Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Antitrust Case Over, Microsoft Ties IE 10 To Win 8

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the same-as-it-ever-was dept.

Microsoft 519

deadeyefred writes "With the last vestiges of Microsoft's U.S. antitrust consent decree expiring earlier this year, the company is again tying its browser tightly to Windows. In pre-release versions of IE 10 and Windows 8, IE 10 cannot be uninstalled and is required to enable the new 'Metro'-style apps."

cancel ×

519 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No longer a monopoly (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850488)

IE's market share isn't what it used to be. Neither is Window's market share for that matter.

Re:No longer a monopoly (3, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850708)

I can see this as one of two things - either Microsoft is trying to bump it's browser market share or they are cutting corners in their code to have Windows depending on bits of IE10 to give the core OS functionality.

If this is an attempt at market share, I think it is rather doomed to fail. Gone are the days where people just accepted whatever browser comes with their OS. Even the very non-technical business people that I work with mostly install their browser of choice.

If this is cost cutting and an attempt to re-use code from one thing in another, then I think it will likely just be ignored by many users who don't care as much - but alienate the nerds even more. The types that frequent /. for example, are more and more likely to find reasons for pushing them into no longer using windows (for the ones who still use it that is) and thus putting even more leaks into the ship.

My mother for example uses the computer VERY little and doesn't do much with it. When it is time to upgrade (which is fast approaching) I am seriously considering ninja-installing a distro onto her machine and simply saying "This is the new computer, things are a little different" rather than going through the same thing while installing the latest and greatest from Microsoft. For her, there isn't any difference in finding all the buttons going from XP to Win 7 or Win 8. I may as well get her onto another OS totally.

Re:No longer a monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850744)

Wait, code reuse is bad now? Please explain.

Re:No longer a monopoly (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850802)

Yeah, the rest of his comment sounded good, but the code re-use thing doesn't quite make sense. Code re-use is usually a good thing, and rather irrelevant to this case; I think he meant something different, perhaps that tying the browser inseparably to the OS saves MS money in some way over making it more modular. However, modularity is usually a big advantage in the long run because it makes it easier to separate problems, or replace whole components with better components, without the whole house of cards falling down.

Re:No longer a monopoly (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850858)

Code re-use isn't bad at all. It is however if the code you are re-using is in another program - in this case, IE10. It's code re-se gone topsy turvy.

If they merely wanted to re-use the code, then write it into Win8 so that Win8 can natively support the extra features and have IE10 leverage it off there. The way that it has been done here just seems to be a case of "Ohhh. IE10 does some shiny stuff, lets just hack up a way to use that rather than improve Win8 to do it on its own.".

Re:No longer a monopoly (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850840)

I'm assuming Windows depends on IE. The new Metro stuff is largely HTML/Javascript, and it would make sense if it ran on the IE rendering engine.

Re:No longer a monopoly (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850894)

Aren't there things like system libraries for this kind of thing? Why would an OS be dependent on an application for core features?

Re:No longer a monopoly (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850988)

Windows is already dependent on explorer to run, especially for file-system functionality. And why would you want to load code that does the same thing twice. If you already have something closely tied into the API that renders HTML 5, why not just use it? Seriously I don't think it's that big of deal, especially since hard drives are cheap and alternative browsers everywhere you look.

Re:No longer a monopoly (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851010)

That's the point - it's not dependent on IE (the browser app), it's dependent on Trident (the engine - shdocvw.dll & mshtml.dll). In Windows 7, in editions where you could uninstall IE, it left the engine DLLs in place to satisfy the dependencies.

And Linux does too (-1, Troll)

andresa (2485876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850496)

With Firefox. And seriously, any modern OS should have a browser installed by default, if only to download your favorite browser. Hell, Google wants to have an OS that is only the browser!

Re:And Linux does too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850522)

With Firefox. And seriously, any modern OS should have a browser installed by default, if only to download your favorite browser. Hell, Google wants to have an OS that is only the browser!

I think the Ballmer jizz you've been guzzling has rotted your brain - I don't recall any part of Linux REQUIRING Firefox in order to work. This is an OS-level feature (the Metro UI) that requires a particular browser be installed to operate...

Re:And Linux does too (0)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850798)

I don't know why you got all bent out of shape over what he said. Most of the common distros do come with a browser by default.

Re:And Linux does too (-1, Flamebait)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850916)

> Most of the common distros do come with a browser by default.

