Well I just want to say most people are stupid, just read some of the comments here to prove that. Smart people make there own choice, everything from the CPU to the OS and even the box you put it in. This is really about money, MS has heaps and all the others want more. If I was Head of MS I would just stop selling windows to European Countries and see how much they have to say about that. If you want windows buy it as is, or just don't buy it. It is your choice what you use. The European Commission is a joke, why not worry about something more important.

Last time I checked broswers were free. Next thing they will be coming to your house and saying "your using IE, you didn't try the other ones so you are going to get a fine!" Maybe in 5 years if IE is gone we will have to pay for a browser as we do for most crap! Granny, doesn't care as long as she is able to get to facebook and talk to her kids. I will never use chrome!

If I were Bill Gates, and obviously he is smarter than I so he would not be so careless, I would just start shipping a set of DOS 6 floppies with each system destined for the EU. No installed OS for any EU market, period. If they want an GUI OS they can go out and pull one off the shelves. Same for all Servers, Office, SQL, Exchange, IIS, and every other MS product... They can go open source for it all.

I would also filter all help requests from EU IPs and block access to all MS on line resources which originate in the EU. As far as fines go, if I don't operate in the EU, I don't pay their extortion demands...

Follow the money. MS is a huge cash cow for the EC members. Whether it is legalized extortion or outright market manipulation for the friends of the EC (The questionnaire was sent by the European Commission to an indeterminate number of the "interested parties" in the Web browser bundling affair, one of which is the ECIS, whose members include Opera Software.)

Basically, nothing that MS does will be easy or cheap. MS will jump through hoops and pay fines to the EC, and the EC will gather bribes from it's friends, and the end users in the EU will end up paying more for an inferior product just for the privilege to line the pockets of the EC crooks.

I'm from Europe. Europe is not a country as stated correctly. Europe is a political organization with 27 countries (with all their own government). HOW could they ever decide in democracy within a couple of months about such a unimportant thing (there a much more important decisions to make)? Is there one law in America? No every state has it's own, just like in Europe (only 27 not 50).

The statement against Microsoft is against the Microsoft "kiss of death". You Americans are used to it, and seem not to know nor care how others think about it. Not strange as everyone with an own voice has score < -8 and does not show op, just as in real live, shoot that guy, he is against us!

Back to Internet explorer. MS made with IE8 his best browser ever! I use firefox but I think IE8 is as good as and is very useful and fast. Only one problem, the amount of memory used. I have most of the time about 35 tabs open.

EU made a bad decision in this case, they should not make a small point with this browserwar thingy. They should have proved that MS is using all dirty sneaky guerrilla techniques to get a bigger part of the cake. NOT against the software, but against a enemy of real freedom (not just a dream).

Let's create a better world, starting in Europe. Maybe some people start to think and stop just repeating what others dictate them to say.

oke, just downvote me, before anyone reads something critical, very scary...

A small favor please.

I simply can't understand what the hell this is all about. Yes, I do understand that Internet Explorer is part of the operating system BUT, even so, so what? Where does it say in XP, Vista, or even Windows gazillion thousand that one is obligated to use Internet Explorer?

I use Avant browser because I like it a hell of a lot more than Internet Explorer. I also know it does use the IE engine but I don't mind. I do use Firefox and even Orca. Simply put I use the browser I want! Oh my god! I can choose the browser I want to use, even if IE was bundled in the operating system. So, what the hell is the big deal? Please explain.

This is about as stupid as it gets...Whatif someone said STRIP OS X OF SAFARI AND QUICKTIME IN THE EU IMMEDIATELY! Oh, and pull Konquerer out of KDE while you're at it, etc etc etc... If Opera was worth a s*** people would use it, if Linux was worth a s*** people would use it too. And yes, wankers, I misspelled it on purpose :)

Quick solution? Let the authors and developers of the competing browsers actually *gasp* MARKET their respective browsers (if they actually care that much about increasing their market share), and let the end user ultimately decide whether they want to try something different over time... and leave Microsoft the hell alone (or else start treating other OS developers similarly). They (end users) ultimately chose to use a Microsoft OS... well guess what? It comes with a Microsoft Internet browser, and a Microsoft media player, and a Microsoft calculator, notepad, etc... the audacity, the gall, the nerve!

