Microsoft Drops Windows 7 E Editions 423
A week after Microsoft agreed to include a browser ballot screen in Windows 7 systems sold in Europe, then announced that those systems would initially include no browser at all — specifically, no Internet Explorer — Microsoft has changed its mind again and dropped talk of a European Windows 7 E edition. Here is the official Microsoft blog announcement, which includes a screen shot of the proposed ballot screen. The browsers are listed left-to-right in order of market share, with IE therefore having pride of place. PC Pro notes that, since the ballot screen would not appear if IE were not pre-installed, Microsoft's proposal opens the door for Google to work with PC manufacturers to get Chrome on new machines. Note that the browser ballot screen has not yet been accepted by the EU, though the initial reaction to it was welcoming.
Wait, what? (Score:3, Interesting)
The ballot screen would not appear if IE were not installed.
Doesn't that kinda kill the point of the whole project?
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that this enables manufacturer to choose:
1) Install "IE", which by default asks user which browser to install
2) Install another browser by default
3) Dont install any browser at all (the Windows 7 E route)
What makes me wonder tho, is the IE removed after installing another browser?
Obsolete (Score:4, Interesting)
Less work for them... (Score:4, Interesting)
What about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are those orders canceled since the product no longer exists, or will they get the Full (non-upgrade) Win7 version instead?
What is safari doing there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is this possible after RTM? (Score:2, Interesting)
And how much would it cost to get something adware-infested into the browser selection screen?
Well, since the list is ordered by market share, you would probably have to get enough users to use your "browser" to get past Opera in terms of market share.
On second thought, that sounds very doable...
Re:What is safari doing there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Less work for them... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better way to go (Score:2, Interesting)
Randomized order? Way to make things more inconvenient for people, as they'd have to find the one they wanted on different installs.
Sorry, but this is enough of a burden, making it even worse in some cockeyed harebrained scheme of being fair isn't going to appeal to me.
Re:How will it work? (Score:2, Interesting)
Given the fact that you'd need to understand what a "web browser" is before being able to make a decent choice here, that behaviour is acceptable. IE8 is decent enough, gets updated automatically and should be a good choice for all those that don't understand what a browser is.
Those that do shouldn't have the slightest problem installing an application.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is completely false. It sounds like something you've just repeated after hearing it, but...
As an experienced Windows developer for the last 10 years, I can say you are mistaken. I'm not sure if you are thinking of the MSHTML engine (which a lot of people use for UIs because writing UIs with HTML and JavaScript is convenient) or the Windows extended common controls that came along with Win98 / Win95 Shell Update (which happened to include Internet Explorer).
Whether this is from you or from someone else, it's just pure FUD.
If no browsers are installed by default, how.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Obsolete (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obsolete (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about current situation but just months earlier, someone from IBM said they are still on IE 6 since the massive changes at the engine level needs massive changes. We speak about Big Blue with 450.000 workers here.
So next time, careful when you call companies "backwards", they could be so huge so they can't deploy every new MS toy instantly when they feel like it. I am sure it is not just IBM, a lot of large companies have to do extensive testing, re-coding whenever a large update ships. MS couldn't sell Intel Vista licenses for example, Intel basically didn't see reason to upgrade to Vista from their time tested operating system installations. Is Intel a backward company too?
Re:Isn't it time to drop the bill gates borg icon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Provided completely without any copyrights withheld, I present, a better MS icon:
The Microsoft Flying Chair [overzealous.com]
Download several sizes, including transparent PNG images, in a ZIP [overzealous.com]
(Admittedly, the icon had a lot more motion blur before I shrunk it. :-( I could enhance it if there is interest from the Slashdot gang.
Middle looks most important ;) (Score:1, Interesting)
According to psychology people tend to choose the middle one because it looks more important.
So according to that theory this line up by Microsoft would be a huge mistake and people would choose google at lot ;)
Yours truely,
Skybuck.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PC Makers can already install Chrome (Score:3, Interesting)
If google had an ecossytem, which they could offer to OEM, then MS becomes secondary. Right now for many people managing their own PC is the burden. It is why people buy Macs. A bit more upfront, but less maintenance in the long run. For a single creative person, a extra thousand spent upfront is made up quickly in time saved. Google can do the same thing, cheaper. A simple OS. Applications that run on external servers. People are getting used to this. I know people who play all thier games, and have all thier data on external servers. It is simply not so important. Google could sell the entire thing for %50 and offer free hosting for all long as the customer owns the machine. The only barrier is an internet connection, and those are becoming cheaper.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:2, Interesting)
GUI in Visual Basic?
One that can track IP's perhaps?
Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
People forget that Microsoft never set out to shove IE down people's throats. You didn't have 5,000 IE CD coasters sent to you in the mail like AOL and even Netscape did for years and years. (And this was even in the Win95 era when IE didn't ship on the OS.) (If anything you got MSN CDs and they were for a 'folder' based online system, and nothing to do with HTML or browsing.)
Microsoft's concept behind IE was to add HTML rendering to the Windows OS. Period.
This is so wrong I've gotta comment on it.
Microsoft promoted IE as a way to kill Netscape.
Microsoft embraced/extended/extinguished Navigator with IE.
Microsoft locked in from the host side to force people to use IE for many of the highest profile sites. Firefox has to go under an assumed name in order for these sites not to look like crap.
What Microsoft did with IE was so wrong that it was part of that big lawsuit way back when [wikipedia.org], that Microsoft lost (and then "won" through the typically corrupt appeal process).
Microsoft didn't peddle coasters, but what they did was far worse.
Man, the Microsoft shills just can't wait to rewrite history...