Which can be uninstalled without any problem. Learn to fucking read.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850836)

It doesn't, the OP is an idiot. Firefox just happens to be the most popular browser in Linux, but it's absolutely not required, and in fact is losing marketshare to Chromium and others. Some distros don't even have Firefox; I don't believe Kubuntu, for instance, carries it (it favors rekonq instead), though most users probably "sudo apt-get install firefox" right away.

Lots of Linux installations don't have any browser at all. I've got some ARM single-board computers here that don't.

Re:And Linux does too (0)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850902)

Talk about brain-rot. He said NOTHING about any browser being required by the OS, rather that there SHOULD be one there even if only for the reason that you can EASILY GET THE BROWSER YOU WANT.

Sheesh, some peoples hatchlings...

Re:And Linux does too (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850952)

In the summary: "IE 10 cannot be uninstalled and is required to enable the new 'Metro'-style apps."

His reply: "And Linux does too, With Firefox"

How did he not say anything about any browser being required by the OS? It's right there!

Re:And Linux does too (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850946)

andresa looks like another MS negative-marketing shill to me.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850528)

You can uninstall Firefox from Linux. Try again.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850588)

Ok, uninstall Safari from OS X

Re:And Linux does too (2)

arthur.gunn (1687888) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850712)

rm -rf /Applications/Safari.app
done.

Re:And Linux does too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850912)

del "C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe"
done. owait, that leaves behind components like ieframe.dll; and iexplore.exe will be restored during platform updates. Who says that you totally removed Safari?

Re:And Linux does too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850532)

I'd +1 you if I had mod points.

Re:And Linux does too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850684)

You forgot to add "because I'm an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between including a browser by default and making the browser unremovable" to that sentence.

Re:And Linux does too (4, Interesting)

Blackfoot17 (1986146) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850540)

The difference is in Linux you can uninstall Firefox and It's not required for some of the new toys to work. And all modern OSes Do include a web browser

Re:And Linux does too (2)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850998)

The difference is in Linux you can uninstall Firefox and It's not required for some of the new toys to work.

Both IE10 and the 'Metro' apps depend on certain libraries, if for some reason you consider those dependencies to be part of any one application that depends on them then removing everything that you understand that application to be would also mean removing those dependencies thus any other applications that depend on those libraries will cease to work. They could statically link the dependencies to the Metro runtime and IE10 but that just then means binary duplication and update duplication and in the end the code that is shared will still be there anyway just duplicated in binary form so what's the point?

Re:And Linux does too (5, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850572)

There is nothing in Linux which requires Firefox. Firefox is pre-installed, but only on specific distros. Other distros include other browsers, or no browser at all. (You don't need one - wget is perfectly good.)

This is different than with IE and Windows. If you remove IE, components totally unrelated to web browsing or the Internet WILL fail, because the libraries are crafted to include totally irrelevant code that is critical for other components. Because Microsoft do not publish the specs for these libraries, crafting replacements that ONLY have the bits needed for the rest of the system to function is almost impossible. Not completely impossible, just very very very hard.

There simply isn't any comparison between willful sabotage of the user and a simple pre-install, even if your claim that Firefox was pre-installed with Linux was correct.

Re:And Linux does too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850680)

The MetroUI is rendered in part with HTML5. A browser is needed for this. Microsoft makes a browser. It therefore makes sense to tie it in. This isn't brain surgery.

Re:And Linux does too (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850760)

A brain surgeon (with computing experience) would point out that standalone rendering engines have existed for years - and have existed for longer than any of the current browsers out there. Having the HTML5 rendering engine in a standalone DLL that could be replaced by anyone else's HTML5 rendering engine would NOT be an OS tie-in.

Since HTML5 rendering engines do NOT need a browser (since they can be standalone), a browser is NOT needed for this.

However, if you absolutely insist that a browser provide the library, a published specification (as per the requirements of the anti-trust suit, I might add) of exactly what functions are needed in the library, what name they must have and what ABI they must use, ANY web browser could be used. This is lawful under the requirements. A tie-in is NOT.

This is a flagrant violation of the law, which Microsoft will get away with because nobody dares start controversial lawsuits in an election year. Nonetheless, it IS illegal and it IS unnecessarily illegal. It is done this way for one reason and one alone - to kill competition. That is ALL it is being done for. It isn't for convenience and it isn't for the HTML5.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

andresa (2485876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850814)

And yet Google making a whole OS where Chrome is the only browser.. no, the ONLY PROGRAM allowed is acceptable?

