|
If I were microsoft I wouldn't want to include software that my company didn't write because you have no control over the quality of code. Atleast when there is a problem with IE people can rightly get angry at MS, if they offered any number of browsers, and a remote exploit, or anything is found in them and people start getting effected, its going to be all out MS hate by people who really don't understand that it isn't MS's code.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Personally I think the "browser carousel" approach is just as flawed. Are we only linking the "big two"? The top five? What about stuff like Maxthon (which is more popular than Firefox in China)? Are we going to have to list every browser, to avoid a user having to download and install Firefox, search for, download and install $somebrowser, then uninstall Firefox? edit: or AOL Explorer 
grrowl fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Jun 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 14:51
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:Welcome to two years ago. http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090613/windows-7-uac-code-injection-vulnerability-video-demonstration-source-code-released/
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 15:28
|
|
|
Stuntman Mike posted:To salvage some of my dignity I think I can answer this one. Sometimes I find that win7 won't show you that it deleted a file or folder right away. Refresh the window and it should disappear. No luck there its still there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 18:46
|
|
|
quote:no browser
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 20:21
|
|
|
alseyn posted:Ugh, they can't possibly strip IE completely out. Half the applications embed IE to display their help/parts of program window. This can't be more than just cosmetic change. It would break so many things it would be quite funny. Are there any more details on it somewhere other than that vague article? Like I said earlier, they're stripping out the EXE and shortcut for IE8 (which is really just a wrapper for the Trident rendering engine anyway). Really removing IE8 would among other things render Windows Update impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 20:25
|
|
|
alseyn posted:Ugh, they can't possibly strip IE completely out. Half the applications embed IE to display their help/parts of program window. This can't be more than just cosmetic change. It would break so many things it would be quite funny. Are there any more details on it somewhere other than that vague article? MS just put up a blog post regarding their actions and (admitted) reasons for this. http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx quote:Most importantly, the E versions of Windows 7 will continue to provide all of the underlying platform functionality of the operating system—applications designed for Windows will run just as well on an E version as on other versions of Windows 7. Means that all they are doing is removing the IExplorer.exe and leaving all the dll's that are used to actually render pages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
Does anyone know if the RC is using Direct2d yet instead of GDI+? I've been itching to try that out for ages, on account of Vista's godawful GDI+ performance.
burning swine fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jun 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 21:19
|
|
|
FopeDush posted:Does anyone know if the RC is using Direct2d yet instead of GDI+? I've been itching to try that out for ages, on account of Vista's godawful GDI+ performance. From what I can tell, yes: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd370987%28VS.85%29.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 21:34
|
|
|
Ok, I just got my Q9550 CPU, complete with Intel VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGY. Now how do I get started with this "XP Mode" thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 21:52
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:Ok, I just got my Q9550 CPU, complete with Intel VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGY. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:06
|
|
|
I've been reading some comments left and right today on Microsoft's reaction on the Eu's decision, and I'll admit not having the time nor knowledge for the matter, but this one the the inquirer site somehow stuck;quote:If the Deceptions were looking for a new name...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:12
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:Ok, I just got my Q9550 CPU, complete with Intel VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGY.  ). I can see this being fantastic for 1-2 apps, but it's not suitable for how I use it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
kapinga posted:MS just put up a blog post regarding their actions and (admitted) reasons for this. http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx Of course it does, but that's the funniest bit - the EU flips their poo poo, Microsoft says it's impossible to remove it without crippling the OS, the EU fines them repeatedly, Microsoft says "Fine, you know what? IE is gone." And all they did was remove a loving shortcut. But this will somehow be a "victory". the wobble posted:I've been reading some comments left and right today on Microsoft's reaction on the Eu's decision, and I'll admit not having the time nor knowledge for the matter, but this one the the inquirer site somehow stuck; Good to know The Inquirer is still full of lovely, opinionated writers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
