Microsoft to let PC users turn off IE web browser

I have on my machine already. It's a Mac...

You have WHAT on your machine already? IE? Windows 7? Can you speak in full sentences?

Is there an IE web browser? I forgot since I use Firefox.

I don't understand the problem. What stops you from using firefox or google even if you have IE pre installed? Doesn't firefox give you the option of being the default browser once you set it up?

Seriously, whats the big deal?

What is the story here? You don't actually have to start Internet Explorer when the computer starts. Last I checked Bill Gates wasn't pointing a gun at my head when I booted up. If you don't want to use IE7/8 then don't load it. Problem solved. You don't want to use WMP - download an alternative.

I'm with bamboohat here. And franz75 - what do you have on your machine?

Seriously, whats the big deal?

reclaim precious disk space wasted by IE.

Seriously, whats the big deal?

Not being forced to shop for an alternative, most people won't. That gives MS something of a monopoly. Monopoly is bad for competition. That is bad for the economy.

Second, I am sure that the cost of IE is included in the price you pay for the OS Windows. So you just paid for a product you may not want.

likeitis is right. Many users hate IE but use it because its there already.

I wonder how they will solve problem of websites that can only be used with IE. Pretty much all Microsoft sites need it.

Second, I am sure that the cost of IE is included in the price you pay for the OS Windows. So you just paid for a product you may not want.

IE is free. and free download too.

Hmm, IE seems to be turned off already on my Ubuntu netbook.

IE is free. and free download too.

Sorry, but that is not proof that its cost is not hidden in the cost of MS Windows.

Note that Mozilla and other browser makers cannot even begin to defray their costs in this manner. Its unfair competition.

The reason why the U.S. government no longer whines so much about this is because Microsoft bought them off. Fine for the U.S. gov as Microsoft is a U.S. company. The E.U. has far more to lose.

I've got IE uninstalled completely on my laptop I just use for car tuning. Not a big issue at all to get rid of it.

likeitis - People still will not be forced to look for an alternative. They are merely being given the choice (I believe) not to use IE. Which I thought they had such a choice before. The people who won't install IE8 on their Windows 7 machine are probably the same ones that are using Chrome/Firefox/Opera etc now.

As for using IE7 being bad for the economy, if you have figures supporting this then I'd love to see them. Would be interesting to compare how much more beneficial it would be economically if people were not to use IE as their browser.

@likeitis - are you actually being serious? Do you actually believe the words you're typing? I see, way easier to jump on the bandwagon and do the popular MS-bashing instead of actually forming your own opinion. You must be a Mac...

First off, of course the cost of developing and maintaining IE is made up through other products and services. Why would that suprise you? It's no different than how other Browser developers make up costs through other means, be it adding it to other products or making profit through integrated advertising. That's just business, duh. If other browser makers couldn't efficiently defray the costs then they wouldn't be in business.

Let's be honest, the whole reason Opera started their little hissy fit is solely because they couldn't think of any other way to try and keep their crap product alive. They started being outshined by the competition years ago, simply because they couldn't compete. Not because Microsoft has an "unfair monopoly" by packaging their own products together... wait, a company wants to sell their own product with more of their own products? The horror!! Since when did that become illegal? Since outdated companies lost the ability to be innovative anywhere other than the court room, that's when. Opera's only true market is with smartphones now, they should stick to it and shut up.

It always makes me shake my head to see how the "Microsoft has a monopoly!!" argument stays so primarily one sided. Think about it, why isn't anyone going after Apple for installing Safari with OSX? Or even better, how is the fact that the ONLY browser that can be used on an iPhone or iPod Touch is Safari... why is THAT not considered a monopoly? Isn't that anti-competitive by these standards? Taking it even further, how about the fact that Apple sues any company that tries to sell any non-MAC PC's loaded with OSX. Oh, I forgot, when other companies do it it's ok because they are not Microsoft...

Plain and simple, stupid litigation like this only serves to stifle competition, not promote it. All browsers have their strong points and weaknesses, that's why they continue to progress and try and out shine the competition with each new version. If you want to compete with the big boys, learn how to play, don't go crying to mommy and daddy just because you don't know how.

Well, at least Microsoft is taking the high road and accomodating most of the little whiners.