Re:And Linux does too (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850974)

The difference is that ChromeOS has fuck all influence on the browsers market share, while whatever comes with Windows will affect is immensely.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851004)

The problem is that most apps that uses MSHTML is dependent on IE-specific features and quirks, so another rendering engine would not be easily droppable in place without modification. Even Apple faces a similar problem with WebKit being a part of Mac OS X. In fact, both MSHTML and WebKit are full of application compatibility hacks. Not that it would be impossible to detail in a spec, but...

Re:And Linux does too (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850874)

Why the hell is a user interface on a PC rendered in HTML5????

Re:And Linux does too (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851020)

Why not?

Re:And Linux does too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850730)

Use GNOME as your Desktop Environment. Then try uninstalling libwebkit-gtk (hint: some GNOME UI stuff requires webkit).

Why do you accept that and not accept that Windows can't rely on Trident for platform rendering guidelines?

Re:And Linux does too (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850796)

I don't. GNOME should permit any library that is API and ABI compatible and should not depend on specific implementations of anything. Used to be that GNOME did NOT depend on specific implementations, that you could choose between anything that provided identical functionality. Technically, since the source is out there, that's still the case but it should never have been the case that they restricted themselves to one solution alone.

Nonetheless, GNOME is not an Operating System, the Linux kernel won't break if you don't install GNOME (or indeed X). Whereas, Windows' kernel WILL break if IE is missing. Thus, your comparison is flawed. Probably knowingly.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851014)

Correction, Windows's *shell* depends on IE.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850864)

Because we can choose to use KDE or Enlightenment instead. We can also use Firefox and not have to have Opera(for example, taking place of IE) waste space on our computers.

If Microsoft are so badass, and willing to make all of those kitchy well-publicized challenges to *nix, then why don't they make the latest version of IE cross-platform(IE and office were once available for Macs!) and let it really compete?

Firefox, Opera, and Chrome are three of the most highly-regarded browsers and all run on all three dominant platforms without hacks.

What about IE and Safari? No? Then crawl back to your walled gardens.

Re:And Linux does too (0)

andresa (2485876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850750)

And yet it is included on the commonly used distros. You can ignore that fact and go lalalala. Yes, it's not included in every distro, but on those that have any market share it is. And I too use a distro that doesn't have it installed for default, but if I used it in desktop I really would want it to have a browser, just so I can download Opera. If you want to to provide good OS to users, do you honestly think they would appreciate your effort in NOT allowing any browser within the OS and requiring you to use something like wget + text editor to find out the download link. Wtf is wrong with you?

Re:And Linux does too (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850872)

Included is not the same as required. Even if you installed Ubuntu (which has Firefox), you aren't required to install it. It's optional. Thus it isn't tied in. Further, even if you install it, you can later uninstall it when you discover Chrome does most of the stuff Firefox does better.

Firefox isn't in the OS in Linux (or any other OS). Firefox isn't an OS program. It is a user application. There is a HUGE difference. It is hard to describe all the ways it is different without causing the Slashdot machines to run out of space for database files, there are that many.

Removing Firefox from an installation won't cause X11 or the Linux kernel to destabilize. Removing IE will cause Windows 8's kernel to break at the lowest level.

No, that's not because Windows 8 does low-level graphics stuff. Install KGI (the Kernel Graphics Interface) or use Framebuffers extensively. Run X through them. Run KDE through them. Run a browser - say, Opera, Chrome, or even Firefox, through KDE. Now trace through the code and show me where KGI or FB code directly invokes a Firefox library. I dare you to try. Go on! Should be easy.

Yes, users do NOT appreciate any web browser in the OS. They want browsers in Application Space, where a bug won't cause the machine to crash and where switching to something else is easy rather than a 8-month hack with VTune, process-grabbing debuggers and a decompiler.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851022)

Removing IE will cause Windows 8's kernel to break at the lowest level.

Not the kernel, the *shell* which happens to be part of Windows, unlike Unix.

Bias with HTML5 is normal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850766)

There simply isn't any comparison between willful sabotage of the user and a simple pre-install, even if your claim that Firefox was pre-installed with Linux was correct.

MS is using a whole bunch of HTML and like the first time around, the have various extensions, just as every other browser vendor does. It's easier for their developers to target HTML + CSS + JS, so they do. When something isn't available in the specs, they create vendor-prefixed extensions, like other vendors. And since their developers want to save time and effort, they target and test on IE. Apple targets Safari, Google targets Chrome, Microsoft targets IE, Adobe targets Air... They all have strengths and weaknesses in integrating software components.