Casao posted:Good to know The Inquirer is still full of lovely, opinionated writers. heh. I knew before I hit 'post' that this kind of reaction would show up. The Inquirer are opinionated alright. That's why I keep reading them. What I posted wasn't even one of their articles. It's an anonymous opinion posted after the article.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:27
|
|
|
I play EVE in a fullscreen 1680x1050 window. Can I selectively turn off the titlebar functionality that positions the full bar in view? Similarly, how do I set the taskbar to not have always-on-top priority?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
Casao posted:Of course it does, but that's the funniest bit - the EU flips their poo poo, Microsoft says it's impossible to remove it without crippling the OS, the EU fines them repeatedly, Microsoft says "Fine, you know what? IE is gone." And all they did was remove a loving shortcut. But this will somehow be a "victory". I guess they can call it a "victory" since the anti-competitive aspect is from the fact the shortcut is there, not the renderer. Remove the shortcut, it doesn't really matter whether or not the engine was left behind or not (in terms of browser wars). My beef with this whole proceeding is that I can't tell what made bundling IE in 98/2000/XP/Vista OK that is somehow causing problems now. If bundling wasn't kosher, why hasn't the EU been demanding its removal since it first started watching MS? Why did they wait until the maker of the 5th most popular browser complained (who just happens to be the only European browser maker)? I mean, the browser market is more competitive than any time after the Netscape wars, why does Opera or Firefox need the helping hand now? Edit: the wobble posted:heh. I knew before I hit 'post' that this kind of reaction would show up. The Inquirer are opinionated alright. That's why I keep reading them. What I posted wasn't even one of their articles. It's an anonymous opinion posted after the article.  It's a lovely opinion because it spends a page saying how Microsoft is a evil profit-minded corporate entity without explaining how this case and decision are actually supposed to help the consumer. MS is bad, therefore anything that hurts MS (no matter the collateral damage) is good? That's not even Realpolitik, its vengeance.Edit2: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/eu-to-pursue-antitrust-case-despite-windows-7-e.ars Looks like the EU is still out for blood. I still don't see how the EU can rightfully demand that MS actively advertise and support products of its direct competitors, but it looks like they're gonna try. IMO the EU has the right to exact a huge fine if they so desire, but they should not force MS to support its competitors. kapinga fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jun 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:43
|
|
|
Goddamn, Microsoft removing IE8 from EU versions is ballsy. For what it's worth, in Korea, Microsoft has K and KN versions of Vista and XP, which specifically include LINKS to third-party apps for both Instant Messaging and Media Playback; in other words, Microsoft's "endorsed" third-party software before, and in one of the most internet-savvy countries in the world (although one could easily argue that Media Players and Instant Messaging software aren't as big a deal as a web browser). For the curious, here's the media player page (the only one I know of is RealPlayer) and here's the IM page.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 22:56
|
|
|
kapinga posted:IMO the EU has the right to exact a huge fine if they so desire, but they should not force MS to support its competitors. I really wish Microsoft could just pull out of the EU and shut them the gently caress up about it. If the entire EU wouldn't turn to piracy as soon as this happened, it'd probably be more profitable to not sell poo poo there vs getting fined. It would at least shut them the gently caress up. I'm still missing what is anticompetitive about bundling IE - it was anticompetitive to force OEMs to use Windows by threatening to drop them if they used Linux, it was anticompetitive to tell them they COULDN'T install another _______, it would be anticompetitive to have IE not able to go to https://www.getfirefox.com for one reason or another. It is NOT anticompetitive to include a browser. Not unless it's also anticompetitive to include Notepad. And Paint. And the Windows Clock. And Windows Explorer. And by god, no one should be forced to be locked into the Microsoft Calculator monopoly. There's certain basic functions every OS should be capable of performing out of the box. In the modern age, that includes Web browsing. People don't pitch a fit about buying a Toyota car and getting Toyota brand seats in it. People don't throw a poo poo fit that their wireless mouse came with Duracell brand batteries. Where's the outrage over the Sony PS3 coming with an official Sony brand controller instead of having the choice of Madcatz? Maybe I want my Philips sound system to come with a Logitech Harmony universal remote, where are the 6 billion euro fines for that? It's a loving retarded non-problem that other browsers (and Opera is probably chief among them) have blown so far out of proportion that it's beyond absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 23:13
