I am Penguin
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7,712
- Reaction score
- 38
So what's your solution. Microsoft should abandon all additions to the OS?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
IE8 not forced on Windows 7 users
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
So what's your solution. Microsoft should abandon all additions to the OS?
The HTML Trident rendering engine still remains in Windows. So security risks are still possible.
An analogy would be - you buy a car from Ford, and Ford also owns a line of petrol stations, Ford modifies the car that by default you can only buy petrol from Ford stations. Of course you could buy from say Shell but the petrol inlet is so modified to work with Ford Petroleum Co only. You can modify yourself but you don't know that's possible. Now there's a choice when you buy Ford, and Ford let's you modify the inlet to suit all petrol stations including Ford's.
Furthermore FORD sells 95% of the cars out there, just to make the analogy more clear. You can buy an alternative Mercedes - rare or get a FOSS Tazz but those dealerships
are few and far between.
What's my solution? Something the EC has forced on MS. Be able to select what browser you wanna use easily. Heck even have 3-4 of them but have the choice.
Last edited:
Net Performance
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
Worthless news for me. I like to keep IE on board even if I exclusively use Firefox (and the usefull add-on IE Tab). So far never witness and impossibility to install another browser on windows, or a restriction of the kernel to do so...
90% home users buyer won't even bother... So let's please the EU and move on...
90% home users buyer won't even bother... So let's please the EU and move on...
Lino
I am back
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 13,785
- Reaction score
- 56
Most everyday users won't give a rats arse about which browser they use. Unlike the more experienced users (such as us)
Lets be quite honest here, how on earth would you download and install another browser if there was none installed by default.
Lets be quite honest here, how on earth would you download and install another browser if there was none installed by default.
Arthur
Honorary Master
Faulty analogy, Bad logic. Wrong conclusion.
Of course I know as well as the next man that all analogies only work to a point, but the one you choose is paricularly inapt because sloppy epistemic imbedding slips in a number of materially important but false elements.
Let's try to parse your analogy.
Surely you can't mean Ford=PC hardware vendors and Ford Petrol=MS? MS doesn't own any, and none own Microsoft (other than common stock).
Maybe you're saying Ford=MS/Windows and Ford Petrol=IE? Fair enough. I and most users would EXPECT (perhaps even insist) my Ford to be optimised to run Ford Petrol. If that optimisation is better than anyone else's, shame, it's a tough world. You might as well complain about gravity (and yes, some governments migh even support you). But the subtle error in this part of the analogy is the word "buy". People do not "buy" IE - it's bundled with the "car" at no extra cost (we can argue till the cows come home about whether new function/capability is 'free' or 'paid' (is anything really free?) but the historically irrefutable fact is Windows cost the same after IE was included as it did before IE. This is what happens as vendors add new functionality; it has been the way the PC industry works since Day Two; it is not a Microsoft invention or a conspiracy. The end-user gets additional capability and new functionality for the same price, and wins. And this is a bad thing?
You know the real irony? If your charge can be levelled at anyone in the industry, then the primary candidate is Apple Computer -- it has by far the most aggressive proprietal 'closing' of systems and proprietary codesets, APIs, service interfaces, and bundling. No other vendor ties up hardware and software in as many patents, copyrights, proprietary interfaces, closed systems and services, and few other vendors sue as aggressively as Apple Computer. IBM invented proprietal harware-sofware ties and closed software systems; Apple perfected it, yet to this day Apple dares to call the kettle black.
Back to your analogy.
Here's the important part you leave out: "Ford Petrol" (MS IE) is not "bought" but is included with your "Ford", (Windows) for the life of your Ford. In other words, "free petrol for life". This is a bad thing for consumers?
Another thing: How has MS modified Windows or the the API set ("petrol inlet") to only take "Ford Petrol" (IE)? Your analogy is both false and untrue. Last I looked, zillions of people are running non-MS apps and non-MS browsers. People would stop buying MS/Ford tomorrow if it couldn't install and run non-MS apps (not take other petrol). So how exactly does your analogy work here?
