Kin Typical

[JustKia]

Currently running Vista Ultimate on this machine, still got 2 others on W2KPro, also have a linux machine. Didn't like XP (hence why I used W2KPro). Hubby has 1 Vista machine, 1 with XP and XP on the company laptop.
I've never seen the problems with windows to be honest, IE works far better than Firefox ever has for me. I have IE, Opera, Safari, NS, FF2 and FF3 (best thing about FF3 - animated pngs!) and as a web developer I have to write EXTRA code for FF (and only FF) - what gives?

I don't see the point of the original complaint linked in the first post either. It's a bit like saying car manufacturers are unfair for bundling the engine with the car and that you should be able to go and chose what engine you like from whatever supplier you choose.

its too intrusive. I dont like my OS popping up every 30 seconds to ask if its ok for something to happen).

Only if you leave it set to be like that. It's been done because a large number of Joe Public need their hand holding to even switch on the computer to start with, let alone to mess about with it, simply turn of UAC and those pop ups are gone.

 

[Darkstar]

as a web developer I have to write EXTRA code for FF (and only FF) - what gives?

yes it's a pain in the **** imo. I assume your talking about the IE box model though?

I don't see the point of the original complaint linked in the first post either. It's a bit like saying car manufacturers are unfair for bundling the engine with the car and that you should be able to go and chose what engine you like from whatever supplier you choose.

A browser isn't as required for an O/S as an engine is for a car. However, fundamentally I agree with you...I wish the EU would shut up and stay out of these things. They've had valid reasons before to have a go at Microsoft but this time I think it's unfounded.

 

[raptorrex]

the browser is not, and never has been a part of the operating system. microsoft would like it to be, so they can "command" the market. what you do and the programs you run, should be up to you. not dictated by the OS maker. a better analogy for the car, would be if you had to use a specific brand of petrol, priced and controlled, not by the market, but by the cars maker. an even better one is if you had to drive the car, only, on roads owned and run by the car maker. the reason its important is, its ILLEGAL, both here and in the states!

just because the maker of a OS is, just about, your only option, does not mean the maker can do as they wish. though its clear Microsoft think they can.

 

[JustKia]

But there's no point in it being illegal.
Microsoft do not stop the end user from using a different browser if they so choose - so what if they include their browser with their OS - they don't force you to use it.
My OS does not dictate what I do or what programs I use, so I don't understand your point, boboboy. In fact many of the programs I choose to use don't work on Linux without an emulator (without digging out packaging I couldn't tell you if they work on MAC and I don't have one so can't comment) and don't have a similar product of comparable quality/functionality that does work, so tot hat point my OS enables me rather than dictates to me.

I suppose a better analogy for the car would be that the windows are included - you don't need them to use the car, it'll function perfectly well without, but itsn't it easier that they come with the car? Just the same if you really don't like them, you can go and get the changed somewhere.

The whole thing screams of - "he won't share his answers with me, it's so unfair" stamp, stamp, stamp. Why don't these people go out and write something better, easier to use and more functional, instead of whining about it?

 

[jimmyringo]

what you do and the programs you run, should be up to you. not dictated by the OS maker.

Surely its not dictated by the OS maker.If you don't want to use IE,you don't have to.I've bought DVD writers that have come bundled with Nero or Powerdvd,but it doesn't dictate that i have to use them,in the same way that Microsoft don't dictate that i have to use IE.

 

[raptorrex]

But there's no point in it being illegal.
Microsoft do not stop the end user from using a different browser if they so choose - so what if they include their browser with their OS - they don't force you to use it.
My OS does not dictate what I do or what programs I use, so I don't understand your point, boboboy. In fact many of the programs I choose to use don't work on Linux without an emulator (without digging out packaging I couldn't tell you if they work on MAC and I don't have one so can't comment) and don't have a similar product of comparable quality/functionality that does work, so tot hat point my OS enables me rather than dictates to me.

I suppose a better analogy for the car would be that the windows are included - you don't need them to use the car, it'll function perfectly well without, but itsn't it easier that they come with the car? Just the same if you really don't like them, you can go and get the changed somewhere.

The whole thing screams of - "he won't share his answers with me, it's so unfair" stamp, stamp, stamp. Why don't these people go out and write something better, easier to use and more functional, instead of whining about it?

they include the browser in the os, you can not remover IEx from any windows version, since the integration. by making it a part of the OS, they are trying to force those who design for the net, to use IE specific programming, as they can claim to have the biggest market share. thing is, this market share is false. they count every windows os as a computer using IE, even if like me, you never use it. if the are successful, other browsers will fail as the number of sites that supports them fall.

its all down, whether you understand the problem or not, to the fact that the OS and the programs you run on it are two, totally, different things. when the OS maker is allowed to dictate the programs you can use,. its not only ILLEGAL, but leads to restriction, both of competition and the choices we have.