Re:Bias with HTML5 is normal (1)

andresa (2485876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850870)

And Google does the same too, even wanting to create a replacement to JavaScript. They promote sites that say you are required to have Chrome to access it. It's much worse than IE.

Re:Bias with HTML5 is normal (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850960)

JS isn't a W3C standard. It can be obtained as a standalone engine. Provided Google's Chrome can support the loading of that engine, it makes not one whit of difference whether Google adds other engines to Chrome or remove their own JS engine. The only requirement for JS compatibility is that SOME JS engine be loadable at SOME point. It doesn't have to be built-in.

In fact, it's probably better if it isn't. Lightweight tools are generally superior tools. Having JS as a plugin would ensure that you could use any JS out there -- if you wanted to -- but that if you didn't want to run JS at all, you had zero overheads. THAT is Superior Design. It is ALSO Classic Unix Design Philosophy.

Re:Bias with HTML5 is normal (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851002)

They promote sites that say you are required to have Chrome to access it.

Link?

Re:Bias with HTML5 is normal (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850918)

First off, not an excuse. Selenium means that testing one browser or a hundred different brands takes the same time and the same level of complexity.

Second off, no competent vendor has extensions to HTML, CSS or JS. Competent vendors do EVERYTHING in the standards, which are quite powerful enough. It is a mark of incompetency that Microsoft not only does NOT implement the standards, they fill the gaps with proprietary crap.

Third, developers should never test their own code. That is a sign of an untrained and moronic developer.

Fourth, if you are required by a court to SPECIFY all of these APIs and ABIs, then you are violating the law to not specify them. That is absolutely final.

Fifth, if you are required by a court to ALLOW a drop-in replacement for any given set of APIs and ABIs, then you are violating the law to not permit such a replacement. That too is final.

Re:And Linux does too (2)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850828)

If you remove IE, components totally unrelated to web browsing or the Internet WILL fail, because the libraries are crafted to include totally irrelevant code that is critical for other components.

Anyone can make absurd claims. Windows libraries are not crafted to include totally irrelevant code. But the internet libraries do include code on how to render HTML. You can render HTML without doing web browsing, or even using the Internet. Like maybe you want to see the contents of a .html file that is on your local drive, or perhaps some internal Windows dialogs use HTML rendering?

Re:And Linux does too (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850928)

Actually, the basis of the Windows 95/98 lawsuit and the later IE bundling under XP lawsuit was that libraries ARE crafted to include totally irrelevant code. Indeed, it was Microsoft's position in the lawsuit that Felton's hack could not possibly work BECAUSE they had included such code. (Felton's hack worked because it left the extraneous code intact and in place.)

Nonetheless, even Microsoft disagrees with you. Under oath.

Re:And Linux does too (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850968)

It is not totally irrelevant. An HTML renderer is handy for many other applications, like help. Apple added an HTML renderer to Mac OS 8.5 to support help too.

Re:And Linux does too (4, Funny)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850590)

I'll refrain from modrating since there's no "-1 spend five minutes on Google then come back and apologise for what an idiot you've been; following this, immediately re-evaluate every 'argument' you've been in, and figure out if you were right, or just a tool. Apologise to all those with the misfortune of meeting you".

Re:And Linux does too (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850624)

Last I checked no window manager on Linux requires Firefox to be installed. However, in Windows 8, Internet Explorer will be required for the "Metro" window manager.

Re:And Linux does too (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850640)

Umm linux doesn't have a browser. its a kernel.

Besides, you need to read up and see what the difference is between 'integrated' and 'installed'.

Re:And Linux does too (2)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850678)

Wrong. 1) Linux does not come with Firefox. 2) Firefox can be uninstalled under Linux. 3) Linux does not depend on Firefox for anything, not even for downloading your favourite browser. Hell, you wouldn't even want to use a browser to download and install another browser under Linux, you'd just use your package manager to install it.

Why were you talking again?

Re:And Linux does too (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850762)

Yes, it's really annoying how Linux won't let me uninstall Firefox.

This isn't even about unfair business practices (I'm not using Windows nor giving technical support to anyone using it, so what Windows does is irrelevant to me), but simply an incompetent design. If your house didn't let you rip off the wallpapers because they are a load-bearing part of the construction, you'd fire the architect.

Funding for ReactOS and WINE. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850498)

I realy prefer a good Norton Desktop front-end on my Win32 and Win64 programs.

Looks and feels better, witrh more emphasis on running MY PROGRAMS in MY CONTEXT and not anyone else's.