Google's home page recently started popping up this nifty little window in the upper-right corner prompting users to download and install Google Chrome, complete with a link providing the user with more information as to what the hell "Chrome" actually is. What a novel concept!

Mozilla once placed a two-page awareness ad in the New York Times for Firefox. Is that so difficult for them and others to do the same across the pond? Better yet, since the EC claims the end users of which they are so protective are really that clueless, the EC themselves could perhaps organize a massive Internet browser / media player awareness campaign through the various media outlets which I'm sure they have *some* influence over.

Expecting Microsoft to provide the solution (and not just any ol' ordinary solution, but the *correct* solution, whatever the hell that may be... far be it from the EC to offer any suggestions) to a problem that doesn't actually exist is absurd. The EC reminds me of the teacher in Pink Floyd's The Wall... "Wrong! Do it again!"

Pretty soon, expect the EC to force Microsoft to put pressure on OEMs to provide a ballot screen on restore discs suggesting alternative OSes...

This whole issue is utterly ridiculous! It certainly makes me rather grateful to be a "US American".

You think the EC would just come out and formally say "EVERYONE MUST USE SOMETHING OTHER THAN IE" ... it seems like that's what they really want at this point. :rolleyes:

Maybe instead we can just all forget this ridiculous ordeal and move forward? It feels like a complete waste of time, and money.

They aren't happy with anything but giving the end user the choice is the best, even if they choose Internet Exploder.

I can see them quibbling over position on the ballot, bolding of the selection text, typefaces, and perhaps, even kerning and leading.

Google Chrome would likely go first and Google would be happy, if they were included, but Mozilla Firefox coming after Microsoft might not be so good and Opera coming last would definitely not be acceptable. If they used product names alone, they'd likely also have trouble.

It reminds me of the U.S. government and vendors trying to develop AM Stereo radio. By the time they finished, no one cared. Stereo sound for television was also debated ad naseum, as was HDTV and DTV technology.

Whichever is first on the list will likely be the most chosen browser.

I actually saw a commercial for Chrome the other day. What a novel idea; promoting a product through advertising!
Google should really patent that business method...oh wait, I think Apple invented it first™.

Really? A commercial? Mind if I ask what station?

One of the major networks aired the commercial Monday during prime time; NBC, ABC, or maybe CBS; I know it wasn't Fox, or the CW if you can call that a major network.

Pool ms tortured by eu.
i strongly believe that even unbundled and with a ballot screen, about 90% percent of eu people will still choose ie 8.
while ie 8 is not perfect, it still performs better than firefox, opera

Hmmm, not sure it performs better but I agree I think most people go with what they already know.

performs better?

Did you look at the tests Beta News runs? IE 8 has the worst performance and standards compliance of any modern browser by a huge margin.

Watch the mod points fly for pointing out the truth....

Your truth is tainted by your idiocy.

Those tests have nothing to do with real-world usage. Chrome has won most of them and yet is the absolute slowest browser I have ever used. Page reloads take *forever*. Guess what? That little gem isn't part of the testing process here. The damned thing could be as standards compliant as you are stupid and it would still be one of the slowest browsers on the market. JS performance tests are meaningless.

You aren't being modded down because you are anti-MS. You are modded down because you are incapable of stating anything that might actually require a modicum of critical thinking ability.

If what you are saying is true, every post you make would be -9999999.

Case in point is this one, Chrome slow? ROFL. that flies in the face of any test ever run, outside of a sponsored Microsoft test at least. But I see you simply regurgitated the Microsoft marketing talking points about IE. If your browser has the worst standards compliance and worst performance, attack the test.