PART II follows in next post
Last edited:
Arthur
Honorary Master
Part II (continuation)
The part that realy perplexes me is the philosophical issue behind your argument, where you say in one breath that governments should 'force' solutions on MS and at the same time you [rightly] decry communism. This contradiction takes two positions which in principle are mutually exclusive. I've tried before, but I will say again: in a free market, the overriding issue is not that there be competition, but that people be free. Competition is a general but not always achievable or even desirable consequence of freedom. Competition per se itself is not the virtue. Justice is what matters, and freedom is its necessary antecedent. In classical market theory, it is legislated monopolies in the provision of goods and services that are deleterious; ie coercive monopolies are morally and socially bad because they take away your and my freedom to legally compete with the entrenched government-protected monopoly. What's really at issue is freedom, not competition as such. (That is why I oppose State ownership of any commercial enterprise or commercial service - governments tend to use the police to protect their businesses from competition.) But in a free society, it is entirely normal and to be expected that in certain geographies, technologies or domains someone emerge as the dominant or perhaps even only goods or services provider. Though it appears to be a monopoly, it is not ipso facto bad or undesireable. For example, in my town there is only one hardware shop, one pharmacy, and one petrol station - they each have a monopoly. This is not per se bad, and it would be a serious mistake to legally force them to support or refer to competitors, even if they have 100% marketshare.
Granted it is appropriate that should an enterprise or technology rises to dominance, society rightly ought to take a careful look at the precise reasons for the rise to dominance, and also evaluate the risks to freedom and general societal welfare in the operation of that dominance. Society rightly takes an interest in those entities which, though gaining dominance, can abuse their dominance in order to unjustifiably enrich themselves by preventing the commercial viability of competition, which itself is aimed at extracting otherwise unjustiable value. In any particular case this will involve both an evaluation of fact and prudential judgment.
Conversely, it is important that we not punish people or enterprises who are successful, perhaps even rising to dominance or even near-monopoly position, simply because they are successful. Our principles need to be clear and consistent, and our analysis needs to be thorough and rigorous. The freedoms we seek to protect cannot be suspended or reversed simply because you are successful or large or white or African.
Let's say Honda engineers develop a new engine technology which takes the world by storm, and in a few years everyone in the world wants a Honda, or at least a car with the Honda technology. Soon Honda is the world's largest engine supplier, with 70% engine marketshare. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and others refuse to licence the Honda technology and consumers don't buy their cars, so they soon shrink to 5% of their former size. Can you hear what the executives of these companies will say? How they will go on about protecting competition, the evils of intellectual property, and how essentiaol it is that government should step in and protect competitition?
We need to be very careful and very clear about what we mean by freedom, and competition, and justice.
There's another side to the story, so let's try a little mind experiment. Have you ever dreamed of starting your own business? This guy did. Here's what happened to him:
You're a smart but nerdy guy, really turned on by emerging technologies. You tinker and fiddle and believe things can be done better and cheaper than the archaic way the Old Establishment is doing things today. Always on the lookout for an opportunity to do something new, you acquire a half-baked incipient technology and work hard to further refine and develop it to the point where it becomes useful and allows people do do things easier and cheaper than they could before. You are not the only one; there are other similar inventions, but you are smart and work hard to promote your solution with everyday users who can benefit; with immense effort and enthusiasm you hire your smartest friends for next to no pay and promote your solution to the experts; a few agree to incorporate your technology in their larger but more specialist vertical products. YOu work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, you sleep at the office for weeks, months at a time; you make appointments with the right people in business, and you capture the imagination of many experts and enthusiasts. After years of huge effort, a big breakthrough comes when you manage to convince the Giant Old Establishment provider (who see you're a minnow and believe they are invincible) to licence your technology as just one of several alternatives in a tiny division of one small portion of their overall business. You work especially hard to make sure your licensed technology is the best it can be. After years of hard work, your little company is widely admired because it champions the ordinary guy against the previously entrenched mega-corporations. After a while the ordinary users you carefully cultivated become more influential in their own organisations, and influence others to adopt your solution. Almost everyone is enthusiastic about your technology. Suddenly your solution becomes a phenomenon, and almost overnight everyone beats a path to your door, clamouring to buy your