 

[MHunt]

Unfortunately, the biggest element of choice is one that many people are unable to make. The choice of operating system. If there was a viable alternative to windows that was comprehensive and supported the applications and hardware that we all use without needing too much in the way of technical knowledge then this discussion wouldn't be an issue, as we'd all leave microsoft for a better alternative. Unfortunately it's the market that's determined Microsoft's dominance (and the fact that until recently they bought out every competitor in sight. I use Linux from time to time and I do believe that it's a better operating system, but I also use windows as there's many applications that I need and hardware that I have that don't work under Linux.

The issue of the internet browser isn't an issue to the majority of PC users. Internet Explorer for all it's flaws and inaccuracies in rendering HTML/CSS pages works just fine for many users. For those of us who know better, we make a conscious choice to find a better browser than is offered by the OS. I don't think it's illegal for the OS maker to bundle their own browser with the OS, just as it probably isn't illegal to supply Windows Media Player. What probably is illegal is to restrict the use of software other than what is supplied or authorised by the OS. Microsoft don't stop you using another browser, they even offer the option to make another browser or email client the default.

 

[raptorrex]

Microsoft don't stop you using another browser, they even offer the option to make another browser or email client the default.

as i recall, they had to be forced to make the choice of browser avaliable. they wanted to make the browser an integral part of the OS, totally restricting your choice. as i said, they still will not let you remove IEx.

 

[MHunt]

Microsoft don't stop you using another browser, they even offer the option to make another browser or email client the default.

as i recall, they had to be forced to make the choice of browser avaliable. they wanted to make the browser an integral part of the OS, totally restricting your choice. as i said, they still will not let you remove IEx.

The biggest problem is that microsoft have a captive audience. They are the defacto standard operating system for the vast majority of new pc's and office systems and until another OS comes along that offers the same level of software and hardware compatibility. What we really want is new PC manufacturers to offer an alternative operating system with their new PC's, perhaps dual boot to Ubuntu for example, then it would slowly loosen microsoft's stranglehold on the PC and the programs that are run on it. Until then it's down to the technically savvy to challenge their dominance, which i'ts sad to say we're in the minority.

 

[mike os]

Oh dear...

vista is the best OS microsoft have made to date.... & I have used them from dos (before they had version numbers) on 8086 & 8088 machines ie pre x286 for those of you who are still children LOL

99% of vista problems are down to inadequate hardware or people who dont know what they are doing. this machine runs ultimate & has not crashed...ever, not one blue screen in over 18 months

Without IE there would be no browser war... because there would be no internet, at least not as we know it today, once there was no other choice. now you have several & they all ***** about ms rather than just competing with it, because they know they are second rate & the only way they have a hope is to force MS off through the courts rather than in direct competition

So yes it is "kin typical", everyone bitching about how MS is successful & how they are not and therefore need some legal protection because its all so unfair..... & forget arguments like "Because ms does this or that", its because MS is the only game in town, not because of corrupt practices but because the competition could not compete in the marketplace, could not deliver the goods, and buyers voted with their wallets. MS has no captive audience, you can buy pc's with no OS or any OS you care to chose, and you can ditch it and install another at any time, you can also chose what ap's you use, including the internet browser. Linux is still a joke as a consumer OS, and until it becomes as easy as MS to install, update and manage and has the range of support and hardware will remain so.

 

[JustKia]

they include the browser in the os, you can not remover IEx from any windows version, since the integration. by making it a part of the OS, they are trying to force those who design for the net, to use IE specific programming, as they can claim to have the biggest market share. thing is, this market share is false. they count every windows os as a computer using IE, even if like me, you never use it. if the are successful, other browsers will fail as the number of sites that supports them fall.

its all down, whether you understand the problem or not, to the fact that the OS and the programs you run on it are two, totally, different things. when the OS maker is allowed to dictate the programs you can use,. its not only ILLEGAL, but leads to restriction, both of competition and the choices we have.

I understand perfectly well, I still think the argument against MS, in this instance, is pointless. Basically, from your post the point is now that you can't uninstall IE? But, IE being there does not prevent you from choosing a different browser, it doesn't affect the use of another browser, so other than a few MB space there really isn't an issue.
Again the OS maker doesn't dictate what programs you use - infact, the opposite is true, the programs I use dictate the OS I use.

Besides, I still don't see why it should be illegal for an OS manufacturer to only allow their own programs to be compatible with their own OS. No-one is forcing anyone to use that OS. They do have other options, only for most people those other options are "too much effort". Again no-one is stopping anyone from forming thier own company and writing a bigger, better, more functional OS - just no-one has stepped up to the plate yet.

Incidentally, as I already said, I have to write EXTRA code for FF and only for FF - if FF is so great why is there the need to write EXTRA code just for that browser?

Fair enough if you don't like MS - that's your choice, but the point of "another company" whining about MS bundling their browser with their OS is pathetic.