Still a ****ing moron.

I don't use IE, you imbecile. I use Firefox. In day-to-day use, it is the fastest, regardless of some lame-ass, non-real-world representing JS tests.

Get a ****ing clue, dimwit. Better yet, find something to do other than troll every MS article.

I'm surprised you find Firefox faster than Chrome - I'm working as a web developer, and some projects have involved pages with many drop/drag elements, animations (controlled by JS), etc. Chrome's performance seemed far soother than Firefox's, in my experience.

On pure JS? Sure. I agree 100%.

Not the point, though. In my day-to-day browsing habits, reloading existing pages is probably 90% of my "browsing". Chrome is stupidly slow at this task. I mean *retarded* slow. So is Opera. IE is lightning, but doesn't have the extensibility I need. Firefox is a touch slower than IE, but I can live with it because it's so extensible.

I am sure it is something they could fix. Heck, I am sure they eventually *will*. Hopefully, by then, they'll have some decent add-ons and I can finally ditch the crap that is Firefox.

Fair 'nuff. You make a fair argument, I can't complain ;)

No big. The tests are the problem, not the browser. I am sure for many, it's fast enough. Heck, if all one is using it for is web-apps for work or whatever, I am sure it is "mind-blowing". More power to 'em. Wish it worked that well in every department. :p (Seriously...I really wish it did. I could live without the extensions.)

the selection box will simply mean that people who choose other browsers won't be able to access downloads from microsoft.

sure updates via the windows interface is possible.

but who knows, microsoft may not provide the europeans with all the updates we in america receive,

thus they will require at least one manual download of a patch or whatever, which will require the i.e. browser to do so.

i wouldn't doubt if the one of the downloads is the infamous WGA

Full employment for attorneys! ! ! ! It appears that, ECIS attorney, Thomas Vinje, knows what the computer users wants for a web browser. Mr Vinje should tell Microsoft and everyone in his country what is best for them. Apparently, people in his country are not savy enough to make a internet browser selection. Good thing the government is there to protect them from Microsoft.

Poor Microsoft. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Its funny how no matter what they do, someone will try to find fault with them. I guess it's a no win situation. Now Apple on the other hand, they can do no wrong. Just ask Steve.

"users should be given the choice continually to change browsers,"

You're kidding me. There's this thing called "the internet" where you can download any browser you want.

He should try it sometime.

The ballot screen appeases the "choice" issue, which IMO is more than should be required int he first place. Once the user has been given the choice, one would think they would be aware that such choices exist for them. If interested, they can then use whatever they chose to find alternatives.

"Some make it difficult technically to change a component. Others try to make it illegal. Some do both.""

Strawman... It doesn't apply to browsers. I have 4 installed on most of my computers and it was as simple as downloading and running.

Dont you think Kmeleon and Lynx should be in that list on a rotating basis then? :D

"Dont you think Kmeleon and Lynx should be in that list on a rotating basis then?"

I don't think there should be a list.

I think this is all BS.

They have admitted that an OS without a browser is not a valid option in this day and age (Harassing MSFT for having the nerve to remove the browser they sadi couldn't be bundled). They have admitted that alternatives exist (forcing a ballot screen), thus choice exists.

All the rest of this amounts to nothing more than victim mentality BS. Opera and Mozilla both know the choice exists, but instead of actually marketing the products, they are content to play the victim and blame their lack of share not on their own non-existent marketing, but on the Evil Microsoft™.

Entitlement: It's not just for consumers anymore. Any software company that feels it is entitled to market-share with no effort on their part can now just lobby the EC to force Microsoft to market it for them.

fatty, i'll ask again:

If MS was broken up into seperate companies and Internet Explorer was still the dominant browser in 5 years then what else would you propose should be done?

How do you propose splitting the company up would have a positive outcome for consumers who may prefer to use Internet Explorer and for companies who produce add-on specifically for that browser?