I have all Macs. I use Firefox, as it is the best out there. Beats Safari and IE easily. So only Safari is on iPhones? Has Microsoft tried to correct that?

I thought you can turn the obnoxious thing off now, in Win 2K and XP. I did. Is it impossible in Vista?

Being a Windows virgin I don't understand the argument. Is it so difficult to set another browser as the default and consign IE to the trashcan? It's one of the first things I do when I buy a new Mac.

Sorry, but that is not proof that its cost is not hidden in the cost of MS Windows.

what have you been smoking lately?

why would MS include the cost of developing IE in windows when i can download a standalone IE installer and install it into my ubuntu machine (thru wine)?

knock knock.

@cleo - Nope, it's not difficult at all. But that won't stop the haters from bashing simply for the sake of bashing. Also, you might want to check and see just how new your Mac is if it's coming with IE installed, seeing as how Microsoft stopped supporting IE for Mac in 2005 and pulled it from their Macintosh downloads site in early 2006... ;D

And FYI for any of the MS haters, when they pulled IE for Mac they recommended "that Macintosh users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's Safari." Wait... Microsoft recommended a competitors browser!?! How uncompetitive of them!!!

I hava a PC, I run XP because I play lots of old games, I surf in Chrome because is the fastest browser and Opera is my backup because have the best compability. I dont see any problem in MS giving free IE. Only leasy people can keep using something so slow and that consume so much resources. Is like driving a bad designed car only becuase the brand name and an agressive discount campaign.

to FreeInJapan: I really love your argument! I think the point here in this whole issue is removing the barriers to competition so that everyone is on the same playing field (if there even exists such a thing). Let's face it, it's human nature to dislike a monopoly, the same as we hate dictatorships and tyrannies..the problem isn't Microsoft's money (though most people seem to make a meal out of it), but it's how they prevent other companies with a potentially good product from entering the market. That's the point of EU's intervention i guess, to give these start-ups a fighting chance before they're snuffed out too quickly by the larger companies.

That said, I don't think the other web browser companies have much of a right to whine when their programs all need microsoft (or an OS) to run on, unless they themselves come up with an independent OS as well. The reason why MS and Apple are so successful in their OS products is cuz they offer the user the (more or less) complete PC experience, with IE/Safari, WMP/ Garage Band etc etc ... I think it's quite a good idea MS has offered users the option to 'switch off' IE or whatever programs the user doesn't need though, I'd be complaining if they left them out completely cuz then I'd have to go through the trouble of downloading them. Hope this makes sense haha

Glaspar, I agree with you but I disagree with FreeinJapan.

In an ideal market all sellers would have equal access to all potential buyers. But of course, this is the real world. I don't think you can blame Microsoft for being so successful with Windows. But it is also the job of government to try to make the playing field level. If Apple had more market share, I'm sure they would be getting sued just as much as Microsoft.

If you take this discussion thread as an example, most people don't know much about IE. It comes automatically with Windows and is virtually a part of the OS. So when they say "turn off" IE, I think it really means JUST web browsing. The core code is still gonna be used by Windows 7.

In the end the loser are computer users because it makes computers more complex, not easier to use.

@glaspar - You make some very good points and make plenty of sense, but I can't exactly agree with everything you said. While admittedly, Microsoft has been known in the past to be fairly tough on the "little guy", mostly through intimidation and many times just buying up new technologies and companies before they took off, they've changed their ways quite a bit. I'd also hardly call that a monopoly, more like it's just business. If Microsoft were trying to keep other browsers off the playing field, then why would they allow the competition to be compatible with Windows in the first place? An interesting fact, the first public version of Opera (1996) ran ONLY on Windows. It was also trialware and had to be purchased after the trial period ended. Then in 2000 it did away with that requirement (the same year they went multi-OS/platform) and became ad-sponsored, which meant users who had not paid got advertisements displayed whenever they used it. That stayed in effect until 2005. I would argue that this is a major factor in what put Opera behind most other web-browsers, not that Microsoft had an unfair advantage by "underhandedly" packaging their own browser whith their own OS, while simultaneously allowing competing browsers to operate on said OS (even with the option of setting that competing browser as the default, by the way). On the mobile devices playing field, Opera has flourished, including on Windows Mobile operating systems. No intervention from MS that I know of to take that market away from them...

