Microsoft's been given additional time to rebut European regulator's findings it broke the law by shipping Internet Explorer with Windows. The European Commission has reportedly given Microsoft until April 21 to file a response, following a request by Microsoft's legal team. Microsoft was in January judged by the Commission to …
what's the point?
I mean really, do they think that Microsoft not including IE by default will stop Microsoft from locking people in ANYWAY? That it will stop Microsoft and its parasite "partners" from paying companies (through "incentives" of one type of another, undoubtedly) to write websites that ONLY work with ActiveX and their other proprietary bullshit? That it will stop companies doing that on their own, thus locking entire segments of certain industries into using Microsoft crap? For instance, try running a car garage in North America without needing access to SnapOn's shopkey5 site - a site that requires IE to run because of a single piece of ActiveX at the start they use to log in, run by a company that seems to have cornered the market in that area. Sweet deal for Microsoft there.
So it doesn't MATTER if Microsoft includes IE or not, the people creating the problem are the fuckers in other companies that Microsoft (or their partners) have managed to convince to write IE specific websites rather than platform independent ones. Companies who themselves have cornered certain parts of a market, and thus force EVERYONE in that market to run Microsoft systems, regardless of whether it's good for them or not.
"Gazelle offers the prospect of secure browsing but at the expense of speed and performance."
That is a break with tradition! Usually it is insecure browsing with the expense of speed and performance.
there is a point
Yes, it is true that many companies are almost as much to blame for the monopolization of the browser. Even the US DOJ (run by a bunch of idiots) is largely to blame.
It is important, however, very important as it turns out, that the inclusion of IE in the OS from Microsoft be eliminated. For one it violates the laws of both the US and the EU. It is just flatly illegal. And Microsoft does that to control and manipulate consumers. The impact upon ISV is just part of that. There are plenty of idiots that think it is there own interest to encourage Microsoft forcing IE upon everyone. They falsely conclude it makes their life easier. Conforming to browser standards does make it easier. Writing to a specific non-standard browser does not.
Just wait and see what Microsoft says to justify forcing IE upon everyone. No doubt they will lie through their teeth and make claims that they themselves do not even believe.
Microsoft would not comment on the potential launch date but said the IE 8 timeline is being "driven by the quality of the product".
That's a new one, shame they did not apply the same criteria to their operating systems. If they hold true to the above quote don't expect to see IE8 released any time soon, if at all.
I'll believe it when I see it: color me doubtful
Quoth el-Reg: "Version eight is Microsoft's attempt to make IE compatible with current web standards"
That's what I like about el-Reg: their writers' excellent command of English. In this case, demonstrated by the use of "attempt" to describe the latest MS pratfall-in-the-offing.
Pratfall? Yes, pratfall. I'm sure that when IE 8 hits the streets it'll turn out to be full of the usual MS misunderstandings of standards. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic that the world's largest and most powerful software company has such a hard time getting things "right".
I thought a Gazelle was a fast running (and sometimes jumping) antelope. To then say that the product will be slow is a fantastic bit of naming.
Gazelle changes nothing
IE is not bad because it was badly designed in the first place. It is bad because it has been designed to be bad. Microsoft just can't resist breaking security if there is a glitzy new feature to be had. (Case in point: UAC.) Gazelle's enjoys its current level of security (whatever it is) because it is a research project and so the wolves in "management" haven't sunk their teeth in it yet. By the time it is "ready for the market", it will be "fully backwards compatible with the industry standard IE platform".
It's not about IE being preinstalled
It's about standards and tight-coupling. Supplying IE with Windows is no big, you can always install something else if you want. FF comes with many Linux distros, KDE uses Konqueror, OS X Safari etc. and these can all have other browsers whacked in and those new browsers will replace the default one for all operations.
Not so on Windows.
If you try Windows Update, you need IE as the Website is not standards compliant. If you try to view (say) and XML file, it loads in IE (and yes, fanbois, it is IE; it has the bloody IE logo) rather than the replacement browser or simply asking what to do.
Now, sure, IE and Windows Explorer almost certainly use a few standard components for file handling etc. Those are just components, so why can I not still totally remove IE (leaving those components behind of course) and just have my new browser? Then when I double click on an XML file it either loads in the new browser or Windows asks me what to do - NOT jumping straight back to IE! Which i did ask to be removed (it's a bit like Outlook Express; I want that GONE but it keeps rearing it's bloody head).
MS should be forced to make their Windows Update site standards compliant. But wait, it *needs* ActiveX (or whatever) to work out what updates are needed? Cool, ActiveX must go Free and OpenSource then. That way *any* browser can fully support the required Windows tech. Job done.
So it's not just about IE, that is just a symptom of a much, much bigger issue. And *IF* (it's a big IF!) Linux netbooks take off, more websites will go standards compliant and more people will begin to think "Why do I need this IE turdling?" It's not Linux per se MS fears, it is the loss of lock-in and the freedom that comes with standards.
Bad for MS unless they up their game, good for us. Competition is always (in the end) good for the consumer. And this is why the EU must tear MS a new one, the USA is obviously too timid to do it.
@raving angry loony
Which would you rather have - Microsoft getting chased over something that you don't think is relevant, or Microsoft being told to carry on with everything and never mind what the law says?
<- Flames, for what I would like to see at Redmond.
Gazelle is just a code name. The real product will be called Microsoft Sloth.
FTP as well
That uses Internet f**king explorer as well dosnt it, when you type ftp://some_ftp_server_ip in the address bar?
This IE thing is a systemic parasite of windows & I would welcome its departure along with all the other un necessary hapless junk that comes with windows.
But I cant help thinking that the more the EU fines Microsoft, they just up their prices in turn, because someone somewhere has got to fund the battalions of lawyers locked in mortal combat...
- Tricked by satire? Get all your news from Facebook? You're in luck, dummy
- Feature TV transport tech, part 1: From server to sofa at the touch of a button
- Google straps on Jetpac: An app to find hipsters, women in foreign cities
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?