RSSEC: Microsoft will consider Windows 7 E 'ballot screen' for other browsers
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published July 24, 2009, 3:29 PM
In a public memo this afternoon, the European Commission has stated that Microsoft has offered to include a "ballot screen" with choices of Web browsers, including Internet Explorer 8 and others, as a way for the company to comply with the EC's directives. Last month, the company decided that it would remove IE8 from Windows 7 for European customers only, though that move alone was initially met with skepticism by the continent's legislators, who claimed that the move by itself would not restore choice to consumers.
Microsoft formally acknowledged the proposition minutes ago. Its public statement, given by General Counsel Brad Smith, includes the following: "If this proposal is ultimately accepted, Microsoft will ship Windows in Europe with the full functionality available in the rest of the world. As requested by the Commission, we will be publishing our proposal in full here on our website as soon as possible. While the Commission solicits public comment and considers this proposal, we are committed to ensuring that we are in full compliance with European law and our obligations under the 2007 Court of First Instance ruling."
While today's follow-up move is apparently being welcomed, it has not yet been sanctioned.
"Under the proposal," reads today's statement from the EC, "Windows 7 would include Internet Explorer, but the proposal recognizes the principle that consumers should be given a free and effective choice of Web browser, and sets out a means -- the ballot screen -- by which Microsoft believes that can be achieved. In addition, OEMs would be able to install competing Web browsers, set those as default, and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice."
Although October 22 remains GA-day for Windows 7, its relative availability to European customers on any day close to that date, may now depend on how long the European Commission takes to examine this proposal. Certainly it should already have had plenty of time to consider the idea of a ballot screen, as it was proposed long before Microsoft made its removal decision last month, and was backed by European manufacturers such as Opera Software.
A mechanism for letting installers choose their Web browsers may be easy enough to implement; what may be difficult is effectuating the upgrade procedure. The first versions of Windows 7E for Europe, at least at the outset, will not be able to upgrade over existing installations of Windows Vista or XP, Microsoft has previously informed Betanews. Enabling the ballot screen, which would in turn enable the installer to trigger third-party browser installation (perhaps through the installation procedure, perhaps over the Web), may for upgraders require the installer to effectively uninstall older Microsoft Web browsers such as IE7 or IE6 -- processes which, at the time, Microsoft engineered (perhaps intentionally) to be difficult. That is, unless Microsoft has worked out a way to use its operating system imaging platform (the same one that enables network-based installation of Windows Vista to multiple clients) to overwrite older OS installations with effectively "blank" Windows 7 installations that are then ready for third-party browsers such as Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.
Smith's statement this afternoon appears to imply that Microsoft has already worked out those technical details, and that full upgrading capability is indeed possible, if and when the EC gives the company the go-ahead.
If people who doesn't like IE and doesn't want IE on their operating system. How are they going to download the browser they want? I find it's really stupid people who keeps ranting that they don't want IE. It's simple, if you don't like it, you don't have to use. Just like dinner, I hate liver. Am I force to order liver and say "I hate liver"?? No.
Score: 1
|Part of the concern is the mere presence of IE enabling various exploits.
Score: 0
|I seriously hope they just include ancient browsers.
Score: 0
|Like what? IE?
Score: -1
|I still can't believe customers are too 'dumb' in the ECs eyes to choose their own f%&$ing browser.
"I hate IE, oh GOD what am I going to do?!!!!, I wish I had a zillion other options built into a ballot screen that comes up the first time I try to surf the internet"....
wtf are they thinking? If people don't like IE, it takes all of 1 minute, maybe 2 depending on connection speed to download and install something else.
Plain and simple, the EC has flexed its muscles. They're arguments against IE are valid, back in 1994. But right now, it's just ridiculous.
Score: 0
|microsoft should stop brown nosing the e.c.
the ec didn't want the ie browser included in windows
therefore microsoft should let them "eat their cake"
---------
the free market dictates that microsoft can charge a fee to browser makers if they want their browsers included in windows.
or if microsoft is going to have a selection process, then microsoft is entitled to monetary compensation from that browser maker when a windows user selects them via the operating system ballot.
it's all fair in love and in war.