Opera's failing was not properly promoting their product in a timely fashion, nothing more.

You're spot on with why MS and Apple are so successful, each have their particular strengths and cater to their own user base. I also like seeing that users will have the option of switching off IE and Media Player, although I don't see it as necessary. Truth be told, users have had the ability to remove unwanted features/functions from Windows for quite some time now, simply by slipstreaming an installation disk. Of course it requires a bit of know how, but it's becoming more and more of a user friendly process with applications like nLite(for XP) and vLite(for Vista).

I also wonder how some people that complain about getting IE with Windows when they want a different browser... how exactly do they intend to download their browser of choice if they have no browser-client to connect to the internet in the first place? LOL...

Although I hate it IE it virtually free.　To demonstrate other people what Linux+Wine can do, I've always had a copy installed on my Linux machines. BTW - both Microsoft and Apple's products are CRAP - use Linux. You can call Linux CRAP as well, but at least you know what kind of crap it is... With Micro$oft and Apple, you've got corporates trying to control you and your lifestyle. You're never sure what runs on your machine and what not. With Linux at least you know you're running open software. Micro$oft never had a single chance with their policies in EU. Thinking that they had to pay about 2 million $ a DAY for their stubbornness makes me shiver - all that money is taken from the innocent users who pay for something they could have for free.

@ebisen - All OS's have their strong points, including Linux. Apple OSX is geared toward the less tech-savy (although many enthusiests use it as well) and multi-media market. Microsoft Windows tends to be for everyone from the basic newb to hardcore enthusiest and can support many roles. Linux can be considered just as capable as well, however, even with recent strides in making it more user-friendly it's still not as friendly as OSX or Windows. Many cool things can be done with Linux but it also requires much more know-how than your average consumer is going to be willing to learn, especially when most of them just want to surf the internet, watch a movie or play a game or two...

It should also be noted that Microsoft has been taking steps lately to foster relationships/take part in development and reasearch with open source. They're looking to increase compatibility with Linux.

@FreeinJapan - I also believe Linux is in no way MUCH better than the other and sometimes is actually worse (requires a greater know-how and knowledge to operate) - on the other hand is completely free and OPEN - making discussions like "should we force the user to use IE either they want it or not" completely pointless.

That's why Linux can't be attacked by EU's draconian anti-monopoly laws :) Also I believe Microsoft's recent trend towards inter-operability with Linux (signed agreements both with Novell and Red-Hat) is mostly because they start loosing market and there was a too great customer demand to do so.

On the other hand, a huge of the money users pay Micro$oft (including the IE "price :) )goes to charities and such - which is a great thing I deeply respect.

But what is the actual news story here? People have been able to not click the IE icon for years.

why would MS include the cost of developing IE in windows when i can download a standalone IE installer and install it into my ubuntu machine (thru wine)?

MS supposes that you will use it on already buyed Windows, so it is not freeware, but just upgrade. and EULA doesn't allow you install free IE under wine.

so, what you have been smoking lately?

MS supposes that you will use it on already buyed Windows, so it is not freeware, but just upgrade. and EULA doesn't allow you install free IE under wine.

so, what you have been smoking lately?

MS EULA only states that you have a valid license. it does not say that you have to install windows. so if my machine have a valid MS license, then i can install it on linux.

are you smoking what i am smoking?

FreeInJapan: I see, way easier to jump on the bandwagon and do the popular MS-bashing instead of actually forming your own opinion.

You must be new here. Hello! My name is likeitis. I do not ride bandwagons. Everybody who knows me knows that my opinions are so often so unique that they will not doubt me in that.

First off, of course the cost of developing and maintaining IE is made up through other products and services. Why would that suprise you?

Its not the fact of that, and I am not surprised. It is the method in consideration of the situation. I find it wrong.

It's no different than how other Browser developers make up costs through other means, be it adding it to other products or making profit through integrated advertising.

Its different. The nature of an OS is to operate programs designed to run on it. If they make it possible for various companies to make programs that run on it, then they have to abide by the rules that make a level playing field. They don't get to pick and choose what to be fair about and what not to be fair about. They don't get to give their own separate products special consideration.