I like how you keep saying "convicted monopolist" like you would say "convicted murderer" or something else. Not saying you're wrong in any way, just think its funny. Also, you say that "The rules are different for a convicted monopolist". As far as I can tell the "rules" are just that they have to pay a fine and follow the instructions of the EC, which is exactly what they're doing.

Well, it's not very funny and it's actually wrong, at least in the context of the EC.

There's no such thing as a "convicted monopolist" in the EC, at least in the context of this issue. Sure a monopolist could be "convicted" of something, and the title would apply, but it's irrelevant to their status in the EC.

Monopolies are handled far differently there than they are in the US. In the US, monopolies are perfectly legal and it is not until they are convicted of abusing the monopoly that they suffer the baleful eye of government regulation. In the EC, merely having a majority stake in any single market pegs you as a monopoly and the EC can arbitrarily impose restrictions (again, completely arbitrary) on the company, or simply choose to do nothing.

A perfect example of the arbitrary restrictions/solutions is this issue itself. When WMP was seen as an intrusion by MS into another market, they (Microsoft) were forced to unbundle it. Now IE is seen the same way, but they are restricted from unbundling it and must instead effectively market competing browsers.

In one sense I agree with the suggestion above, though: Breaking up Microsoft would force these companies using them as a scapegoat for their own inability to market to look elsewhere for the "perpetrator" of their "victimization". Still a totally absurd solution to a completely misunderstood "problem", but not more or less absurd than any of the other suggestions.

I don't think this is a good idea.
MS will just use IE to force Activex and badly written web pages.
It's time the internet trashes stupid, unusable behaviour from IE.

sorry PC_Tool but you are incorrect.

http://www.dictionary.net/convicted
convict: To demonstrate by proof or evidence; to prove

EU did in fact find Microsoft to be a monopoly and the ruling was upheld
http://www.marketingpilg...soft-is-a-monopoly.html

You tangent comparing the handling of monopolies really adds nothing to the point, but i can see you needed it to sound more knowledgeable.

@yohimbe9 : convicted is the word to use, by definition. I know you want to downplay the significance of Microsoft being shown in a bad light, but i see right through it as can everyone else

Oh ffs... dude, just stop responding to my posts. You're like the slow kid at school that has to have everything explained to him in the most basic of terms because you ability to comprehend the simplest of concepts is virtually non-existent. It's tiring and frankly, it is no longer entertaining.

on the off-chance that some poor fool might actually wander in here and not take you for the complete moron you are....

Conviction implies a question of guilt. In the EC, if you have a majority of the market, you are a monopoly. No question, no implication. The arbitrary restrictions can then be levied upon you without judgment, ruling or trial, but by the simple "finding" of some non-judicial government body.

God, I wish you'd just disappear.

@PC_tool : educate yourself. You clearly have zero understanding of that which you speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...icrosoft_antitrust_case

So yes, according to the EU, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. You can say I am right and you are wrong. I am waiting...

*sigh*

Moron: Last time: The EC is an executive body, not a judicial body.

These are "findings" and "decisions"....not convictions. The EC is not a law-enforcement agency.

Get a friggin clue.

Last bite on your childish trolling. If you can not read a dictionary then i am not sure how to help you. You clearly have not idea what the word "convict" means. I am not sure how it can be spelled out more clearly.

again....

http://www.dictionary.net/convicted
convict: To demonstrate by proof or evidence; to prove

From your own sources, fatty:
In March 2004, the EU ordered Microsoft to pay €497 million ($794 million or £381 million)... Microsoft paid the fine in full in July 2004.
In 2004, Neelie Kroes was appointed the European Commissioner for Competition; one of her first tasks was to oversee the fining brought onto Microsoft by the European Commission, known as the European Union Microsoft competition case. This case resulted in the requirement to release documents to aid commercial interoperability and included a €497 million fine for Microsoft.
In December 2005 the EU announced that it believed Microsoft did not comply fully with the ruling, stating that the company did not disclose appropriate information about its server programs. The EU said that it would begin to fine Microsoft €2 million (US$3.20 million or £1.53 million) a day until it did so.
On 12 July 2006, the EU fined Microsoft for an additional €280.5 million (US$448.58 million), €1.5 million (US$2.39 million) per day from 16 December 2005 to 20 June 2006. The EU threatened to increase the fine to €3 million ($4.80 million) per day on 31 July 2006 if Microsoft did not comply by then.[16]