technology. You licence it to everyone, and in a few years most businesses are using your technology. Big manufacturers beg you to let them include it with their products. The value of your little business balloons and your company shares are highly sought after and multiply in value a thousand times, much to your astonishment. Almost everyone is using your invention, and you nett worth just keep growing even though you personally remain pretty modest. You eventually buy your dream house (but it's never finished because you're never there). Of course things don't stand still; competitors are aggressive, and you keep adding new functionality to your solution, and new areas which once were marginal start becoming more important, so you incorporate new capability into your solution at no extra charge. Your competitors are (understandably) not pleased at your success. They badmouth you whenver they can, claiming they have superior technology whereas you "just do marketing". One competitor gets a sympathetic ear with government, and lawyers put highly tendentious interpretations on 100-year-old 'anti-trust' laws aimed at railway-cartels, and you get hauled before the courts. Your competitor claims he has a superior technology but because everyone uses yours he can't get a foot in the door - your dominance is shutting him out and putting him out of business. You are astonished at this line of argument. Because lawyers argue that that the old laws are designed to promote competition, and they easily prove you are dominant, the court fines you because you included new updated capability at no extra charge in your solution, thereby "abusing your dominance". Soon other competitors who lost out call their lawyers, who call their governments, and everyone knows you are rich and have been convicted of the evil sin of dominance. A whole cabal of lawyers and politicians climb on the bandwagon, and you are fined more money than anyone in history. But unlike all previous convictions under the old laws -- they all raised prices and gouged consumers by delivering less function & capability for the same price -- you are fined because you didn't raise prices! If you had raised prices you would not have been found guilty! You naively included enhancements and additional functionality at no extra charge, giving more to the consumer, not less - and by some twisted reasoning your competitors and their lawyers and their governmenty running-dogs said this is a bad thing! To your utter astonishment, they seriously argue that you should charge more for your product because they include additional capability, because by not charging for additional function you endanger the livelihood of those who are charging for that fuctionality! Some even say you should be forced to include their technology in your product! You are gobsmacked. Worse: you are found guilty of 'abusing your dominance' by giving away for free what others were previously charging for - the very reverse of what the laws were designed to do! Once convicted and fined, almost no-one has a decent word to say about you. Most of your competitors, who now work for other companies, snark and snarl whenever they mention your name. You are shocked. Deeply saddened, you enventually withdraw, knowing the world has gone mad. You decide to give away all your money, and you spend the rest of you life trying to help the poor of the world.
This is a true story.
The part that realy perplexes me is the philosophical issue behind your argument, where you say in one breath that governments should 'force' solutions on MS and at the same time you [rightly] decry communism. This contradiction takes two positions which in principle are mutually exclusive. I've tried before, but I will say again: in a free market, the overriding issue is not that there be competition, but that people be free. Competition is a general but not always achievable or even desirable consequence of freedom. Competition per se itself is not the virtue. Justice is what matters, and freedom is its necessary antecedent. In classical market theory, it is legislated monopolies in the provision of goods and services that are deleterious; ie coercive monopolies are morally and socially bad because they take away your and my freedom to legally compete with the entrenched government-protected monopoly. What's really at issue is freedom, not competition as such. (That is why I oppose State ownership of any commercial enterprise or commercial service - governments tend to use the police to protect their businesses from competition.) But in a free society, it is entirely normal and to be expected that in certain geographies, technologies or domains someone emerge as the dominant or perhaps even only goods or services provider. Though it appears to be a monopoly, it is not ipso facto bad or undesireable. For example, in my town there is only one hardware shop, one pharmacy, and one petrol station - they each have a monopoly. This is not per se bad, and it would be a serious mistake to legally force them to support or refer to competitors, even if they have 100% marketshare.
Granted it is appropriate that should an enterprise or technology rises to dominance, society rightly ought to take a careful look at the precise reasons for the rise to dominance, and also evaluate the risks to freedom and general societal welfare in the operation of that dominance. Society rightly takes an interest in those entities which, though gaining dominance, can abuse their dominance in order to unjustifiably enrich themselves by preventing the commercial viability of competition, which itself is aimed at extracting otherwise unjustiable value. In any particular case this will involve both an evaluation of fact and prudential judgment.
