It must be possible to slipstream explorer in to the final win 7 version ? is the rtm gonna have any e-mail software ?
Hi Guy... You make rational, well thought out rebuttals. A personal beef I have with Windows 7 right now is that it's a real bear to get around Microsoft direct show filters, short of taking ownership and renaming the buggers. Would I rather that IE and WMP weren't shoved down my throat? Absolutely. I have a Zune, so I'll stick with Windows. If I find the situation intolerable, I'll sell the Zune, install Debian, and be done with it. With respect, I think Ockham's razor applies: If a person finds Microsoft unsuitable, there are optional, even *free* operating systems available.
Indeed I have. I really *want* to like it, but it's a bit of a buggy critter. I've tried it since the technical release. Even with the final version, I frequently get "Diagnose Connection" on top of a blank page while clicking on Web sites. Or sometimes, the browser just stops responding to clicks altogether. These are bugs that have been with me since day one. In fact, my brother-in-law just asked me if I was experiencing the same issues. In the interim, the myriad of Firefox plugins have spoiled me. As far as your claim of IE ripping features from Firefox, I've noticed a few new features popping up FF 3.5 that seemed to have been directly inspired from IE8.
The poor dear Minister Ockham, but he meant to say: if there are several solutions to a problem the one with the least arguments is usually the right one. In this case if you apply that rule, you'd have to choose Windows. It is by far the most used, thus most supported OS. The least arguments against it, (one actually, you're robbed blind for a mediocre product). All alternatives fail Ockham's razor, i.e. you need to bend yourself into a gordian knot to use it realistically. For Windows 7 (and Vista): The 'security' measures taken by MS are ridiculous. They leave the OS full off holes but just make it extremely difficult to use them. Even for the user himself. I liken their solution to putting yourself in prison to protect you against criminals. My tried and trusted solution: Immediately after installation remove TrustedInstaller from the permissionslist, take ownership as Everyone of all system/program folders. Descend into the windows folder and be sure to apply to subfolders. For some reason or another (this is a bug since Vista) the recursive algorythm skips a beat sometimes. Give Everyone full rights. Disable UAC. Install a proper heuristic anti-virus at it's highest level and after that you're safer with less hassle. Never had a software installation problem, just a few anti-virus popups when the heuristic algorythm detected changes to systemfiles. Running Vista like this for years, always online on a broadband, surfing a good few hours a day i've yet to catch malware.
You may have me there. For about eight months starting in late 2008, I ran exclusively Linux distros; I tried around twenty in all. A few of them are extraordinarily usable right out of the 'box', even for a novice user. Driver support is getting better by leaps and bounds as well. But there was still a learning curve - took me several weeks to learn the lay of the land and memorize all of the key commands. The down side is that with many distros you're stuck with a shotgun blast of dozens of duplicate mediocre apps when one good one would do. I finally learned to build a Debian system from scratch and was pretty satisfied. Windows is easy, no doubt about it.
could you imagine if windows installed 7 or 8 browsers, all by default? well, at least the EU won't take them (the linux distros) to court for not offering choices as they did with microsoft I can see why microsoft chose to take internet explorer out rather than offer choices, if they did offer choices it truly would monopolize the browser market for the elite group of browsers that were included, they less popular, newer or upstarts (that don't make the list) would have no chance against the "favoured" browsers offered by the windows setup. To offer a choice of say 4 - 5 browsers would then have everyone else crying fowl. a new browser, well they wouldn't have a hope. I wonder if the EU will reinvest the money from microsoft to help out the smaller competitors, or if it will end up being "pocket money" for them...
Why is everybody so confused about what the EU actually does/is? The EU is just conglomerate of independent countries with a common market. As such it protects consumers in that market from pricefixing, monopoly abuse etc by whomever. Be it MS or a membergovernment. All fines levied are redistributed over the membercountries by the percentage they contribute annually to the EU budget. This is a well tought out system which prevents the EU starting spurious actions just to augment their budget, since the cost of prosecution does come from the budget. So the EU budget as a whole loses out by every measure like against MS they take. The whole MS monopoly issue is a serious infringement on the rights of all other competitors on the EU market. Luckily for us Europeans the EU takes them at hand. That the solutions are less then obvious is completely a result of MS's messing about with their code to obfuscate the issue. What is actually bundled abnd where does the bundling start? Where does the I in IE end and the E begins?. If they'd just in good faith followed the agreements made under their US anti-trust settlement it would be clear as day. This part is OS, that part is Browser. But blatantly silly games like stating that the HTML engine is part of the OS because the OS itself needs it etc and thusly firmly integrating even further the browser/mediaplayer, who knows soon enough Word if they are not stopped, results in this farce of gamesmenship MS tends to call Corporate Management. Did you see the prices for Windows 7? In any realistic businessmodel the prices would be between $50/$150 retail. Well if you like to be fleeced defend MS's abuse if you want, but i like to be taken to dinner before being 'youknowwhat'
I don't really like the price of windows either, but when I compare that to the price of a Macbook (a equivelant laptop - windows + osx), the price of Adobe's Creative suite, Cinema Craft Encoder, Corel's graphic suite,... I could go on forever. YES I do worry that without the antitrust legislation the prices would skyrocket until a good alternative became available, but everywhere I look it seems that consumers are fleeced, prices are driven by "what can we charge for our product" not "what does our product cost to produce", it seems worldwide. That is why we have the financial crisis in the US economy now, but then that is also probably why there was the fantastic growth for years before that. Sure I think the there must be a better system than the system we have but why then does everyone else get away scott free and microsoft get all the charges? the internet is full of software vendors that charge 50/150 for much simpler programs Now, that said. If the EU were to tell microsoft that they can do what they want with the software, but if they want to sell their software in the EU they must allow Linux vendors better access to the API layers, or whatever code allows windows software to run well on linux I would say Hooray! Then we would have competition, not a bunch of fines going in the purses of EU member countries