 

[MHunt]

Oh dear...

vista is the best OS microsoft have made to date.... & I have used them from dos (before they had version numbers) on 8086 & 8088 machines ie pre x286 for those of you who are still children LOL

99% of vista problems are down to inadequate hardware or people who dont know what they are doing. this machine runs ultimate & has not crashed...ever, not one blue screen in over 18 months

Without IE there would be no browser war... because there would be no internet, at least not as we know it today, once there was no other choice. now you have several & they all ***** about ms rather than just competing with it, because they know they are second rate & the only way they have a hope is to force MS off through the courts rather than in direct competition

So yes it is "kin typical", everyone bitching about how MS is successful & how they are not and therefore need some legal protection because its all so unfair..... & forget arguments like "Because ms does this or that", its because MS is the only game in town, not because of corrupt practices but because the competition could not compete in the marketplace, could not deliver the goods, and buyers voted with their wallets. MS has no captive audience, you can buy pc's with no OS or any OS you care to chose, and you can ditch it and install another at any time, you can also chose what ap's you use, including the internet browser. Linux is still a joke as a consumer OS, and until it becomes as easy as MS to install, update and manage and has the range of support and hardware will remain so.

I'm not bitching

I use microsoft products that work happily. Windows XP is excellent, and up till a couple of years ago I used IE religiousley. I'm well aware of the history of the PC and the Internet, and the internet would be a very different place without IE, and Netscape back in the day. There's always been a browser war, and unfortunately Netscape as it was lost out as it was the better browser at the time. My problem is that microsoft do have a captive audience as there is no reliable alternative that's ready for the mainstream. Yes those with the technical knowledge can and do replace the OS for whatever suits their needs, but those that haven't got the ability can't.

The times i've used vista, it's crippled the machine that it was running on with it's massive requirement for system resources, and this wasn't some cobbled together homebuilt machine, but several laptops from various manufacturers. I'm sure we'll all go that way eventually, a bit like I held onto win98 till there was no other option (and I could afford to replace the Rage Fury MAXX graphics card that was holding back the upgrade.) Vista unfortunately is a victim of it's own hype. It was meant to be the best OS since Win95 and on the face of it it should be, but in the real world it just hasn't appeared to be the case. Almost everyone I know hates Vista, from casual users to IT professionals. As long as Microsoft sorts out Windows 7 (or whatever it's going to be) i'll happily stay with them, but it's not looking good from what i've heard.

Have you tried Ubuntu Linux yet? It's one of the most developed and stable Linux distributions that i've tried and has various variants to keep most users happy. If I can get it to run then most people should be able to. And it has visual effects and productivity to give MacOS a run for it's money.

 

[mike os]

chill dude ... not aimed at anyone LOL it's companies like netscape etc that hack me off.... just get on with your own stuff (as long as everyone is playing reasonably nicely)

not tried a variety of linux for about 18 months or so. Basically, like most people I dont have time.. or want... to play with system settings etc, i just want it to work out of the box as it where & up till then linux was nowhere even close to the MS stick the disc in & off it goes whatever the hardware scenario MS have got so well sorted ( well reasonably well lol)

All versions of windows have been victims of their own hype ime....I remember what a heap of crap XP was on release (seemed to be all the bad bits from 98 & NT4 rather than the good bits LOL), now a that its finished it is a great OS... but still flawed, unfortunately the vista ready stuff did no on any favours. I was running 98 on my last machine ( xp on others * laptop.... don't like changing unnessisarily).... Vista on the right hardware is as good IME, once you get used to the new security stuff & accept that it is not XP.

Win7... well we'll just have to wait & see, personally I wish they would drop all the legacy support & write a new OS.. not going to happen with all the old stuff still out there though.

 

[raptorrex]

sorry, JusrKia, i did not mean you did not understand, MS or the browser. you clearly do not understand the laws, that cause both the EU and US federal organisations, to call the Ms policy, regarding software run on windows machines, ILLEGAL.

and there is, ABSOLUTELY, no choice for the user of a PC, when considering the OS they should use. one of the reasons there is no, viable, alternative to the MS offering. is Mcrosofts, continued insistence on building in an "unfair" advantage, for their own software.

you may not see any reason to worry. the, vast majority of the compting world, does, however.

interestingly i started using IBM compatibles in the early eights, on an o88 if i recall. the company i worked for had a totally computerised stock and accounting system, run on a Unix os. even in 83, this was totally stable, and only fell down when communicating with the MS dos based machines, at the head office. UNIX was/is stable by nature. it was into the nineties that the company moved to a MS based system. only to junk it and move back to Unix.

 

[JustKia]

boboboy, I do understand the laws - I just don't agree with them, or the reason they have been created.

As MHunt said

there is no reliable alternative that's ready for the mainstream. Yes those with the technical knowledge can and do replace the OS for whatever suits their needs, but those that haven't got the ability can't.

Instead of those other companies (be they known or even a group of kids in a garage somewhere) whining about it being unfair that MS bundles it's browser with it's OS and therefore they can't compete, they should put that energy into making a comparable product.
There is nothing to stop anyone making a bigger and better OS with more functionality and compatibility than windows has, but either they can't or don't want to, prefering to try whine about the competitor and get silly laws bought in.
If there was a significant competitior to MS for the mainstream I bet both would be trying to add in all sorts of "extras" to try and persuade the buyer to their product. That's what competition is about.