Conversely, it is important that we not punish people or enterprises who are successful, perhaps even rising to dominance or even near-monopoly position, simply because they are successful. Our principles need to be clear and consistent, and our analysis needs to be thorough and rigorous. The freedoms we seek to protect cannot be suspended or reversed simply because you are successful or large or white or African.
Let's say Honda engineers develop a new engine technology which takes the world by storm, and in a few years everyone in the world wants a Honda, or at least a car with the Honda technology. Soon Honda is the world's largest engine supplier, with 70% engine marketshare. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and others refuse to licence the Honda technology and consumers don't buy their cars, so they soon shrink to 5% of their former size. Can you hear what the executives of these companies will say? How they will go on about protecting competition, the evils of intellectual property, and how essentiaol it is that government should step in and protect competitition?
We need to be very careful and very clear about what we mean by freedom, and competition, and justice.
There's another side to the story, so let's try a little mind experiment. Have you ever dreamed of starting your own business? This guy did. Here's what happened to him:
You're a smart but nerdy guy, really turned on by emerging technologies. You tinker and fiddle and believe things can be done better and cheaper than the archaic way the Old Establishment is doing things today. Always on the lookout for an opportunity to do something new, you acquire a half-baked incipient technology and work hard to further refine and develop it to the point where it becomes useful and allows people do do things easier and cheaper than they could before. You are not the only one; there are other similar inventions, but you are smart and work hard to promote your solution with everyday users who can benefit; with immense effort and enthusiasm you hire your smartest friends for next to no pay and promote your solution to the experts; a few agree to incorporate your technology in their larger but more specialist vertical products. YOu work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, you sleep at the office for weeks, months at a time; you make appointments with the right people in business, and you capture the imagination of many experts and enthusiasts. After years of huge effort, a big breakthrough comes when you manage to convince the Giant Old Establishment provider (who see you're a minnow and believe they are invincible) to licence your technology as just one of several alternatives in a tiny division of one small portion of their overall business. You work especially hard to make sure your licensed technology is the best it can be. After years of hard work, your little company is widely admired because it champions the ordinary guy against the previously entrenched mega-corporations. After a while the ordinary users you carefully cultivated become more influential in their own organisations, and influence others to adopt your solution. Almost everyone is enthusiastic about your technology. Suddenly your solution becomes a phenomenon, and almost overnight everyone beats a path to your door, clamouring to buy your technology. You licence it to everyone, and in a few years most businesses are using your technology. Big manufacturers beg you to let them include it with their products. The value of your little business balloons and your company shares are highly sought after and multiply in value a thousand times, much to your astonishment. Almost everyone is using your invention, and you nett worth just keep growing even though you personally remain pretty modest. You eventually buy your dream house (but it's never finished because you're never there). Of course things don't stand still; competitors are aggressive, and you keep adding new functionality to your solution, and new areas which once were marginal start becoming more important, so you incorporate new capability into your solution at no extra charge. Your competitors are (understandably) not pleased at your success. They badmouth you whenver they can, claiming they have superior technology whereas you "just do marketing". One competitor gets a sympathetic ear with government, and lawyers put highly tendentious interpretations on 100-year-old 'anti-trust' laws aimed at railway-cartels, and you get hauled before the courts. Your competitor claims he has a superior technology but because everyone uses yours he can't get a foot in the door - your dominance is shutting him out and putting him out of business. You are astonished at this line of argument. Because lawyers argue that that the old laws are designed to promote competition, and they easily prove you are dominant, the court fines you because you included new updated capability at no extra charge in your solution, thereby "abusing your dominance". Soon other competitors who lost out call their lawyers, who call their governments, and everyone knows you are rich and have been convicted of the evil sin of dominance. A whole cabal of lawyers and politicians climb on the bandwagon, and you are fined more money than anyone in history. But unlike all previous convictions under the old laws -- they all raised prices and gouged consumers by delivering less function & capability for the same price -- you are fined because you didn't raise prices! If you had raised prices you would not have been found guilty! You naively included enhancements and additional functionality at no extra charge, giving more to the consumer, not less - and by some twisted reasoning your competitors and their lawyers and their governmenty running-dogs said this is a bad thing! To your utter astonishment, they seriously argue that you should charge more for your product because they include additional capability, because by not charging for additional function you endanger the livelihood of those who are charging for that fuctionality! Some even say you should be forced to include their technology in your product! You are gobsmacked. Worse: you are found guilty of 'abusing your dominance' by giving away for free what others were previously charging for - the very reverse of what the laws were designed to do! Once convicted and fined, almost no-one has a decent word to say about you. Most of your competitors, who now work for other companies, snark and snarl whenever they mention your name. You are shocked. Deeply saddened, you enventually withdraw, knowing the world has gone mad. You decide to give away all your money, and you spend the rest of you life trying to help the poor of the world.