Score: -2
|Come on..How fast will these technologies will go? I'm only using the old darn XP
Score: 0
|Quote: (perhaps intentionally)
What is this crap, it IS intentionally.
Done to force Netscape out of the market (back then there was no Firefox or Opera).
(MS wanted the web to be a collection of MS Office documents.
Thank-god MS didn't succeeded in it.)
Score: -5
|no they wanted an OS that did most everything out of box, doesn't every OS come with a browser atm? OS X, Linux ... and look out for ChromeOS which apparently is a browser OS
Score: 1
|I will probably be able to remove chrome and use Firefox in ChromeOS.
Did you know that trying to remove IE will damage Windows itself!
Even google's ChromeOS won't have such crap.
artfuldodga, MS wanted to provide an OS with everything on it but also wanted to dominate the internet standards as I described above.
Score: -5
|"I will probably be able to remove chrome and use Firefox in ChromeOS.
Did you know that trying to remove IE will damage Windows itself!
Even google's ChromeOS won't have such crap. "
LOL I see we have another magic 8 ball loving poster in bopb99 here...let me ask you this, how are you not a billionaire with all this magic future telling abilities that you have??
Score: 1
|bopb99, you can unistall Internet Explorer 8.0 from Windows 7, and it wouldn't break anything. It deletes the application but leaves the engine behind so that applications depending on Internet Explorer engine continues running.
Score: 0
|Interesting. So common sense has prevailed afterall and everyone wins, there are no losers. If IE8 is what people want then it is what people will install. If they don't want IE8 then they now have a choice. And that's what it was all about afterall at the end of the day - choice.
Score: 0
|Sorry, common sense has completely failed.
Score: 0
|I missed something along the way. Since when did it become MS's responsability to promote other browsers (the competition)? Maybe GM dealers should have Ford autos and salesmen on staff in case I want something else. Since I am not capable of going to another dealer that is. But that, would be ____.
Score: 0
|I think you may have missed something. I'm not a MS fanboy, but your example doesn't work because neither Ford or GM are known monopolies. Minus that example, your point has some merit. I think simply leaving MS Internet explorer out of the distro for Europe would be fine enough, too. I'm guessing MS feels that most consumers will choose IE, cause it'll likely be the first choice in the list. Just like in the US, Europeans will likely just click the first button. :)
Score: -2
|"but your example doesn't work because neither Ford or GM are known monopolies"
Neither is MS...
Score: 1
|Niro: By who's count?
US? over 75% market share: Monopoly.
EC? They don't go by market-share, but the lowest share they've gone after is, I believe, 37%. If they deem the player has a controlling share of the market, they are considered a monopoly.
So yeah... MS is a monopoly. Note: Monopolies are not by definition "illegal".
Score: -1
|EU are missing the point and costing the tax payer a lot of money. No care if windows comes with ie.
what the eu should do is make it a right to buy a pre-made computer with out a os.. so you dont have to pay for windows os with every computer. User should pick when the computer first boots up. installs windows or install linux get £50 refund for windows your not going to use. If your not a gamer then most users will not need windows
Score: -4
|Why does ANY government have the right to tell business how and what to do with their products? Why must government's save me?
Score: 2
|What about the option to install OS X?
Score: -1
|FFS....
So now to remedy the illegal bundling of IE, not only are they bundling IE, but several other browsers as well?
*laughing*
What a circus...
Okay, so now what? Who decides what browsers get on the ballot screen? At last count, there were 6 different forks of Firefox out there, a couple of dozen IE "wrappers", and an ungodly amount of browsers of the "unheard of" variety...
This should be amusing as hell...
I can see the future install of Windows 8 now...
Choose from:
Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, or Free-DOS.
Choose from:
Notepad, notepad++, VI, Emacs, AbiWord, OpenOffice
Choose from:
(list of a billion browsers here)
Choose from:
WMP, WinAMP, FooBar2000, Songbird, Amarok....