|
|
|
Casao posted:I really wish Microsoft could just pull out of the EU and shut them the gently caress up about it. If the entire EU wouldn't turn to piracy as soon as this happened, it'd probably be more profitable to not sell poo poo there vs getting fined. It would at least shut them the gently caress up. Toyota isn't a monopoly. Nobody has a monopoly on wireless mice. Sony doesn't have a console monopoly. Philips doesn't have a monopoly on sound systems. Your complaints may be valid, but you can't compare the rules for a monopoly to the rules for a non-monopoly. A monopoly isn't illegal, but you can't abuse your position to maintain it, or to extend it to other markets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
Are you implying MS has a monopoly? Do they still? Did they ever? I thought it was just an anti-trust thing (unless the legal definition of 'monopoly' is 'greater than X percentage' where X is not 100, but still high). Do you agree with the EU's reaction to Internet Explorer's 'monopoly'? I always get a chuckle reading people ranting about MS's monopoly while surfing the internet on my Macbook.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 23:56
|
|
|
uXs posted:Toyota isn't a monopoly. Nobody has a monopoly on wireless mice. Sony doesn't have a console monopoly. Philips doesn't have a monopoly on sound systems. Then, again, explain why Microsoft can bundle Notepad and Paint when there are competitors to them available? Why can Microsoft include Explorer without anyone pitching a fit, when there are alternative file browsers? What about including .Net but not Java? Where do you draw the line? Release just enough to let you run applications, but not include any of those applications? Or how about ones that just let you do basic file management, like Explorer, but nothing else? Why is it including a shell? Window Blinds and bbLean are valid alternatives, but I don't see anyone freaking out about having Explorer by default. Microsoft's not doing anything anticompetitive. They're no longer the only available OS choice from OEMs, they're not the only choice in retail, they're not forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer. Its inclusion does not, in any way, make it harder to use Firefox or Opera. It's included. It's not forced on you. And with Windows 7, you even have the option of removing it. The point is, this is ALL absurd. If Microsoft is somehow blocking OEMs from including alternative browsers, I will completely give in and say that Microsoft is being anticompetitive. If they're killing my attempts to install Opera on my own machine, I'll howl for blood myself. As people have pointed out, where is this arbitrary line drawn? Let's just look at browsers: Is Microsoft now required to support and include every browser? Because I'll stop upgrading right now and stick with Windows 7 for the rest of eternity if that's the case. How do you decide which browsers? Firefox is in, but then what about Mozilla? Chrome? Opera? Safari? K-meleon? Microsoft is being forced to give them free advertisements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
Casao posted:As people have pointed out, where is this arbitrary line drawn? It's drawn at browsers, because it was the Opera people bitching that got it to happen, because they hoped it would force Microsoft to include Opera with Windows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:13
|
|
|
Casao posted:Then, again, explain why Microsoft can bundle Notepad and Paint when there are competitors to them available? Why can Microsoft include Explorer without anyone pitching a fit, when there are alternative file browsers? What about including .Net but not Java?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:45
|
|
|
syphon posted:Even further, I want to hear why OSX can bundle Safari, but Windows can't bundle IE. OSX doesn't have a 90% OS market share
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:47
|
|
|
DarthBlingBling posted:OSX doesn't have a 90% OS market share EDIT: VVVV You're right, this really isn't a discussion I wanted to have. My apologies for my part in the derailment. VVVV syphon fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jun 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:49
|
|
|
Welp, looks like it's time to un-bookmark this thread. Continue the derail in my absence please!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
Casao posted:Smart Words My confusion always lay in this part of the equation: if IE wasn't bundled with Windows, how could one be expect to download Netscape (at the time) or Firefox or Opera or Safari?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:57
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:My confusion always lay in this part of the equation: if IE wasn't bundled with Windows, how could one be expect to download Netscape (at the time) or Firefox or Opera or Safari? Back in the dial up days we got everything monthly on magazine CDs. Also I don't think IE was bundled with Windows until Windows 98?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 00:59
|
|
|
DarthBlingBling posted:Back in the dial up days we got everything monthly on magazine CDs. I know a few people already mentioned this point in the last few pages, and I don't want to come off as redundant, but I really got hung up on this point. Was this at any point part of the discussions in litigation? Were there considerations as asinine as including a CD with an installer for each option, or was it just a strange catch-22 never really addressed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