This is a true story.
Last edited:
supersunbird
Honorary Master
Good job Arthur, good job!
I admit I am a simple person compared to you Arthur, may have made a few epistemic errors but only posted that short an analogy for the sake of brevity.
But is it better Arthur? Internet Explorer was included in Windows 9x and up and even integrated into Explorer. At that time MS was involved in a browser war with Netscape. MS which controlled the OS market had the advantage and they chose to make full use of it by deeply ingraining IE into Windows,
so that it would be difficult to remove IE.
There is obviously a reason MS is doing it. Perhaps initially it was to push their MSN email service, other services and later their search engine.
IE defaults to MSN Search does it not? Which SE do you use btw?
It would be better if MS gave it's users a choice. Complete removal of IE would be even better, but if desired by the user.
Perhaps when 95% (or thereabout) numbers of PCs bear the Apple Logo you'll have a point. But as is Apple markets the Mac as a complete solution, Windows I gather does not and is just the OS on this commodity hardware PC.
You're right the analogy is a little incorrect but my point wasn't about price
or cost, I did not even say that the Ford Petrol cost more than other petrol.
What my point was is that you are stuck with one browser full of security holes, a particular interface and a different set of standards.
They modified it in the mind of the user. You had your browser, you had your media player, what more could you want. The extra steps the user needs to take to un-modify this is to find out about other browsers (which the OEM
cannot preload because MS already has IE included in the thing which probably also loads faster than competing browsers since it's included as part of the OS leading to a lot of security problems but anyhow) and to DOWNLOAD
a new browser, install it and transfer settings.
Last edited:
Part II (continuation)
I pick and choose. A person does not see the world as black and white but in shades of grey. A case in point, the recently leaked banking charges reports
from the Competition Commission in SA. Is it fair Arthur to have banks collude and charge large amounts of money for things that cost them a pittance?
Is it fair for the rest of the economy to have that money not go towards a better meal, or a nicer car or maybe kids' education?
Correct. But at the end of the day can I trust the Corporation to look after my interests as a consumer? The Corporation is only in business to make money. It's not there to be an altruistic gentle giant, making a profit but
never ever at the expense of the consumer. For example a corporation may feel that it may need to release a newer version of their product, say MS Office 2000 when 97 was good enough and a free service pack could have fixed issues. What is stopping that company from simply making minor changes and charging a lot of money to businesses which need that document interoperability?
You gave one example and extrapolated it to the universe.
With that I agree.
MS was found guilty by the US Justice Dept, various US States and even the EC. Are you saying all these were trumped up charges and MS is simply being victimised by jealous people? Is MS entirely innocent here, bearing in mind the MS had more financial clout than these institutions had to pay expenses?
Or obtain bailout money as is the case right now, correct.
We do. However MS has a lot of cash to look after its interests, the consumer has fewer resources. If MS could reconcile it's business tactics (and this goes for all corporations and businesses) with rendering consumer-friendly services - wow! It would be great.
Bill G, is that his story? I will admit that I am a self-centered guy and do look after my own interests first. If the good hard working business guy get's hammered, its a great pity
and in our unjust world I do see that happening to successful businessmen and 'lowly' beggars. I want to use the best for the least amount of money and trouble, hopefully.