Let's be honest, the whole reason Opera started their little hissy fit is solely because they couldn't think of any other way to try and keep their crap product alive.

This has nothing to do with the validity of the argument. It is par for the course in human nature to put up with crap until you cannot put up with it anymore. Putting up with crap for a time makes it no less of crap when people finally complain.

wait, a company wants to sell their own product with more of their own products? The horror!!

Its only a horror when they give no choice but to buy the product bundled. Finally allowing us to turn it off is a step in the right direction, but I would like to be able to purchase Windows without the extra cost of IE.

Then we shall see if they can continue to offer it for free on the net and if the product can remain competitive.

It always makes me shake my head to see how the "Microsoft has a monopoly!!" argument stays so primarily one sided. Think about it, why isn't anyone going after Apple for installing Safari with OSX?

Because they do not have anything anyone would call a monopoly in either the PC or OS markets, not even an overwhelming share, that is why. If they ever do, people will complain just the same, I promise you. Remember what I said about putting up with crap until you cannot put up with it anymore? In some ways, it applies here too.

Or even better, how is the fact that the ONLY browser that can be used on an iPhone or iPod Touch is Safari... why is THAT not considered a monopoly?

I would have to guess it is to do with the nature of the product. Apple makes the product from the ground up. It is not designed to be compatible. They made the choice to make the product in its entirety. It was their decision. If they ever decide to go the route of compatibility with other products, they will have to live with it and play fair by the rules that decision would entail.

But you cannot fairly compare PC related markets with the music player market or any other market for hand-held devices at this time. They cannot make them with the compatibility of PCs.

Taking it even further, how about the fact that Apple sues any company that tries to sell any non-MAC PC's loaded with OSX. Oh, I forgot, when other companies do it it's ok because they are not Microsoft...

You have just turned everything on its head with that one. Its the whole situation in reverse. Not program onto OS, but OS onto machine. Not only is the comparison inappropriate, I am not even sure if its possible with a Mac OS unless the machine has been built to Apple specs, and that might be a patent problem. I will comment more if you can prove that it is and that Apple sued.

Plain and simple, stupid litigation like this only serves to stifle competition, not promote it.

Too bad the rest of the paragraph did NOTHING to support that statement, because I have no idea HOW you could arrive at such an erroneous conclusion.

Well, at least Microsoft is taking the high road and accomodating most of the little whiners.

Accomodating the whiners would be pulling IE out of Windows and selling it or giving it away as a separate product.

Microsoft's small changes up to now have come with so much fighting that most people are too sick of fighting to do anymore. I guess the EU is not finished yet.

so if my machine have a valid MS license, then i can install it on linux.

MS never considered wine as geniune os. so you cannot have license from MS for wine.

seggame? - so what? I paid for the CRAP software by default when buying my machine (it comes with Micro$oft Windblows, even if I don't need it). M$ cant tell me how can I use the software I PAID THEM for!!!

@likeitis - You don't ride bandwagons? Ok, my mistake even though I'm fairly sure I just saw you cruise by on one... and the only thing "unique" about your opinion on this matter is that it seems, at least to me, that it's full of contradictions to the argument you're trying to make. The most apparent thing I can gather from trying to make heads or tails of any point you put forward is in actuallity you know little about technology, or are unable to convey your opinion in a way that I can understand. Which is ok for me, I'm sure neither of us will lose sleep over the other's unwillingness to change our minds. Of course, that won't stop me from pointing out a few flaws that I see in your logic:

You said that the nature of an OS is to run programs designed to run on it. Ok, in a pretty watered down and basic way, that stands true. Your point gets lost after that though. What exactly are they "picking and choosing to be fair about?" I'd like to see you post some actual facts not just generic comments that don't actually say anything. What rules specifically are you referring too? The ones you claim they are ignoring in order to keep the playing field unfair... And companies aren't allowed to give their own products special consideration any more? Wow, that's a stupid rule... I guess by your logic I can go tell AU that they have to let me use a DoCoMo phone on their network now, right? Sweet, DoCoMo phones are cooler! No wonder companies are failing left and right! They must have found out they had to promote everyone elses' product over their own!!

