Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft

Antitrust Case Over, Microsoft Ties IE 10 To Win 8 519

Posted by samzenpus
from the same-as-it-ever-was dept.
deadeyefred writes "With the last vestiges of Microsoft's U.S. antitrust consent decree expiring earlier this year, the company is again tying its browser tightly to Windows. In pre-release versions of IE 10 and Windows 8, IE 10 cannot be uninstalled and is required to enable the new 'Metro'-style apps."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Antitrust Case Over, Microsoft Ties IE 10 To Win 8

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    IE's market share isn't what it used to be. Neither is Window's market share for that matter.

    • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:16PM (#37850708)

      I can see this as one of two things - either Microsoft is trying to bump it's browser market share or they are cutting corners in their code to have Windows depending on bits of IE10 to give the core OS functionality.

      If this is an attempt at market share, I think it is rather doomed to fail. Gone are the days where people just accepted whatever browser comes with their OS. Even the very non-technical business people that I work with mostly install their browser of choice.

      If this is cost cutting and an attempt to re-use code from one thing in another, then I think it will likely just be ignored by many users who don't care as much - but alienate the nerds even more. The types that frequent /. for example, are more and more likely to find reasons for pushing them into no longer using windows (for the ones who still use it that is) and thus putting even more leaks into the ship.

      My mother for example uses the computer VERY little and doesn't do much with it. When it is time to upgrade (which is fast approaching) I am seriously considering ninja-installing a distro onto her machine and simply saying "This is the new computer, things are a little different" rather than going through the same thing while installing the latest and greatest from Microsoft. For her, there isn't any difference in finding all the buttons going from XP to Win 7 or Win 8. I may as well get her onto another OS totally.

      • I'm assuming Windows depends on IE. The new Metro stuff is largely HTML/Javascript, and it would make sense if it ran on the IE rendering engine.
        • by deniable (76198)

          They could have easily moved the common code into a required DLL and made IE / Explorer UI code that talks to it. There's no need to graft 'IE' into the system. They own both so they can just refactor some of it into Windows and leave IE alone.

          In other news, has anyone here removed IE8 from Windows 7?

          • by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy&gmail,com> on Thursday October 27, 2011 @12:51AM (#37852596)

            They could have easily moved the common code into a required DLL and made IE / Explorer UI code that talks to it.

            They did. In 1997. With Internet Explorer 4.

            Every version of IE since has had the same architecture.

    • by msclrhd (1211086)

      The interesting case here (w.r.t. anti-trust issues) is not the uninstallation of IE10, or that you can use HTML5+JavaScript running on top of the Trident rendering engine for WinRT applications.

      The interesting case is from https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Windows_8_Integration [mozilla.org]:

      1/ Metro applications have limited interaction with Desktop applications, making switching between the two more complex (is IE10 using APIs that other apps don't have access to?).

      2/ Metro (using the Wi

  • This is good news. It means all I have to do to avoid those crappy Metro apps is delete the IE10 registry keys. Two birds with one stone, baby.
    • by Microlith (54737)

      Unless you're on ARM, in which case you won't be able to use anything but Metro apps.

  • by SJrX (703334) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:05PM (#37850582)
    Most things allow you to keep your settings while removing the rest of the application. There is a big difference between left over Registry entries not being removed, and merely hiding IE. While I suspect they are closer to the hiding IE side of things, I think the proof they offer is silly.
  • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:06PM (#37850600) Homepage Journal

    From T (useless) FA:

    For example, before we turned off IE 10, we changed the default privacy setting from allowing some cookies to completely blocking all cookies. We then turned the browser off, rebooted, and IE 10 appeared to have completely disappeared from the PC. But when we went back into the settings, turned IE 10 back on, and rebooted again, the browser was back -- but with our customized settings, not the default. That would appear to indicate that Microsoft doesn’t really remove the browser entirely, but rather just hides it – with customized settings and all.

    OMFG! A conspiracy unmasked! User settings aren't deleted!

    So, because IE doesn't delete your settings it isn't being removed? By this same stupid logic we can determine that almost no modern software is ever actually removed.

    I'm quite astounded with the depth of these morons' investigation.

  • by msobkow (48369) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:08PM (#37850618) Homepage Journal

    I understand the idea of shared rendering libraries similar to WebKit or Gecko. While the knee jerk reaction is that they're locking out other browsers, I see the need to provide core libraries. Being HTML-based, Metro has got to have a rendering library.

    As long as they don't force you to use IE for browsing and allow you to continue to install 3rd-party browsers, I have no problem with this any more. All of the vendors partner on whose applications and websites are going to be the defaults that most users won't change. Why shouldn't Microsoft default to their own products while allowing you to install or configure alternatives?

    Don't forget -- Mozilla does the same thing by partnering to provide a default search engine.

    • Being HTML-based, Metro has got to have a rendering library.