I applaud Microsoft their tenacity. (1, Interesting)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850514)

The difference between OS and Browser is fast shrinking. Example: WebOS.
I'm glad Microsoft is taking a stand. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Windows or IE, least of all Microsoft.
And last I checked, the competition isn't exactly hurting...

Re:I applaud Microsoft their tenacity. (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850606)

They aren't hurting, but we've had some 10 years during which MS was under the watchful eye of the DoJ. I expect that had they not been under such "surveillance" then the last 10 years, and the current state of the industry, would be very different.

Microsoft is retreating to patent suits, as they noted in 1998, to attack Linux now so we're not remotely safe from future anti-competitive acts.

Re:I applaud Microsoft their tenacity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850666)

Actually, plenty of people are forced to use Windows and IE, with the penalty for failure to do so being loss of job. Specifically: all real estate agents in Georgia (USA) can only access their MLS system using a crappy piece of software called rexplorer which only runs as an IE plugin. No it will not run in wine either.

Re:I applaud Microsoft their tenacity. (2)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850938)

To use RE/Xplorer, you must upgrade to Microsoft® Internet Explorer 6.0. RE/Xplorer 2.1.1 requires Internet Explorer 6.0 in order to deliver cutting-edge functionality as well as enhanced performance and security.

How charming.

Re:I applaud Microsoft their tenacity. (1)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850688)

No, most of the industry was outright eliminated by Microsoft's past practices. The competition today, to the extent that the industry has recovered, is a paltry fraction of what it used to be, and you'll notice that it only exists in segments where Microsoft didn't successfully get a lock-in through antitrust practices.

Re:I applaud Microsoft their tenacity. (5, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850706)

Bullshit to all 3 points.

The OS is a kernel plus core system libraries. It has ZERO relationship to how the output is displayed. Which is why I not only should be able to run KDE and AfterStep under Windows, I can.

What I CANNOT do is run Internet Explorer on Linux. So what if it's compiled for another OS and I don't have the source? I don't have the source for Solaris-x86 Oracle but I CAN run that under Linux (different OS and no source) just fine. Have been able to for years.

Yes, when you open a file panel or a network browser under Windows, you are using IE. The desktop is IE. The control panel is IE. Friggin' everything is IE! Even if you install another browser, you CANNOT tell those components to use it. So, yes, if you use Windows, you MUST use IE. You have no choice. And must you use Windows? Well, yes. Many web applications aren't written to international standards, they're written to Microsoft-proprietary functionality within IE. This WILL worsen, with this news about IE and Windows 8, just as it worsened considerably after Microsoft violated the Windows 95 injunction by releasing the bundled IE as Windows 98.

The competition is hurting something chronic. IE has rising usage figures. Firefox is starting to slide. Opera is sliding badly. Chrome may run foul of the Apple vs Google battle-to-the-death. (And one of them WILL die in it, if they don't back off.) Linux has never been fairly or reasonably offered as a desktop choice by anyone other than the OLPC group - and even they are now getting into bed with Microsoft.

Microsoft is a devout monopolist and it WILL kill anything that threatens that monopoly, no matter how savage or ugly they have to get to do so.

Re:I applaud Microsoft their tenacity. (4, Informative)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850768)

Yes, when you open a file panel or a network browser under Windows, you are using IE. The desktop is IE. The control panel is IE. Friggin' everything is IE! Even if you install another browser, you CANNOT tell those components to use it. So, yes, if you use Windows, you MUST use IE.

Internet Explorer is a web browser. The Desktop, Control Panel, etc... are not Internet Explorer, they use components that are shared with Internet Explorer.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850552)

Didn't see that one coming

That's all I have to do? (2)

DarkLordofLogic (2494352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850554)

This is good news. It means all I have to do to avoid those crappy Metro apps is delete the IE10 registry keys. Two birds with one stone, baby.

Re:That's all I have to do? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850626)

Unless you're on ARM, in which case you won't be able to use anything but Metro apps.

What about iOS? (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850564)

Wouldn't the Apple stuff be subject to something similar? Safari comes bundled too ...

Re:What about iOS? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850656)

Wouldn't the Apple stuff be subject to something similar? Safari comes bundled too ...

They do have significant market power, but whether that's enough to subject them to anti-trust laws is debatable. In the end it shouldn't really matter because these days you expect a web browser to be bundled with pretty much any consumer-oriented operating system and if you don't want to use that then you just install something else.

Re:What about iOS? (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850668)

Bundled yes, integrated as part of the core system, no.