Arthur, all I want is freedom to choose. I am capable of doing that because I can read around, most people aren't because they were just born earlier or don't have the time or just don't know there is anything better out there.
I would have loved to use a different OS other than buggy, crash-all-the-time Windows, but alas I could not.
Looking at professionals, the guy with the biggest mouth isn't always the best, the government while it may have bad intentions isn't always the worst guy and sometimes the results of its intentions may be good. Sometimes public funds at CERN or in the EC - can come up with some nice products no-one else would have developed because they wouldn't be as profitable - eg GSM telephony.
Last edited:
killadoob
Honorary Master
The most idiotic thing about this is that it is not like internet explorer is forced on you, you do not have to use it. You just download a new one run it and click yes for default, end of internet explorer.
How many people out there do not know about firefox and how exactly are they going to download firefox with no browser haha.
This is very silly if you ask me, i use IE because alot of sites do not show correct on other browsers. For everything else it is firefox.
How many people out there do not know about firefox and how exactly are they going to download firefox with no browser haha.
This is very silly if you ask me, i use IE because alot of sites do not show correct on other browsers. For everything else it is firefox.
Arthur
Honorary Master
But, Peter, this is a good thing, not a bad thing, surely! It's what you'd expect from any operating system designed since the advent of computer media (graphics, audio, video) and LAN/WAN communications. A femtosecond's reflection makes it cystal clear why tight integration is precisely what you want. It's a strength and not a weakness!
* Browsers are one of the heaviest and most demanding apps run on PCs today.
* Browsers intrinsically and of necessity make heavy function calls to graphics, media, file, and communications systems. This is an essential part of what they do.
* All modern operating systems have as a standard design goal the incorporation and deep integration of the richest possible media and comms function set. The only ones that don't integrate -- because they can't architecturally, not because they don't want to --are those tracing their ancestry back to UNIX and its 1960s architecture. No names, no pack drill.
* IE makes extensive function calls to Windows graphics, media and communications subsystems; almost all essential browser functions are done outside the browser, and in the future even html rendering could well be abstracted. Like many other "applications", what once was a separate distinct product is rapidly disappearing as a discrete code-set or "application" in the traditional sense. Once a media player was a full discrete application; today it's several components, as subsystems get abstracted and integrated into system-wide or even core OS services. The same happened to LAN and WAN. The same is happening to the browser. And more will happen in the future. It is not a Microsoft conspiracy!
* To "completely remove IE", you'd need to remove a lot more than just a browser.
* The End Goal of EVERY operating system architect is to design and develop a fully abstracted and media-rich componentised operating system with managed code. Your argument was perhaps true before the rinderpest, where graphics/media/comms were add-on functions, but whatever merit it had ended circa 1991.
True. It didn't just get there by accident. Every line of code and every item of function is strategised, debated, discussed, hashed, rehashed, debated again, architected, designed, coded, recoded, tested, debated ...etc, again and again and again again.
Speculative. Defaults to MSN Search? I should hope so! If it didn't I'd want the Board to explain why the hell shareholders are investing in Search, and then I'd want it fixed right away. Or are you a socialist?
Insider view 1: Microsoft does not have strategic aspirations to unmonetised or unmonetisable services. It is not an ISP, and does not wish to be one.
Insider view 2: Unlike many successful companies, Microsoft got where it is by sticking to the knitting. To do that you learn a very strong discipline of saying NO to every new or emerging opportunity, no matter how promising. That's because you have an even stronger YES to your core competencies, and you make sure other things don't deflect you. Most businesses do not understand this very well.
Not it would not - at least not from a rational or technical viewpoint.
As stated above, because graphics, media, and comms are essential and indispensable desktop functions on modern PCs (as they have been for the past 15 years or so), it is only to be expected of any half-decent modern operating system that these be as tightly architected and deeply integrated as possible. This is what Windows does, and with each major technology release does better and better.
What SE do I use? Depends what for. For geneal nonsense stuff, mostly Google, though it's beginning to give me the creeps with all the stuff it's archiving ... I quite often use Soople for a quick window on the main engines.
How does marketshare determine the moral issues?