What a joke.
Score: 4
|Rubbish.
They are not going to be "bundling" anything under this proposal, merely giving user the choice to select and get the browser of their choice.
The 'joke' here is that you would choose to characterise this as "not only are they bundling IE, but several other browsers as well".
They aren't.
There will be a selection of choices.
No big deal and long overdue.
Score: -1
|*laughing*
Semantics.
Are the browsers part of the install media?
I would expect so, as it would be impossible to do it otherwise on an offline installation.
"No big deal and long overdue."
Says you. (and when you read that, you should imagine it in the snidest tone possible)
Forcing a company to offer competing products is ludicrous beyond any stretch of a sane person's imagination. Especially when those products are a mouse-click and a search keyword away otherwise.
The government's *need* to cater to the stupidity of the masses does *nothing* but validate and reinforce that stupidity. It doesn't fix the root of the problem: People are morons...and getting dumber by the second.
Score: 4
|Dry your tears, they lost, threw a tantrum and have now decided to act more reasonably.
It is not semantics.
They are not offering competitors products.
They are merely going to show a list of products to choose from and from which the customer will then select & go get (I presume you don't need it explaining how this can be done without a 'full' browser being installed?).
Frankly from your Ivory Tower and with that incalculably superior attitude I wonder why you bother being interested with the issues relating to the herd scofflaw at all.
Score: 0
|Oh my god, all those choices.
If that would be true.
I'll install everything!!!
(You forgot vlc media player, KOffice and many other excellent FOSS software.)
Score: 0
|@hocus:
"They are not offering competitors products.
They are merely going to show a list of products to choose from"
*laughing*
Too rich....that makes perfect sense to *you* doesn't it?
"Frankly from your Ivory Tower and with that incalculably superior attitude I wonder why you bother being interested with the issues relating to the herd scofflaw at all."
Hehe... Too funny. Towers and superiority have nothing to do with it. Just logic, common sense and a good helping of some actual ability to reason.
Score: 0
|PC_Tool is pretty much right on this one. (don't get a fat head now PC_Tool :p )
While I'm no MS pet, I do disagree with what has happened. They've taken the "Take IE out of the OS" itself too far. Originally all this was started because IE was built in to the OS itself. Everyone was in an uproar and lawsuits ensued. MS finally removed IE from within the OS itself. But now they are being bullied into not including IE at all with the OS. Which frankly is wrong since every single other OS out there comes bundled with a Browser!
I would suggest to the E(whatever the hell it is) that they force all the other OS' to do the same very thing they are pushing MS into, which means OS X needs to do this, all Linux, Unix and BSD distros need to do this and all the other exotic little systems out there.
It's like going to a fast food place, say Mc Donalds and being offered a "Whopper", a "Jack Burger" and lastly a "Big Mac". Sounds pretty retarded doesn't it? It is! But this is what it's come down to now.
Yes, they are offering competitors products! How dense do you have to be to not see that? How can PC_Tool or anyone else make this more simple for you or anyone else to see or understand?
You know what could have saved all this trouble? If they simply asked MS to pop up a notice when the user starts IE explaining that there are other web browsers available to them to use if they prefer not using IE and offer some links to sites that offer web browsers, such as FileForum here ;-) Once the user has seen this message, they can opt to dismiss the message permanently and either continue to use IE or get another browser. Do you realize how much money and time could have been saved by doing such a simple thing? Still though, I'd think that all OS' should do the same thing if MS were required to do such a thing.
Score: 1
|I agree PC (in a rare event - lol)
Score: 0
|I agree with this, while I don't touch IE myself, forcing them to offer competitors products on-install is silly.
Score: 1
|I see no end to this... now Opera is going to complaint that they are not the first on the list. I happen to think this is stupid... if it's monopolistic then why can't we get OS X without safari? and i case someone argue that Apple does not have a monopoly, yes they do. OS X in itself is a market of an OS. The fact that people get Safari installed for OSX is monopolistic in nature. This is not about a monopoly in computers but a monopoly in an OS. So they should allow people the choice of which browser to choose. But we all know this is Bulls*** because that's the only way these companies see themself competing.