Yes, it is a fact that MS does not currently bundle Windows with competing web browsers. Here's another fact: WINDOWS IS COMPATIBLE WITH ALL COMPETING WEB BROWSERS!! They also in no way prevent customers who buy Windows from selecting the web browser of their choice and using it as the DEFAULT web browser. Total epiphany, I know... I only just figured that out myself years ago. The fact that MS allows this makes it a pretty fair playing field in my book. Now if they didn't allow competing web browsers to be compatible with Windows OS's, THEN I could understand people complaining of a monopoly. But alas, no matter how much you and others like you wish it were true, it's not and that leaves you grasping for straws to find something to call MS on.

Let's move on to how you think it's different for Apple because they make their product from "the ground up." That was so funny I think a little pee came out... What do you suppose Microsoft did? Do you think they just found Windows on some abandoned shelf and decided to polish it up a bit before selling it as their own??? So again, I pose the question why is it different for them and not Microsoft? And Apple doesn't have a big enough market share to be considered one of the big boys? Did you tell them that? I bet they, and a rather large fan base, might disagree with you there. I also didn't know all these products that have been coming out for years were lying about being compatible with Apple OSX because Apple hadn't decided to be compatible with other products yet. Well, according to you anyway. And even if your comment about only Microsoft being big enough to worry about a monopoly remotely rang true, are you saying that it's ok to whine/complain/cheat on the playing field as long as you're smaller than the opposing team?

What next? Ah, that's right, you felt that I couldn't fairly compare PC markets with hand-held devices like smartphones and music players. Guess what a smartphone is... it's a device that has a processor, memory, storage device, and an OS. Wow, that's a PC!! Sure, it's not as powerful, but neither is a Netbook. As a matter of fact, smartphones are commonly referred to as miniature computers that have phone capability. My comparison stands true. And just to educate you a bit further, the compatibility of smartphones are why they are so popular. For example, did you know that you can RDP into your Windows PC from your iPhone? If that's not compatibility then I don't know what is. I still find it funny how no one can intelligently counter my case that Safari being the only allowed Web Browser on the iPhone/Touch products being a monopoly, by your loose definition of the word.

You asked me to prove that Apple sued anyone over the use of OSX. Do a search for Apple vs Psystar, and you will also come accross Psystar vs Apple (for which Psystar says Apple is unfairly leveraging it's copyright by binding Mac OSX to Mac hardware). My point? Proven yet again. Yours? Still waiting...

One last tid bit for the technologically un-educated: Did you know that IE is actually BUILT IN to Windows? You see, there are a number of applications that depend on libraries installed by IE, and by uninstalling those applications could fail to function (like the help and support system) and result in system stability. Not only that, but in versions prior to Vista, Windows Update could not run without IE because other web browsers don't support ActiveX. This ability to "turn off" IE is in all actuality leaving the core essentials and just removing the executable.

FreeInJapan: You see, there are a number of applications that depend on libraries installed by IE, and by uninstalling those applications could fail to function (like the help and support system) and result in system stability.

LOL. I could really use some system stability with my Windows! Could you name those apps so I can start deleting them? LOL.

Likeitis - Well, I suppose since you so clearly don't care for Windows, you could probably start with your user account... ;-D

What exactly are they "picking and choosing to be fair about?"

They are providing people with a product that is not necessary for an OS to have. Its not even a basic version, but rather their best. This is hurting the makers of web browsers. MS is choosing to be unfair to the browser market.

They are NOT providing a word processor short of a very basic version of Word. Their top end word processor must be bought separately. For makers of word processors, this is fair.

What rules specifically are you referring too? The ones you claim they are ignoring in order to keep the playing field unfair...

I never said they were ignoring rules. I said they were not playing fair. What is fair is not always decided by set rules. Here it is being determined by antitrust regulators.

And companies aren't allowed to give their own products special consideration any more?

It is the way they are doing it that is the problem. They are not giving consumers any choice but to purchase IE bundled with Windows. Most users will not search for a different browser, even if they would rather have one, because they already bought one.

In a way, MS is a victim of their own success. Their OS has become the world PC standard. Regulators are not going to leave them alone. Nor should they.

I guess by your logic I can go tell AU that they have to let me use a DoCoMo phone on their network now, right? Sweet, DoCoMo phones are cooler! No wonder companies are failing left and right! They must have found out they had to promote everyone elses' product over their own!!