Re:What about iOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850754)

Why not?

It's integrated as part of the core system in iOS. There's no method for the end user to replace the browser, and even on a jailbroken device, removing the browser will result in a large pile of apps that don't work. Win8 is moving to a similiar App eco-system, so it makes sense that they have a core set of UI widgets, and like it or not, in today's world, the web browser is a common UI widget.

You don't like it, don't use the OS. Problem solved. Why does some government agency need to get involved?

Re:What about iOS? (2)

bmuon (1814306) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850886)

It is part of the core system. There are 3 ways you can use Mobile Safari: opening it, using an installed web app and through WebViews inside other apps. All of them are WebKit and to a certain level Mobile Safari. And Apple explicitly forbids the publication of browsers that don't use WebKit or that use another JavaScript runtime. That's why there's even talk about Firefox for jailbroken iOS devices.

Re:What about iOS? (2)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850846)

Apple does not have a monopoly position. Microsoft was found guilty of having a monopoly in the OS market and using that power to unfairly compete in other markets, such as web browsers. It's not about bundling at all, except that is the specific way Microsoft abused its monopoly.

It's a different world now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850580)

While I think it's unfortunate for MS to go back to it's old ways, and those were some dark days back then with a lot of casualties, I think the browser and platform world has changed so dramatically that I don't think MS's old methods will be so effective. Any failing of Firefox going forward will be due to it's own development community and not MS. Chrome as well, though I think it follows a fairly good model now.

The browser users are far more aware now... Not educated, but at least are aware of Firefox like it's a household name... And Chrome has recogniiton to a lesser extent, at least to those who spend any significant amount of time online.

On the platform front, it's too bad a good consumer Linux implementation still hasn't been brought to the market, and unfortunately Apple's pricing for systems forces a large majority of buyers to to the commodity PC market. Solve those issues, and the browser won't the the only thing MS will lose control of.

no (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850782)

it will be effective again. the conditions which made it effective havent changed. only in europe, its mandatory to have a ballot box, and there microsoft wont be able to pull shit. but in america, where it is possible to just pay a fine and keep going, they will. when microsoft did not oblige with ballot box decision in europe and started delaying tactics, eu started to fine microsoft 500,000 euro a day, and microsoft suddenly complied before a week turned out. america does not do that.

Incredibly Low Burden of Proof (5, Insightful)

SJrX (703334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850582)

Most things allow you to keep your settings while removing the rest of the application. There is a big difference between left over Registry entries not being removed, and merely hiding IE. While I suspect they are closer to the hiding IE side of things, I think the proof they offer is silly.

Re:Incredibly Low Burden of Proof (1)

jbov (2202938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850866)

I thought the exact same thing while reading TFA. I'd mod +1 you if I had any. Registry entries and files located in the %appdata% folders should be sufficient for retaining settings.

Is Metro the new ActiveX? (1)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850596)

Only bad things happen when Microsoft integrates stuff into Windows.

Re:Is Metro the new ActiveX? (5, Funny)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850698)

I quita liked it when they integrateed an IP stack...

But, anyway, integrating IE seems completely irrelevant nowadays. It looks more like "just another (boring) GUI toolkit", and less like "stuff people will use".

You must be kidding (5, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850600)

From T (useless) FA:

For example, before we turned off IE 10, we changed the default privacy setting from allowing some cookies to completely blocking all cookies. We then turned the browser off, rebooted, and IE 10 appeared to have completely disappeared from the PC. But when we went back into the settings, turned IE 10 back on, and rebooted again, the browser was back -- but with our customized settings, not the default. That would appear to indicate that Microsoft doesn’t really remove the browser entirely, but rather just hides it – with customized settings and all.

OMFG! A conspiracy unmasked! User settings aren't deleted!

So, because IE doesn't delete your settings it isn't being removed? By this same stupid logic we can determine that almost no modern software is ever actually removed.

I'm quite astounded with the depth of these morons' investigation.

Re:You must be kidding (0)

Dracos (107777) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850964)

Perhaps, but any mortal software would need to be reinstalled. Or did T(u)FA leave that part out?

Re:You must be kidding (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851028)

IE is a "Windows component", and the [un]installation procedure for these is different than the regular Windows Installer / MSI stuff, for whatever reason.

Browser vs. Rendering Libraries (4, Informative)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850618)

I understand the idea of shared rendering libraries similar to WebKit or Gecko. While the knee jerk reaction is that they're locking out other browsers, I see the need to provide core libraries. Being HTML-based, Metro has got to have a rendering library.