Score: -1
|folks blame MS but, back in the day, before Firefox ever came about, you had Netscape and IE, i used Netscape myself, go figure ... not sure how i found out about it, i think i got a cd in the mail lol or it came in a magazine.. (the browser wars go back a bit further than that of course) Mosaic?
nobody knew what a browser would end up being used for, the standards that needed to be set, they were and still are ever evolving, pretty sure Microsoft had no concept of half the stuff on the net these days back in 2001 and earlier, same goes for everyone else in the game... they had an idea, the browser being part of the OS and we can't blame them for that, they brought the world the internet
even google today backtracks and is creating an OS out of a browser so really, go figure... and they even weighed in on this whole EU deal, which the EU should now take into account don't you think? ah well, you're right its all bulls*** indeed
guess having your brand on the front of a Windows install is better than mailing out cds, stuffing them into magazines or spamming folks about your product :)
Score: 3
|That's a wide miss. Apple builds and sells computers, complete products, ready to use. Microsoft only sells software. There is no reason why Microsoft should be able to tell a PC builder, retailer, or user how to configure or equip their PC's.
Score: -3
|So you are trying to say that if Microsoft started making 3 different combinations of desktops and 2 laptops, and refused to sell Windows to anyone else, and then locked it so it could only run on your hardware that would make Microsoft less anti-competative or monopolistic?
Score: 5
|@KM:
Exactly. (unless of course, those 5 systems were the only one's anyone ever bought, and no-one sold alternative systems)
Score: -1
|There is nothing wrong with a monopoly, but it is against the law to use a monopoly to leverage other products in other markets.
The Apple Mac is one product. When you build a PC you chose from hundreds of components from dozens of vendors. It's just wrong for one of those vendors to use a monopoly in a critical component to force PC builders to use their other components.
If Microsoft built their own PC's they could set them up any way they want and sell them. Then they would be in direct competition with Apple, Dell, HP, Azus, Lenovo, and the white box shop on the corner, but today they aren't in that market, they sell PC software.
Score: 1
|to add onto my post heres a quote straight from Mozilla "Those big companies weren’t giving much thought to browsers when Firefox was released in 2004, and neither were most ordinary Web users. A browser was just a window onto the Web, and people used whatever was already installed on a computer. Usually that meant Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.
Since then, Firefox has captured nearly a quarter of the browser market by focusing on speed, security and innovation. Its success is all the more remarkable because it was built and marketed by a far-flung community of programmers, testers and fans — mostly volunteers — coordinated by a nonprofit foundation. It is a shining example of the potential of open-source software, which anyone can modify and improve, and its ascent is one of Silicon Valley’s most unusual success stories.
In short, Mozilla showed the world that browsers matter. Now the challenge is to keep proving that Mozilla matters."
Score: 2
|lets hope they all pick Firefox, nobody needs the overbearing 'glam' factor Safari brings lol...
though i can see many new consumers just picking IE8 anyway
Score: 3
|IE8 wouldn't be all that bad if they got some decent addins for it. Sadly, the fanboyism that permeates the developers of firefox extensions is thick.
On my low-endian laptop, IE8 blows Firefox 3.5.1 out of the water in terms of page-load times (Win7).
Sadly, there's just not enough add-in (session management, anyone?) for it to make it useful to me.
Score: 4
|IE8 still makes the web designing gods quite angry though. That's why it would be nice if Microsoft abbandoned it like they did with the Mac version.
Score: 0
|Personally, I couldn't care less about the web gods. ;)
They have a little more work to do?
Wait, I think I hear the WAAAH!!mbulance....
Score: 0
|It would be nice if they abandoned it *only* if they provided a clear "upgrade" path to, say, Firefox or another browser. Letting people use a stagnating browser while the Web moves on (sort of like what happened with IE 6 for a while--almost forever if they abandoned standalone IE like they planned in 2003) is just mean.
