

"These companies should be fined too!"

No they shouldn't. We don't need the government fining businesses for supporting a popular platform (nor is there any laws on the books). I say let them be free to shoot themselves in the foot, as they may have if another browser takes hold.

"That's right! Up pops the uninstalled IE"

Not entirely. It simply uses the same rendering engine that IE uses (kind of like how Mac programs can take advantage of Webkit). There was an effort to make a Mozilla ActiveX control that could replace the IE rendering component in Windows, but I don't think it's actively in development. IE and Safari both have components that are more-or-less part of the operating system.

And who cares about help files? Who actually uses those? When most people use the rendering engine, they're doing it to browse the web. They're using IEXPLORE.EXE. Isn't that the real issue at hand? Microsoft can't exactly remove things like WININET (Windows FTP/HTTP API) without breaking 10,000s of programs. In fact, I would argue that things like WININET, although used by Internet Explorer, aren't IE APIs given that a lot of other programs use them.

Iexplore != Microsoft update

You can quite easily remove IE from your system without any problems so why all the fuss. Certain things like windows update and help centre use the same rendering engine so it looks the same, but it certainly isn't IE. You know, just like you can use the webkit engine without having to call safari or chrome. Enough with the one rule for MS and another for everyone else.

PS, I always do my updates through firefox with no issues using IEtab, but out of interest what makes you think it is right to force a company to use a different companies products in order to perform essential maintenance tasks? MS are well within their rights to say that windows update will only work with their own products. You don't see Apple allowing windows media updates through quicktime or Nintendo bundling a sony update tool in the wii firmware. This is just another case of lets jump on the easy target bandwagon

MS have certainly got up to some dodgy tricks in the past (think, for example, many years ago when they provided inducements to software developers if said developers could demonstrate that they had produced websites containing embedded ActiveX controls). But I personally would not chastise them for providing a web browser out of the box, even if it did have the effect of killing off Netscape. My reasoning being that a functioning web browser is an absolute must for the vast majority of users in the internet age. If it happens to be a required component of the OS, then so be it. You can easily download the browser of your choice (Chrome in my case) and ignore the IE install for typical browsing scenarios.

To single out the browser component is illogical. For example, I dare say there are numerous command line interpreters that are commercially available. Should I be upset because Windows provides a CLI out of the box? Or a Winsock library? Or various "free" drivers? Of course not. Although commercial developers are free to develop these components, I consider them to be an essential part of my computing experience.

Would be if the option to completely remove IE from Windows in a way that left the OS still working (I use the term “working" loosely) was made available AND that MS just finally made the source code for IE open and freely available then if anyone who cared sufficiently could then maybe make it “standards compliant”.

MS should just stop trying to make browsers altogether and concentrate on making an operating system that is robust and fault-tolerant. Oh, and stop wheeling out a new version of .Net every five minutes that broke backwards compatibility with the code you spent years re-writing for the previous version.

Hmm. How did they get a browser before IE was in the OS? Write their own???

1) Setup disk for ISP comes with a browser

2) OEM installs one for the customer

3) FTP

4) cover disks

5) friends

6) OTS package comes with a browser (Norton Internet Security with Firefox, for example).

7) cat /net/www.theregister.co.uk and I no longer see the tags, I see goatse, tubgirl, cialis...

Shit you're dumb when you want to be.

YOU fail to take one pertinent FACT into account

THEY WORKED.

Rest of that is bollocks. But then again, what would you expect from someone afraid that their posting history could be found out if they didn't "post anonymously".

Ant's pizzle.