      Metro is not HTML-based. Only Metro apps written in JS have to use HTML5 for their UI. Metro apps written in C++ or .NET have their own XAML stack, which is completely different (though it does have a WebView control, which, if you use it, is of course hosted IE).

    • by mjwx (966435)

      Don't forget -- Mozilla does the same thing by partnering to provide a default search engine.

      Yes, but Mozilla makes it trivial to change and DOES NOT bother you about it every 10 seconds.

      Just re-imaged a laptop.
      - Opens IE.
      - Navigate to a few sites (AVG, Firefox)
      - popup frame covers the page asking me to Install the BING bar.
      - clicks no
      - Clicking no tries to install Bing bar, I stop it.
      - Popup is back, INSTALL THE BING BAR
      - clicks no,
      - Again tries to install the Bing bar, again, I stop it.
      - RE

  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:10PM (#37850646)

    It's stupid to say that Microsoft cannot have a rendering engine on their OS that is required to be there by other parts of the OS.

    I am more than welcome, I'm sure (hey look! a Bingy firefox!), to download my own browser of choice and use it. It just won't be used for the parts of the OS that require their own rendering engine. Which makes sense; how can MS make sure that Firefox would render Metro style UI apps correctly? They HAVE to provide something to render. The fact that it's the same engine as renders webpages is, in my opinion, reusing something they already had developed. Makes sense to me.

    If they actually forced web browsing use it and didn't let you install Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc.... that'd be different.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Nobody ever said that. Removing internet explorer doesn't remove internet explorer. It just removes iexplore.exe and some other crap not needed to render HTML with a control.

    • by EdIII (1114411)

      Only problem I have with it is the rendering engine itself should be able to be replaced. MS has always been piss poor on rendering anything correctly. Probably has a lot to do with their attitude, and that is only *very* recently starting to change.

      So if the rendering engine is top notch, adheres to standards, cooperative with the global communities, and responsive to needed changes... great. That has not been MS behavior in the past though.

      In a way I do take this personally. I have to deal with way too

  • Spurious evidence. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Freak (16973) <prius.driver@NOSPaM.mac.com> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:17PM (#37850720) Journal

    Their evidence is that if they change a setting from default, then "uninstall" IE, then "reinstall" IE, it keeps the changed setting, it doesn't revert to default.

    That is their sole piece of evidence they claim in the article.

    That is the best "evidence" they could come up with? I have LOTS of apps that save their settings through an uninstall/reinstall! And those apps are definitely uninstalled.

    Does Microsoft actually "uninstall" IE9, 8, or 7, when you disable it? No. They haven't done that since IE 4 on Windows 98!

  • by exomondo (1725132) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:18PM (#37850726)

    IE 10 cannot be uninstalled and is required to enable the new 'Metro'-style apps.

    Thanks Captain Obvious, 'Metro' apps are HTML5-based so what did you think was going to happen? That they would have 2 separate rendering engines? What would be the point of that? So you turn IE10 off and you don't see it, then you install whatever browser you want for web browsing, what's wrong with that?

    • Yep. This is a non-issue. Anyone who cares will not be walking into the MS walled metro garden anyway.

    • 'Metro' apps are HTML5-based

      Metro is not HTML-based. Only Metro apps written in JS have to use HTML5 for their UI. Metro apps written in C++ or .NET have their own XAML stack, which is completely different (though it does have a WebView control, which, if you use it, is of course hosted IE).

      • by exomondo (1725132)
        Yes i could be pedantic and go to the nth degree about where and when HTML5 dependencies occur but of course that would have no impact on the point.
  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CSMatt (1175471) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @07:31PM (#37850842)

    Before the Slashdot crowd starts getting all fired up about history repeating itself, how Microsoft is the Great Satan, blah blah blah, let me be the first to ask, right now, in 2011:

    Why does this really matter anymore?

    First off, every OS nowadays comes with a Web browser. Indeed, we have reached the point in computing history where the OS is severely crippled if it didn't come with one. For all the IE hate that gets thrown around, how else are you going to download Firefox, at the very least? Mac OS X comes with Safari, which you can't remove. Many free software distros come with a browser (although I will concede that removing these are easier). Every mobile OS comes with a browser. Hell, iOS not only bundles Mobile Safari, but forbids you from any alternatives due to Apple's policies on not duplicating native features (and no, Opera Mini doesn't count).

    Second, true IE removal hasn't been possible since Windows 95. De-selecting IE, as the article mentioned, only hid it from access. The only way to truly rip it out of your system would have been to use something like 98lite or XPlite, and then you would have to deal with all of the incompatibilities that followed. A number of applications on Windows assume IE is there, and actually removing the Trident engine from the OS will make you unable to use both Windows and third-party software that needs that component. Microsoft couldn't offer a true IE removal tool if it wanted to, because it would be accused of breaking both Windows and third-party applications that use the Trident engine.