On 17 September 2007, Microsoft lost their appeal against the European Commission's case. The €497 million fine was upheld, as were the requirements regarding server interoperability information and bundling of Media Player. In addition, Microsoft has to pay 80% of the legal costs of the Commission, while the Commission has to pay 20% of the legal costs by Microsoft.
On 27 February 2008, the EU fined Microsoft an additional €899 million (US$1.44 billion)
This latest decision follows a prior €280.5 million fine for non-compliance,...
=====================================================\
So, about 2 billlllllllllion dollars into the discussion, the EC is still looking to milk Microsoft for more filthy graft. The EC commissioners are doing very well on Mr Gates dime.
Yeah, it's about the money. Graft is the grease that holds the EU together.

I'm an American so this is all kind of a foreign comedy to me. I think the EU is Basil Fawlty.

I live in the UK and find "some" of what the EU does both baffling and embarrassing. While I believe the intentions are probably for the greater good of both consumers and “other” companies alike I find the way things are being handled publicly as very poor.

I disagree to some of the sanctions that the EU has placed on MS. It is as if the EU do not want to make a decision and MS gets blamed for not complying to something that is very vague and ultimately being find hundreds of millions.

Some people just won't be happy with any changes. Geez.. give it up already. You got what you wanted, now your whining about it.

I got what I wanted...3 dirt-cheap and kosher full copies of Win 7!!

So, there are old arguments (which in some peoples eyes are still very valid) like:

"Why should a company offer to include a competing product in their OS?"

OR

"Microsoft have abused their monopoly to gain market share and should be forced to offer a version of windows without Windows Media Player", etc.

So the principle options are:

A. Insist a ballot screen is shown with the top 10 browsers being eligible to be installed without affecting other OS (currently) IE engine dependant applications.

B. A version of Windows is released without a browser pre-installed and you have the same top 10 browsers being packaged on CD.

C. (We'll ignore this one for now) Windows stays as is, with IE8 pre-installed leaving the user to decide later whether they wish to download and use other browser.

Some questions:

What happens to new up and coming browser developments that don’t share the top 10 browser positions of the market that want to break through but don’t get a look in?

When Silverlight become dominant for web apps and the browser itself effectively becomes a shell for web apps, will there be a ballot screen to have Flash or Silverlight as your add-on?

If Internet Explorer still holds a dominant share of the browser market in 5 years time, say 80%, after giving the user “complete unbiased choice” of which browser they want to use, what OTHER "sanctions" should they have to incur to "LEVEL UP" the playing field?

Should Microsoft be forced to offer patches to this select 10 browsers through Windows Update?

Who will decide what browsers get to be pre-selected for the ballot screen or CD?

Who should be burdened with the cost of ensuring interoperability and the security of other Windows components that may have to use the “selected” browsers engine in its applications (lets say the default browser engine is used for all other Windows apps like Windows Live Messenger, just for example! :-) ) ?

Should Windows just be a framework for applications, where none are preinstalled by Microsoft but can only be installed on the "framework" leaving the end user to decide what applications THEY want?

After IE and Windows Media Player, what is the next Microsoft target for the EU?

This can leave more questions than answers and instead of leveling up the browser market it could either be completely ineffective OR maybe be counter-productive by making another browser have 95% of the market and possibly stifling browser innovation instead of harnessing it.

Silverlight isn't going to break through.
Most major websites that adopted it, including NBL, have dropped it!

Silverlight is going to die, mhoehahahaha!