You see, then if we could download ubuntu, install whatever windows software we currently want, free or paid, and if we wanted to see a windows desktop we could, or not. If microsoft wanted market share they would have to develop free and good antivirus products, photo and video suites to make their product attractive. then the antivirus vendors, the graphics app vendors and all would have to make their prices more reasonable or consumers would switch. Did you see the price of Norton a couple years ago? or even now for that matter. and you got a system hogging, kill my pc app for that. Then all the free alternatives got much more popular, who uses norton now? You see I think then we would have justice, then if microsoft wanted to offer alternatives to IE they could, or not, if they wanted to offer free antivirus and include it in windows (I think they should, but make it an optional install) they could, or not. Yes I would love to try out ubuntu, but install all my current software.. Then I would have choice
I think it's going to be £49 for first pre-orders starting July 15th! I really want Windows 7 and my HP laptop I have has a 64-bit processor but came with a 32-bit OS so if they are going to have windows 7 supplied with 2 versions, then I might as well have 64 bit! I can't wait! I have been told by my local council because I have a laptop from them that windows 7 is good for school because of it's multimedia technologies and my school is going to upgrade to windows 7! I love it! I haven't got it on my laptop but I am looking forward to October 22nd.
I wouldn't pay $329 for software, whether it is MS, Adobe, Corel or anyone else, but I don't think that forcing MS to exclude IE from windows helps either. I do see why they don't include the alternatives, unless the alternates were to be picked by someone else and automatically updated by their vendors (which could be done, maybe Windows 8?) I do see where the API layer sharing should be forced on microsoft and would personally like that and maybe it will be the EU that eventually makes that happen, it will take an ultimatum from probably the EU and some other major markets combined. I just don't think fines and making other rules such as the IE one will solve it, just create more troubles and perhaps make it all the more complicated. I don't think £49 would be overpricing either. but I would like to see the API layer opened up or enough software vendors programming for linux to make running free alternatives practical. Hey if the fine money were routed to help the open source community develop an API standard, heck I would push for similar legal methods here in Canada, but that is not the case and unless all the open source community were to agree on some standard the software manufacturers will not cater to their markets..
why not something like this, take the fines, develop an open source API standard, any manufacturer that does not at least comply pays a fee or tax, whether it is the OS, or the program. There could be a percentage of sales, free software and trial software would be exempt, or a straight fee paid by any vendor with sales over a certain amount. The funds go into administration and development of the standards. If that doesn't provide enough funds there could be a much smaller tax for a vendors software that does comply. The tax could be at retail or production level. I am certain that microsoft would make cheaper upgrades available then, even to EU customers as the alternative would be for someone to download and UPGRADE to redhat or ubuntu, still running their favorite accounting, office, multimedia software.... free and fair trade! worldwide standards, regular updates and in everyone's interest to meet the standards. The alternative .... Windows, fines increasing the costs but not providing real solutions, only justifying the microsoft monopoly from the fees they paid for it. As long as it is left for microsoft to develop their own copyrighted standards and other vendors support only these standards we will never see anything other than the monopoly that exists and microsoft paying the fines for the justification of the monopoly. Fair because every company has the choice to comply or pay the fee, microsoft included Standards that make it attractive for vendors to develop compatable software, microsoft included
Well Shakey, good suggestions which in a normal competitve market would find listening ears. But since MS sole sources of revenue are Office and OS, and they have the monopoly they are not listening. From their viewpoint that's a lose/lost situation. So the EU tries to make them listen, unfortunately the only way to make them listen is to skim their profits with fines. Nobody likes a trafficwarden, but if they'd not be there you'd be hard put to park your car normally. This will take years and years for sure, but at least it'll stop MS from bundling everything they can. I mean, we have WMP, IE, now Morro, after that Office will be bundled and in the end there's no competition at all. If Borland weren't around in the 90's you'd still be working with MS-Basic and MSC. If firefox wasn't there IE would never have been improved. (somewhat) Since the US didn't put their foot down, somebody else has too. Imagine, a car with Windows CE as operating system? A BSOD will a RSOD (Red Smear Of Death)
Precisely why the funds must be generated and directed to provide real alternatives on the backs of the monopolies and the software giants that willingly feed the monopoly by creating software that runs exclusively on their os. Just stuffing the coin in the pockets of lawyers and legislators whether in the form of fines, payouts or bribes (I see no difference) doesn't bring with it change. In my opinion I guess.... It may keep it at bay, but how then will the alternatives ever have a chance, MS will continue to monopolize the OS and will forever undermine the competitors productivity, office, graphics, multimedia, antivirus suites and browsers, email clients with underhanded techniques as long as we allow them to. I think that if well thought out, sure the EU could start in the right direction. But what I see now is MS just generating the money on the backs of EU customers to pay the fines by not offering upgrades...