Score: 0
|Try the Acid3 test.
http://acid3.acidtests.org/
Firefox 3.5.1 gets a 93/100.
What does IE8 gets?
(Hint: somewhere below 40.)
Score: 0
|Don't forget the illustration-making gods.
And the up comming webpagevideo-look-mommy-no-plugin gods!
And a lot of other people that create stuff and would want to share it with the world!
Score: -1
|@BOP:
YA know...I really couldn't care less about Acid3. Pages looks fine in just about every modern browser I use now, so why should it?
I u se what I prefer, and right now, that's FF. IE8 is faster on this machine, but it doesn't have nearly the amount of community support FF does. If that were to change....
Score: 0
|The test is about how good the browser displays web pages.
The pages look fine but there is still some room for (much needed) improvement.
Score: -1
|"The test is about how good the browser displays web page"
Right...that's my test, I go to a webpage and it displays perfectly fine in IE and Firefox (I do use firefox more then I use IE). Therefore, the useless acid test number means absolutely nothing to me.
Score: 3
|@Niro..
Bang on. pages render fine for me in all three of the browsers I use. *shrug* Acid3 is pointless from a user-perspective.
Score: 0
|"Personally, I couldn't care less about the web gods. ;)
They have a little more work to do?
Wait, I think I hear the WAAAH!!mbulance...."
You'll be whining when your pages don't load right in IE8 because developers don't feel like coding for yet another set of proprietary Microsoft standards.
Score: 0
|"You'll be whining when your pages don't load right in IE8 because developers don't feel like coding for yet another set of proprietary Microsoft standards."
...and ya know what? When that day comes? I already use 3 browsers, so that page will work just fine in one of the other ones.
Effect on me: Zip, zero, zilch.
So I should care, why?
Score: 0
|Using web standards reduces bloat and increases usability. Getting a 20-second page to load in 2 seconds is just one benefit.
Score: 0
|"Using web standards reduces bloat and increases usability. Getting a 20-second page to load in 2 seconds is just one benefit."
Again...usability for me is fine no matter which browser I use, web sites load within 2 seconds already on all my browsers. I don't know what a "20 second page" means...I dont' know of a single page out there that requires 20 seconds of rendering by my browsers...are you trying to say that a higher acid test number means a 20MB web video will load in 2 seconds instead of 20 seconds? You're not making sense.
Yet still, all my browsers work fine on all the pages I visit and they're very fast. The only reason I use Firefox over IE right now is for the adblock plugin. So firefox can have a 0/100 acid result for all I care, as long as all the pages continue to load fine and adblock continues to work.
Score: 0
|@morris...
If you cannot make your point without asinine exaggerations, don't bother.
Thanks.
Seriously... 20 seconds? Sorry. Funny thing is, IE loads the majority of the pages I view frequently faster than IE or chrome. Go figure.
The only thing stopping me from using IE8 alone is the lack of community support. I would *love* to go back down to one browser (though I doubt that will ever happen...jango just works so much better in chrome...)
Score: 0
|It is not an "asinine exaggeration". I've seen it myself. Until you've done some web development with web standards, then you are not really competent to declare much of anything on the subject. Same for you, Niro.
Score: 0
|Then point us to one page that takes 20 seconds to load.
Just one.
Of course, you'd have to point to several hundred of them to come even close to validating your point, but we'll start off slow for ya...
Love the "if you're not a web god, your opinions don't matter" BS.
NEWSFLASH: Users make up the majority of the internet...not developers. :)
Score: -1
|The website is no longer available. However, try using http://www.websiteoptimi...on.com/services/analyze/ and entering various URLs (such as betanews.com). It will help you see some of the bloat that's out there.
When listening to a techie and a non-techie talk about a technical matter, I'll believe the techie over the non-techie. When listening to someone with experience in web development and web standards as opposed to someone with no experience in the matter, I'll believe the one with the experience. It does matter. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't act like you do.
Score: 0
|