As long as they don't force you to use IE for browsing and allow you to continue to install 3rd-party browsers, I have no problem with this any more. All of the vendors partner on whose applications and websites are going to be the defaults that most users won't change. Why shouldn't Microsoft default to their own products while allowing you to install or configure alternatives?

Don't forget -- Mozilla does the same thing by partnering to provide a default search engine.

Re:Browser vs. Rendering Libraries (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851046)

Being HTML-based, Metro has got to have a rendering library.

Metro is not HTML-based. Only Metro apps written in JS have to use HTML5 for their UI. Metro apps written in C++ or .NET have their own XAML stack, which is completely different (though it does have a WebView control, which, if you use it, is of course hosted IE).

Win8 was bad enough with Metro alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850636)

Now users are stuck with an installation of IE, too?

The turd sandwich comes with a side of tumor.

Thanks for making this decision even easier.

Good. (4, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850646)

It's stupid to say that Microsoft cannot have a rendering engine on their OS that is required to be there by other parts of the OS.

I am more than welcome, I'm sure (hey look! a Bingy firefox!), to download my own browser of choice and use it. It just won't be used for the parts of the OS that require their own rendering engine. Which makes sense; how can MS make sure that Firefox would render Metro style UI apps correctly? They HAVE to provide something to render. The fact that it's the same engine as renders webpages is, in my opinion, reusing something they already had developed. Makes sense to me.

If they actually forced web browsing use it and didn't let you install Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc.... that'd be different.

European Union? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850670)

Just because they can bundle the two in the US doesn't mean they can do it everywhere.

If it were not for Metro (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850676)

We would have an actually great browser with little lockin. Actually I thank Apple. Chrome to me is turning more proprietary with Dart and other technologies. I think this is good and IE 10 can never be IE 6 due to other browsers and phones and tablets. I.T greatly looks forward to Ie 10 and html 5 compaired to to IE 6 anyday

Spurious evidence. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850720)

Their evidence is that if they change a setting from default, then "uninstall" IE, then "reinstall" IE, it keeps the changed setting, it doesn't revert to default.

That is their sole piece of evidence they claim in the article.

That is the best "evidence" they could come up with? I have LOTS of apps that save their settings through an uninstall/reinstall! And those apps are definitely uninstalled.

Does Microsoft actually "uninstall" IE9, 8, or 7, when you disable it? No. They haven't done that since IE 4 on Windows 98!

Re:Spurious evidence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850930)

Of course, I don't really consider that to be uninstalling programs. When I remove a program and uninstall it, I want everything about the program to be gone. I want the entry from "program files" to be removed, from "application data," from "programdata," the virtual store, all parts of the registry, etc. I want it gone COMPLETELY. Of course, I may just be the minority in that regard as some people like the preserved settings.

Re:Spurious evidence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850976)

Isn't that what the --purge option in the package manager is for? Oh right, Windows.

Can't be uninstalled (4, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850726)

IE 10 cannot be uninstalled and is required to enable the new 'Metro'-style apps.

Thanks Captain Obvious, 'Metro' apps are HTML5-based so what did you think was going to happen? That they would have 2 separate rendering engines? What would be the point of that? So you turn IE10 off and you don't see it, then you install whatever browser you want for web browsing, what's wrong with that?

Re:Can't be uninstalled (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850790)

Yep. This is a non-issue. Anyone who cares will not be walking into the MS walled metro garden anyway.

What is the F problem? (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850772)

I can understand if MS was trying to shut out other ISPs. As in the case with AOL and Windows 95. That way you could only get to the web using MSN. I really don't understand the problem with tying a browser into the OS. I could understand if in doing so would not allow another browser to install like Chrome or FF, but if it is not going to interfere then who cares and what is the problem? Can someone explain to me the issue?

EU? (1)

suspiciously_calm (2490714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850780)

Wasn't there an antitrust case in Europe about this, too? Will the European version(s) also have this?

Call me stupid, but how is this different? (1)

thecrotch (2464404) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850838)

A good chunk of the functionality in XP, Vista, and 7 is tied to IE. Try removing Internet Explorer and then using Windows Update (no WSUS server, that's cheating). So it will be tied into more applications, wonderful, I work in IT and thousands of new avenues of attack for malware writers means I get to feed myself by cleaning up the aftermath. Also, considering that we're rapidly approaching the era where OS is irrelevant, and that Apple today is not the Apple of 1997, is Microsoft even a monopoly anymore?