And you are accusing me of not understanding tech?? Those companies don't make phones. Their business IS their network.

Yes, it is a fact that MS does not currently bundle Windows with competing web browsers.

And nobody said they should!

They also in no way prevent customers who buy Windows from selecting the web browser of their choice and using it as the DEFAULT web browser.

Yes. BUT WHAT PART OF "YOU ALREADY BOUGHT IE" IS NOT GETTING THROUGH TO YOU" How many people are going to go out and pay money for a second browser when they have already paid for a top-end browser bundled with Windows?

I suspect that you understand just fine. I suspect that you are just driving this in circles to be a pest.

And Apple doesn't have a big enough market share to be considered one of the big boys? Did you tell them that?

No. I have not told Apple WHAT ARE YOU WORDS AND NOT MINE AND TOTALLY UNRELATED TO ANYTHING I SAID. What I said was that their market share of the OS market is not like that of MS.

Guess what a smartphone is... it's a device that has a processor, memory, storage device, and an OS. Wow, that's a PC!!

A PC that an overwhelming number of users cannot use like a PC and won't attempt to. At this time, and let me repeat that, AT THIS TIME, the markets are totally different.

I still find it funny how no one can intelligently counter my case that Safari being the only allowed Web Browser on the iPhone/Touch products being a monopoly, by your loose definition of the word.

Except that I already intelligently countered it. Apparently what you did not understand is what I meant by building it from the ground up. Those are complete products, completely made by Apple, sold complete. A PC is different. There are many manufactuers of generic PCs. Those PCs can accept various OSs, because the manufacturers made them that way.

If MS got into the PC making business and built and sold PCs completely loaded with MS products, were capable of using only MS products and their prices fairly reflected all those products, no one could complain. But I seriously doubt MS could do that without pissing off so many people that they would get destroyed. MS got where it is via many independent companies working together to create the majority of the PC/software market that we know today. IT is a market of compatibility and a fairly level playing field, EXCEPT for MS dominance of the OS market. Yet here we have MS screwing over browser makers for some reason.

Did you know that IE is actually BUILT IN to Windows?

Yeah. I know. And of all the space waste in the program, I would harldy think separating them would cause any real problems. There is no real reason to integrate them, save maybe to screw over browser makers.

You asked me to prove that Apple sued anyone over the use of OSX. Do a search for Apple vs Psystar,

Pystar was hacking the MAC OS and selling it unauthorized! They were also making MAC capable machines without authorization! They were using and altering Apple intellectual property to make money while not paying Apple a dime!

Since Apple does it all from start to finish, they don't have to play with anyone. They want no interaction of this type. Their doors are closed, and no one can demand they open them. But if they ever do, they will be bound to interact fairly.

MS has to interact because that is the nature of their business. Since they interact, they must do so fairly.

@Likeitis - Well, so sorry to be a "pest". I guess it must be frustrating for you to have someone constantly provide fact to your desperate fiction.

"They are providing people with a product that is not necessary for an OS to have. Its not even a basic version, but rather their best."

Wait... I just laughed so hard I almost wet myself again! Seriously, you've gotta stop this, I'm running out of clean underwear! Ok, so by this statement, I take it that you're getting Operating Systems confused with Web Browsers... there are no BASIC versions of IE, or any other browser that I know of. It's not Vista, there is no Basic, Premium or Ultimate. There are simply versions, just like FireFox and Safari.

"How many people are going to go out and pay money for a second browser when they have already paid for a top-end browser bundled with Windows?"

If you are paying money for any browser, then I have a few things of my own I'd like to sell you! What browsers, specifically, are you talking about having to pay for? Considering that the only ones I know of worth mentioning are all free, the only way your statement would make sense is if the user had to go out and buy physical media that contained the browser installation. Alternatively, they could simply use the included IE web browser to download the browser of their choice for, what a shocker, free. Then they can simply forget about IE, not all that difficult. If you had your way and Windows was shipped without any browser at all, any cost saved on Windows would be spent on having to go out/order, and purchase the physical media. Wow, what a step backwards... isn't the whole point of technology to continue moving forward? And if most users don't want to take the time to look for other browsers, whose fault is that? I would say the other browsers need to increase their efforts to advertise their product and make it more appealing, just like every single other consumer product. THAT seems fair, and just plain common sense.