Well as someone who knows a thing or two about browsers, I use one, I'd just like to add my bit to this discussion. Chrome rocks, but IE8 is nearly as good, I know that surprised me too. But last night I went round to sort a friends machine out, nothing nasty they'd just forgot to plug it in, anyway they were using IE8 on a powerful bit of gear,and this IE8 ran at the speed of light, I was impressed, so impressed when I got home I tried it my more humble machine, and I tell you now, it's not a million miles off the speed of Chrome. Crisp and clean, in fact I liked it so much I've made it my default, I say leave Bill alone, what do we want ? Not Opera that's for sure.

Opera accounts for 2% of the market. Perhaps they should admit they're never going to hit the big time and move onto something else. I'm sick of the EU carrying on flogging this dead horse. They should just conclude the whole excersise as being a waste of time and money and let W7 ship with IE. If people want to put their own browser on they are free to do so. Problem is that normal everyday users have little idea how to download and install a new browser. I wonder if the ballot screen if it ever see's the light of day will cause even more confusion for the masses. You can imagine the support calls now.

By God you're right, this monopoly via web browser and media player must end now.
STRIP OS X OF SAFARI AND QUICKTIME IN THE EU IMMEDIATELY! Oh, and pull Konquerer out of KDE while you're at it, etc etc etc

If MS was broken up into seperate companies and Internet Explorer was still the dominant browser in 5 years then what else would you propose should be done?

How do you propose splitting the company up would have a positive outcome for consumers who may prefer to use Internet Explorer and for companies who produce add-on specifically for that browser?

point one is a strawman so i will not even bother.

One part of Microsoft would still be making IE, only it would have to compete with other companies instead of being forced onto computer buyers. If IE had to compete, I can not see how it would be anywhere near competitive since it includes the worst standards support and by far the slowest javascript engine, not to mention by far the worst security record.

No, what i'm saying is first they don't want IE, then they want a ballot screen, now they don't like that either.

Apparently, the only thing that would make them happy would be a ballot screen without Internet Explorer...

They like the ballot screen, but now are just ironing out how it should look and work.

No, see, what you do is preinstall about a 1000 different browsers on the operating system. That should make the EU happy :)

EC = Fools.

Oy Veh.

How about this....

Ship it without any browser included within the OS BUT include a directory with every major browser on the CD?!

I'm sure Opera will complain that C, F and I come before O but oh well, they'll def. have to just suck it up.

This is hilarious.

Europe complains about IE.
MS says they'll remove IE.

Europe realizes how retarded it is to ship with no browser and how most people won't be smart enough to just ftp to get Firefox or Opera via a command prompt.
MS says they'll add a ballot screen.

Europe complains that the ballot screen is a bad idea.

not to sound to ignorant but is there something with european versions of windows that never allows you to install a browser after windows is installed? last i checked i can remove and install whatever browser i wanted on my computer? except ie of course which i still don't understand the problem with that either if you don't like it don't use it and if you want the whole world to use your product instead try advertising like every other product has to do

Apparently the EU thinks its citizens are too stupid to figure that out.

Well, the citizens of the EU region (not really a country, no matter how they pretend), have been coddled for so long, if it is not there, it does not exist.
They desperately need some entity (government or corporate) to spoonfeed them 'what is good for them'.

So, just for the EU, we'll have a random number generator pick the positions of the browsers (not derivatives), weighted of course, for marketshare, updated quarterly.

Of course, there are these "themes" that MS uses. Why should anyone be limited to scenes from their region? And why only MS themes? How about the file browser? Why is the calculator pre-installed? And how about Word(!?)pad? Isn't THAT named in a suspicious manner?

This has become just flat out stupid... Why doesn't Opera just admit it, they won't be happy till they're browser is the ONLY browser 'BUNDLED' with Windows. Microsoft should tell the EU to stuff it. Somebody needs to step in and put the EU in it's place. I'm so glad I live in America where we have "choice"!