m2pt5 posted:It's drawn at browsers, because it was the Opera people bitching that got it to happen, because they hoped it would force Microsoft to include Opera with Windows. So it's completely arbitrary and pointless. Good of the EU to continually fine MS for this then. syphon posted:What does market share have to do with it? 90% is not a Monopoly (unless you're using some legal definition I'm not aware of). When your product reaches a certain percentage of market share, you have to start stripping out features? This goes back to that arbitrary line people are discussing. The concept is that a higher market share somehow restricts a user's choice. Microsoft did violate a lot of anti-trust rules in the past, mostly dealing with the underhanded tricks they used to keep OEMs from installing Linux or Netscape. That was some shady poo poo that has been, to the best of my knowledge, completely discontinued. Mierdaan posted:Welp, looks like it's time to un-bookmark this thread. Continue the derail in my absence please! Thanks for your contentful post that contributes to the discussion of the upcoming Operating System Windows 7. This IS the Windows 7 thread, right? Jewmanji posted:My confusion always lay in this part of the equation: if IE wasn't bundled with Windows, how could one be expect to download Netscape (at the time) or Firefox or Opera or Safari? To be honest, Opera never wanted IE removed, as evidenced by their freakout over this result. They wanted their browser included with Windows, so people might click the red O instead of the blue E and use Opera. Microsoft has decided to remove IE in a fairly childish tantrum kind of way - it's the equivilent of throwing your hands in the air, taking your ball and going home. I can't really blame them after telling the EU time and time again that it is, at the very least, a difficult and bad idea or, at worst, impossible, to remove IE from Windows completely. They've also decided they'll start pressing CDs and putting them on shelves next to Windows. Of course, most people buy via OEM, so it becomes the simple fact of "Whoever pays HP the most money will get their browser included." Guess who has the most money. The competing browsers seem to want links or full installers for their browsers included in the OS. Being realistic here, there's no way to draw the line in a way that's not completely arbitrary and unfair. There's also the fact that, at this point, Microsoft is basically being forced to give their competition free advertising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
edit: nm, not participating anymore in this. Mierdaan fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Jun 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
I just got Win7, and it's my first 64-bit system. Is there a special beta or version of firefox (or another browser) that runs better than any other? I tried Shiretoko but it doesn't seem to want to install flash player 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:38
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:I just got Win7, and it's my first 64-bit system. Is there a special beta or version of firefox (or another browser) that runs better than any other? I tried Shiretoko but it doesn't seem to want to install flash player Just get Firefox? It installs and runs fine on a 64bit OS, as will 99% of any applications you throw at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:40
|
|
|
Mierdaan posted:Just get Firefox? It installs and runs fine on a 64bit OS, as will 99% of any applications you throw at it. Well yes that's what I'm doing, but I thought there might be a SUPER SPECIAL WIN7 OPTIMIZED version or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
64-bit browsers are dead until Adobe Flash embraces 64-bit
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
I'd hate for other browsers to be included with Windows because other browsers tend to have major updates every few months so the version on your Windows CD would probably always be at least 6 months out of date.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:50
|
|
|
c0burn posted:64-bit browsers are dead until Adobe Flash embraces 64-bit Which is a shame since 64-bit IE8 is loving FAST - not just the rendering, but the ui is blistering fast. Except when you install the Sun Java addon. Then the ui (tabs and stuff) get noticeably slower. Disable the addon, superfast. Enable the addon, nothing special. Annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 01:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'd hate for other browsers to be included with Windows because other browsers tend to have major updates every few months so the version on your Windows CD would probably always be at least 6 months out of date. If only things on the internet could come up with a way to update themselves. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Stuntman Mike posted:Which is a shame since 64-bit IE8 is loving FAST - not just the rendering, but the ui is blistering fast. Except when you install the Sun Java addon. Then the ui (tabs and stuff) get noticeably slower. Disable the addon, superfast. Enable the addon, nothing special. Unbelievable. Java makes sites that aren't even using it slower. Who uses Java in a site anymore anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2009 02:21
|
|