"What I said was that their market share of the OS market is not like that of MS." -Of course not, considering the fact that Apple primarily focuses on the home user and is not considered proficient enough for business use, and that Microsoft markets itself to both home and business very well, it's very easy to see why Microsoft has such an edge.

"And you are accusing me of not understanding tech??" -Since I'm typing and not talking, I'm fairly certain I didn't studder... would it be better for you if I said "With the more you write, the more clear it becomes that you don't have a complete grasp on things that are technical."?

Part of what Microsoft argued in the Antitrust case against them in the U.S. was that IE has actually become an integrated part of the Windows OS, which was done for numerous reasons (supposedly to enhance the experience of the user and make it available for free among them). Therefore they argued that it's not actually "bundelled" with Windows, it is PART of Windows. Who are you to say they should have to re-engineer their OS? Part of the settlement they made with the DOJ is that they would open their API's to 3rd parties, allowing competitors to make their products work just as efficiently with Windows as Internet Explorer, or as in some cases MORE efficiently. Forgive me, but I still fail to see how this is unfair...

And by the way, "Those companies don't make phones." - Really? So, what's up with the insanely high price of handsets that supposedly are used to cover the cost of research and development of... phones? Also, did you know that Mac's are essentially 3rd party hardware stuck inside shiny white boxes? Well, maybe not so cut and dry I'll admit, but for the most part true. They hardly build their products "from the ground up". As for our iPhone/Touch argument, it actually IS opened up for developers outside of Apple... that is, to a point. You see, while Apple allows 3rd parties to create Apps compatible with these devices for sale/distrobution through the iTunes App Store, they are not allowed to make use of the actual deep level stuff that could allow the App to compete with actual iPhone features/applications. Kinda starting to sound like your "evil" Microsoft, isn't it? I brought up the Psystar vs Apple because, well, you asked me to provide you with an example. I never said that Psystar was 100% in the right, but you can't deny they have at least in some small way a valid point about Apple's own monopolizing practices. That is, if you're willing to concede that Apple and every one else should have to play by the same rules Microsoft does, but something tells me you won't be.

Well, I'm sure there's plenty more we could go tit-for-tat on, but to be honest I'm starting to get a little bored as in the end it's more futile than anything. Everyone needs a villain, and yours is apparently Microsoft, even though you admittedly continue to use their "high quality" product that you hate so much. But before I sign off, I just have to make one last comment... If IE is really wasting so much space on your hard drive, might I recommend that you upgrade your PC? You see, PC's nowadays have these spiffy new Hard Drives that hold whole Gigabytes of data...

I'm a Mac user and I can guarantee you all that not all of us are fanatics like likeitis is. I think he has some stability issues.

Windows is the best OS ever, hands down. If it wasn't, why would it not have such a huge market share? The fact is, people love Windows and love having their software available. Most software is not available on Mac, because their OS is so difficult to use. If you use ProTools, get a Mac. That puts you in less than 1% of the population. The rest of us need Windows to do what we need. Our trading software will not run on Macs. Graphic design people are not really relevant and most firms could do without their whinging.

TokyoHustla is just a sheep to come out with a post like that. People like you deserve your Windows. Mac is Ok for me and less of a pain than those 'updates' to their OS. Microsoft doesn't own my computer. My macbook is for portability. My other big computer is for other things like running servers. And it works well as a desktop too. Use your IE if you want. But many of us don't want to be stuck with what you get. Your statement about 'not available on Mac.' is one of the excuses sheep like you use and Difficult to use? Well I guess you have never tried. You'd have to be pretty stupid not to be able to figure out how to use any gui OS mate.

bushlover: "Use your IE if you want. But many of us don't want to be stuck with what you get." In that case just don't click on the IE icon. Install Chrome or Safari or Links or whatever you want

TokyoHustla - Think availability and homogenization (sp?) is one of the keys. The majority of PC users want familiarity between systems. Windows offers that on the whole due to them being so common, having similar basic menus for application etc. Am not getting into the people who are tech-savvy but just the everyday user.