    Third, this should have been obvious from the moment Microsoft announced that Metro apps would use HTML5 and JavaScript. How exactly do you plan on running something in HTML5 and JavaScript without a rendering engine? So naturally disabling IE is going to disable Metro - there is simply no other way to run Metro apps. With that line of thinking, you might as well expect to run JARs without the Java VM installed.

    The real concern with this news is:
    1) How will this affect the security of the OS (as we're back to things like IE exploits affecting Windows itself, although reason 3 made that obvious anyway)?
    2) Is Microsoft going to exert pressure on OEMs again to not bundle Firefox or Chrome with their computers?

    If Microsoft makes it hard to get Firefox, Chrome, or another browser preinstalled on an OEM machine, then one can argue that there's an antitrust issue. Otherwise, this is just the logical conclusion of the path Microsoft chose for itself (Metro is the future, etc.) as well as everybody else more or less already doing the same thing.

    • The whole browser antitrust suit was bullshit to begin with. Or at least the merits of it. The not allowing of alt browsers is hardly MS's biggest transgression. Not allowing for alternative boot loaders was.

      How much do you want to bet the Firefox with Bing was an attempt to placate the doj when they announced this? "Sure you can ship an alternate browser, this Firefox bundle with Bing sure is attractive..."

      • by Obfuscant (592200)

        The not allowing of alt browsers is hardly MS's biggest transgression. Not allowing for alternative boot loaders was.

        No, forcing hardware vendors to sell a Windows license with every system they sold if they wanted to sell them with any system was. As an early linux adopter, I got really tired of paying extra for MS-DOS, and then Windows, on every system I bought, just so I could wipe the disk and install something usable. I was never prevented from installing an "alternative boot loader". Lilo never complained that it couldn't write itself to the MBA.

        By the way, I was buying systems with taxpayer dollars. If you paid t

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:39PM (#37851332) Homepage Journal

          I was never prevented from installing an "alternative boot loader".

          I guess you missed the recent stories about UEFI secure boot. All PCs that ship with Windows 8 (OEM version) are required to ship with UEFI secure boot turned on and with Microsoft's certificate loaded. They are not necessarily required to let the owner of a PC turn off UEFI secure boot or install other operating system publishers' certificates.

    • First off, every OS nowadays comes with a Web browser.

      The problem isn't that the OS comes with a web browser.

      The problem is that Microsoft, who has a monopoly position in operating systems, is leveraging that position to gain control of another market (web browsers). That's an immoral business practice, and that is exactly why we made it illegal with antitrust law.

    • by yuhong (1378501)

      1) How will this affect the security of the OS (as we're back to things like IE exploits affecting Windows itself, although reason 3 made that obvious anyway)?

      The key question would be how many apps using MSHTML uses it to load remote (as opposed to local) content?

    • by Mullen (14656)

      Mac OS X comes with Safari, which you can't remove. Many free software distros come with a browser (although I will concede that removing these are easier). Every mobile OS comes with a browser. Hell, iOS not only bundles Mobile Safari, but forbids you from any alternatives due to Apple's policies on not duplicating native features (and no, Opera Mini doesn't count).

      Sorry, wrong, "sudo pkgutil --forget com.apple.pkg.Safari50SnowLeopard" for those on Snow Leopard with Safari 5, and there is also another for Lion. In MacOSX, you can remove iTunes, Safari and just about any other app that is installed that you don't want installed. People tend to think that OSX is really tightly tied together, but it is not.
      Also, WebKit for iOS can be replaced with another framework, you just have recompile your iOS apps. However, WebKit is based off an Open Source Software package and al

      • by tepples (727027)

        Also, WebKit for iOS can be replaced with another framework, you just have recompile your iOS apps.

        I was under the impression that any other framework rendering HTML and JavaScript would get the app rejected by Apple.

  • Metro seems like an upgraded version of HTAs. HTAs are applications written in HTML + CSS + Javascript that run as standalone apps with standard application privileges on Windows. They are just HTML files renamed to .HTA that Windows runs with mshta.exe. They started back with IE5.

    Metro is clearly an improvement, but it is also clearly not some brand spanking new path down which MS is traveling. It is taking something they've been doing for over a decade and fleshing it out a lot more.

    So where's t
  • And you're surprised why? Short of a permanent injunction this was completely predictable. Now the fun would be if they're taken to court over this again and have to remove IE again after welding it back in once more.
  • by baegucb (18706)

    They didn't learn their lesson. And no, I didn't read TFA.

  • The Solution! (Score:5, Informative)

    by morari (1080535) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @08:22PM (#37851226) Journal

    It’s worth noting that when you “turn off” IE 10 in the Windows 8 Developer Preview, you also turn off the Metro interface. No IE 10, no Metro apps.

    That sounds like a very simple and elegant solution to both the problem of having Metro and Internet Explorer on a machine. Windows 8 might be worth using after all. :)

Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.

Working...