1. Speak to your hardware vendor about bundling Windows. The decision to bundle Windows with hardware is not Microsoft's. Seriously. Heck man, the hardware vendors pay Microsoft in real dollars to bundle Windows! I could sympathise with your beef if Microsoft was paying the hardware manufacturers, or giving it away free, but it's the other way round, Peter. Really. It's called a free market. No force or fraud is being used.
2. ALL software is a work in progress. ALL software has security issues. Like other developers, malcontents target the largest market, which happens now to be Windows, by a very substantial margin. A very very large number of baddies spend a very large amount of time trying to break through Windows, and that makes it very tough. Unless or until dramatically new hardware/software architectures emerge, I'm prepared to bet my bottom dollar there isn't another operating system less vulnerable to unauthorised exploits and security abuses from malcontents. The baddies just aren't spending their time trying to hack in to 5% of the world's desktops. They're lean and mean, and go for the largest market. The others are just lucky in this area (and perhaps unlucky in others).
I am Penguin
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7,712
- Reaction score
- 38
Point is .... PeterCH has no point. Only an ingrain hatred of Microsoft et al and what it presents. read all his anti M$ venom in all threads and you would understand.
What Apple is doing is fine in his view, but that is not allowed by M$. Maybe it is something to do with the communist ways of doing things.
IEworks for me! Simple I want nothing else. I have a totally integrated system that works. All bussiness requirements are there, Office, E-mail, Media, Internet, Software development, Servers, ect, etc all functioning in tandem. Why would anyone want something else. Why must I battle with Linux and the lack of total integration, Firefox, ect, ect. and then some fools hate Microsoft and blame the failures of Apple/Linux et al on Microsoft in spite off their successfull efforts. Fact remains the rest could not compete and never will. Fact is Windows made what the PC is today and without it the PC is just ... well close to useless. Sure there is other options, some would want you to believe otherwise, claiming windows and all it entails is forced on you. BULLSCHIT! they are LYING, plain and simple. You live in a free market system and have choices. You may choose to buy windows or reject it. Do not blame M$ for the fact that if you do not use windows you have issues because the competition was and still is useless and forever will be. Do not blame M$ for the fact that other systems are not 100% compatible and cannot fully integrate with everything. Take Norton or Symantec for example. FAIL big time. Again some would claim it is the fault of M$. In fact M$ now must include their own security and protection because others fail.
I say IE should remain as is. It must be MY choice to use it or not. Finish and klaar.
Oh wait I already have have the choice, what was the argument about again?
What Apple is doing is fine in his view, but that is not allowed by M$. Maybe it is something to do with the communist ways of doing things.
IEworks for me! Simple I want nothing else. I have a totally integrated system that works. All bussiness requirements are there, Office, E-mail, Media, Internet, Software development, Servers, ect, etc all functioning in tandem. Why would anyone want something else. Why must I battle with Linux and the lack of total integration, Firefox, ect, ect. and then some fools hate Microsoft and blame the failures of Apple/Linux et al on Microsoft in spite off their successfull efforts. Fact remains the rest could not compete and never will. Fact is Windows made what the PC is today and without it the PC is just ... well close to useless. Sure there is other options, some would want you to believe otherwise, claiming windows and all it entails is forced on you. BULLSCHIT! they are LYING, plain and simple. You live in a free market system and have choices. You may choose to buy windows or reject it. Do not blame M$ for the fact that if you do not use windows you have issues because the competition was and still is useless and forever will be. Do not blame M$ for the fact that other systems are not 100% compatible and cannot fully integrate with everything. Take Norton or Symantec for example. FAIL big time. Again some would claim it is the fault of M$. In fact M$ now must include their own security and protection because others fail.
I say IE should remain as is. It must be MY choice to use it or not. Finish and klaar.
Oh wait I already have have the choice, what was the argument about again?
supersunbird
Honorary Master
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
I don't think they are forced to remove IE8, but it can be disabled. They also cannot be expected to bundle rival browsers with Win7 though.
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
This has been discussed many times. Because Windows is the prevalent OS? Who's going to bother writing viruses and botnets and spyware for the minority OS?