FreeInJapan,

Look, if you buy a product bundled with another product, you are most likely paying for both products. Just because it is offered for free elsewhere does not mean a price has not been affixed in the bundle. Windows can offer it for free outside of the bundle because odds are they already sold it to you anyway via the bundle. Usually, all people get is an update really. Either way, they already paid for the license. Else, they have a jacked copy of Windows (not enough of those to fret about).

Windows can make you buy both products at one price because they have, for all intents and purposes (though maybe not strict definition), a monopoly.

This means that the only way anyone can compete with IE is to offer their product on the net without charge and make money through some other means. This is called, in layman's terms, utter bullcrap.

I really hope you did not wet yourself again reading that.

@likeitis

Who cares! Look you buy a microsoft product and low and behold you recieve their browser. Do you really think that if there was a cost for IE since it was bundled with MS software that it really makes a difference. You argument is convaluded. If you are not happy with the browser download a different one for free, install it and disable IE. Are you the kind of guy that buys a car and then complains that you got an xyz air conditioner "bundled" with the car? So your answer is to sue the car manufacture cause they dared to equip the car with an xyz air conditioner instead of an abc air conditioner? You are arguing apples and oranges and anyone that complains that Microsoft has a monopoly then just man up, invent your own product, package it and advertise it. If people like it they buy it, if not then well you should re think what you are trying to sell. Bottom line is if you dont like it then dont buy it. But tying up courts with litigation and wasting time and money is not going to fix the problem.

Do you think any company is better than the next? They're all just looking for a way to cheat. Microsoft had a good game going on for a little, but now they have to figure out a different way to beat the competition, say... innovating, or, making a better product that doesn't crash every 2 seconds.

Likeitis - zzzzzzzz... oh, wha...? Sorry, I dozed off when I realized you were just saying the same thing over and over again, regardless of what actual information is introduced by others. You want to continue to selectively apply your logic, and that's fine, just don't be upset when people stop taking you seriously because you make it too obvious that you don't actually know what you're ranting about.

@Yasashihito - Yeah, I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone like you jumped out with the "crashes, like, every 2 seconds man!" comment. I guess the horrid "instability" of all things Microsoft explains why Windows holds over 88% of the market share, to include the PRIMARY OS of all major businesses, globally. Because, you know, non-innovative, buggy, unstable software that crashes "every 2 seconds" as you claim is what's required to keep big bussiness going around the world. Wait, then again, considering today's economy my sarcastic statement could almost be true... ouch. Anyway, if you need something more to say, go back and refer to your trusty Macworld magazine for more baseless one liners about how bad Microsoft is. After all, Apple has to be the know all end all on all "true" things about Microsoft right? I hope one day you will be able to have an original thought, seriously, I do.

Well, this ride is obviously just gonna keep going round and round... starting to make me dizzy. Time to jump off and do something worthwhile.

TrappedNTokyo,

I don't want IE. I want to be able buy Windows at the cheaper price that it could be without IE. It is known as being able to choose my options and save money doing it. You don't like to save money? You don't like choose what you spend it on?

Can you buy cars cheaper without an A/C? Yes. And some people opt to do that you know.

FreeInJapan: regardless of what actual information is introduced by others.

Beyond you telling us about you peeing your pants, I do not see much actual information introduced. Not that any of it counters the points of my last post anyway.

the problem is not with IE as such, more with the aggressive way that microsoft began pushing it on customers. bear in mind that the vast majority of windows pc users are blissfully unaware that there are operating system options for pcs outside of windows. many don't even understand what an operating system is. when IE first appeared on windows it was accessible through a desktop icon that said "the internet", thus another attempt to detach consumers from the idea that they might have other options.

microsoft having domination of the browser market has allowed them to force further proprietary software onto users and tried to erode the "free and open" spirit of the internet. the internet is far too important to be controlled by commercial interests. by all means they should be allowed to operate on it, just not to have the vice like grip that microsoft has tried to have over it

i don't think there's a problem, cuz people will always find ways around it ... and I don't think MS is the evil tyrannical monster you all make it out to be ... not yet anyway... patience, people, patience!

Can you buy cars cheaper without an A/C? Yes. And some people opt to do that you know.

haha so sad!