Who cares? (5, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850842)

Before the Slashdot crowd starts getting all fired up about history repeating itself, how Microsoft is the Great Satan, blah blah blah, let me be the first to ask, right now, in 2011:

Why does this really matter anymore?

First off, every OS nowadays comes with a Web browser. Indeed, we have reached the point in computing history where the OS is severely crippled if it didn't come with one. For all the IE hate that gets thrown around, how else are you going to download Firefox, at the very least? Mac OS X comes with Safari, which you can't remove. Many free software distros come with a browser (although I will concede that removing these are easier). Every mobile OS comes with a browser. Hell, iOS not only bundles Mobile Safari, but forbids you from any alternatives due to Apple's policies on not duplicating native features (and no, Opera Mini doesn't count).

Second, true IE removal hasn't been possible since Windows 95. De-selecting IE, as the article mentioned, only hid it from access. The only way to truly rip it out of your system would have been to use something like 98lite or XPlite, and then you would have to deal with all of the incompatibilities that followed. A number of applications on Windows assume IE is there, and actually removing the Trident engine from the OS will make you unable to use both Windows and third-party software that needs that component. Microsoft couldn't offer a true IE removal tool if it wanted to, because it would be accused of breaking both Windows and third-party applications that use the Trident engine.

Third, this should have been obvious from the moment Microsoft announced that Metro apps would use HTML5 and JavaScript. How exactly do you plan on running something in HTML5 and JavaScript without a rendering engine? So naturally disabling IE is going to disable Metro - there is simply no other way to run Metro apps. With that line of thinking, you might as well expect to run JARs without the Java VM installed.

The real concern with this news is:
1) How will this affect the security of the OS (as we're back to things like IE exploits affecting Windows itself, although reason 3 made that obvious anyway)?
2) Is Microsoft going to exert pressure on OEMs again to not bundle Firefox or Chrome with their computers?

If Microsoft makes it hard to get Firefox, Chrome, or another browser preinstalled on an OEM machine, then one can argue that there's an antitrust issue. Otherwise, this is just the logical conclusion of the path Microsoft chose for itself (Metro is the future, etc.) as well as everybody else more or less already doing the same thing.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850934)

Second, true IE removal hasn't been possible since Windows 95.

Then what was all the fan-fare about Windows 7 not requiring Internet Explorer? You can completely remove IE but keep the explorer.exe shell AFAIK

Microsoft's halfway decent OS's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850844)

Every other OS they release is turdtastic. XP and 7 are examples of usability that fixed enormous problems in their predecessors, which is why M$ is, while getting ready to release 8, still trying to kill XP. 8 will be like Vista and ME, garbage no one wants to be forced to use. Fortunately, there are now alternatives. The teens will be the decade of Linux on the desktop. It's already the decade of Linux (Android) on the tablet/phone/...wristwatch?... :^) I can't wait to read the headline, (in about 7-10 years...) "Microsoft has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection..." oh, it'll be zarking great!

Viva OSS! Viva LibreOffice, Viva Firefox, Viva Android, and Viva Linux!

What pisses me off more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850956)

...is that Microsoft corporate logo on the story headline instead of the Bill Gates Borg image.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850970)

IE was never "independant from windows", a lot of things rely on the shared dlls lumped together with IE, even the browser-choice in the EU doesn't actually "not install IE", it just installs another browser alongside IE and puts no shortcuts to IE anywhere.

mental note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37851024)

Never read an article on crn.com
Reporting outrageous claims such as
"OS vendor doesn't allow removal of rendering engine from UI"
"Disabling a component and re-enabling it doesn't remove user preferences, shock horror!"
"Disabling feature also disables a dependant feature"
isn't going to win my continued advertising revenue

Saw it coming...then again (1)

T-Mckenney (2008418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851042)

I saw this one coming, especially with the way WinRT is going to be laid out. But then again, I don't see the issue. You can install another browser and no even bother with IE. IE no longer has the monopoly it did, and for the first time in a while, IE (and finally Windows) has to fight to stay relevant. Especially with the Smart Phone/Tablet market gaining some serious speed. Even Linux and OS X are making a little more headway. Windows is still the desktop Juggernaut, but it has no appeal, and when consumers find somewhere else to go, they flock to it. MS is learning that the hard way. On the flip side of that coin, lets look at iOS and Android, they bundle a browser even more deeply integrated into the OS. So, you do have a choice out there now that makes more sense. Microsoft will get it eventually, or die off.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?