
Microsoft: No browserless Windows 7 after all | Beyond Binary - CNET News - ErrantX
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10301299-56.html
======
jasonkester
Why force people to make a choice? It's in the best interest of the computer
user to have a browser installed by default. Since Microsoft makes a browser,
it makes sense to use that one with their operating system. End of story.

Yeah, there's history behind this, but really, it was TWELVE YEARS AGO. It's
time to move on.

An operating system should come with some basic tools like a command shell,
file manager, web browser, text editor, calculator, media player etc. As a
user, if I want to upgrade any one of those things, I can do so. But please
don't leave them off the system just because there are 3rd party alternatives.
And please don't show me a screen full of options for every one of them.

This was a silly issue to squabble over back in the 90's, and it's only gotten
sillier since.

~~~
bk
Back then people didn't take issue with IE shipping _with_ windows, but _as_
Windows. MS tried its typical bullying tactics to squeeze out competitors. IE
became so tightly integrated into Windows that it a) couldn't be removed
without wrecking the OS, and b) enjoyed low-level (performance enhancing) OS
access that was refused to competing browser/app makers.

So it was not silly to "squabble" over it. MS wanted to dominate the web as a
proprietary platform and extension of Windows. This was a real threat back
then.

You could be using "IE 5.8 service pack 14" right now, writing jscript (not
javascript), MSHTML, and active-x plugins, enjoying horrific security issues
exacerbated by a browser monoculture, and being treated as a second class
citizen if you use any other browser than said IE 5.8, since you'd have to
reverse engineer all the interfaces and get sued in the process to make
active-x etc. work in competing browsers.

~~~
pedalpete
Your first paragraph made sense. I think you lost it in the IE5.8 world. Which
is why you may have been down-voted.

I think the point being that removing/unbundling the browser may not be as
important as making sure that users aren't only locked in to using your
browser.

------
GeneralMaximus
This is a big win, IMO. As much as I despise Microsoft's monopoly over the
desktop OS market (and to a lesser extent, the browser market), the decision
to ship Win7 without a browser was douchebaggery on a whole new level. A
browser is now an integral part of every OS, just like a file manager or an
image viewer. Removing it does more harm than good, and only serves to confuse
the average user.

------
pedalpete
I was always suspicious of this 'no browser' thing. How did they expect people
to select and then download a browser without a browser already installed?

Sure you could have installed files which connect to ftp or something like
that, but is it really worth making new users go through that? I think the
solution they are going with is great, as it lets average users know other
browsers exist. But i suspect most will still stick with IE.

I am caught wondering if the placement of Google, and the big google logo
might be a boon to Chrome, as lots of people I'm sure will start and think
'oh, i want to go to google', clicking the link and thinking that is what it
does.

~~~
ErrantX
r.e. the Google logo. That was my initial thought too - a great place to have
your brand.

