Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tech Talk - Gadgets, Gizmos and Technology' started by LarryFlowers, Jul 29, 2009.
Oh, this is something I more then agree with you. Microsoft should've never done that.
This is obviously were we disagree, but so I am clear and this is why I hold the position I do... I never said IE got its dominant position because of MS.
In my opinion (Pre-FireFox) IE got it dominant position because of two things.
1) MS bundled it with the OS producing a no hassle free way to browse the net.
2) At the time Netscape was based on a purchase model, without revenue it could not continue developing and faded. It tried but a the same time if I recall skipped a beat and could not recover. The 64K question is could this of happened if MS never bundled IE. I think the answer would be no.
MS then slowed down the browser development as the main competitor could not compete as it had no way of getting revenue based on the current software industry landscape.
This to me is how MS got up to 85% market share... What has changed since is opensource software exploded as an alternative and it has allowed companies to produce competitive products like FireFox.
In the end... A number of years back when this came up during the lawsuits, I believe MS should have been forced to go this route but was not. Today like I said I think it is too late but I guess better late than never.
You obviously see it differently and nothing wrong with that.. Guess we should agree to disagree and watch to see if this change as any effect. My guess is it won't and it this is not because people love IE, it would in my opinion be because people are now just use to using it and like I have heard 1000 times when I asked why they use IE over the alternatives and 99% of the time the answer is along the lines.... "It does the job and it right there on my desktop."
You're seeing the entire market through the narrow view that is your own unique experience.
The fact remains that there is an overwhelming majority of users who have no clue as to what the alternative browser choices are, or how easily they can be obtained and implemented. There was a knowledge bubble up until about 1999-2000 wherein computers were still curious novelties to enough people that many of us were hungry to know all we could about how they worked and how to make them work better for us.
At that time, yes, users knew enough to make changes and give decent market share to non-IE browsers.
That's simply not true anymore.
Computers are becoming more and more like appliances. Since the next generation is having access to them from birth, there is no real curiosity about how they work. Reliability improvements in operating systems have served to reinforce the appliance perception.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Look back through industrial history and you can draw parallels with other devices we have developed and perfected over time.
Because of less reliable components and a lack of disposable income, I used to do most of my own automobile service work. Therefore, I now know a great deal more than my children do about how cars work and how to fix them when they break down.
My '71 Cutlass, '76 pickup, and my '86 pickup kept me under the hood and knowledgeable for quite some time.
My newer vehicles have gone 150,000 miles with no more effort from me than driving them through the Jiffy Lube.
I could change the oil myself, but it's only because I've been there and done that.
The next generation hasn't a clue.
The same thing applies to computers.
The masses are being dumbed down by system reliability and improvements. I'm not using the term in a derogatory fashion. I'm simply pointing out the realities of today's computing public.
Given your statement regarding switching if another browser blows you away, I would even go so far as to say that your views have become more restricted over time, and that you yourself are slipping back into the blissful ignorance which dominates the IE user base.
Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, who has used IE7/8 alongside Firefox 3.x with Adblock Plus, and who still cannot see the Firefox advantages, cannot be saved. :nono:
Disturbingly, PCs are becoming not much more than portals to various gaming sites, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, et al.
+1 on Marlin Guy's post... This is one of the main reason why I believe that even if something is done now in terms of an attempt to level the playing field that it won't make a big difference in the mix. There has been too much time to create a mindset given that most people of today see PCs as appliances and in a lot of cases they are. Don't get me wrong, I still think the industry should move in this direction but I am sorry to say I feel it is about 5 years too late.
Anyone that thinks that Browser's are not significant should look at where MS is going with Word. What Google is doing. Biggest buzz technology is Cloud computing. All these things feed into Browser as your OS philosophy.
For this generation to blossom a level playing field needs to be provided where Browser manufactures can compete on providing the best standardized solutions in both allowing full featured RIA applications along side cool Web sites that deliver a rich user experience no matter what browser you are using.
There will be a day where IE6 finally dies and all will rejoice. Hopefully then all browser manufactures will be competing in a level playing field and over time the one that delivers the most reliable and feature rich experience will win.
Just as a Data point, my company has moved to developing Flex apps and one of the main reasons is a rich desktop experience in browser agnostic environment. 5 years ago, it was acceptable to be IE only. Today it is no and customers are requesting both Firefox and Apply support. To me this is good signs that the key here is portability, the EU goals that i see here also drives to this goal though my guess is there motives might be for other reasons.
In the desktop arena, an OS without some basic utilities is dead on arrival. Paint, wordpad, notebook, file explorer, and calculator are some of the basics an OS just gotta have.
And many people sold more advanced tools: Lotus, Visicalc, Excel, Word, Wordstar, etc., etc., etc.
When it became clear MS would use their application knowledge to help their OS and more importanly their OS knowledge to help their applications have an unfair advantage, Microsoft was required to completely separate the teams. All publications of info to the Application teams had to be truly public to all application vendors simultaneously.
So Gopher came about. That didn't last long.
And along came Mosaic, Netscape, and IE. Microsoft quickly realized the power of the Web (just as they had realized the power of the Windowing environment invented by Xerox PARC).
So Microsoft tried to claim the browser was "The UI", hence a required part of the OS. In reality, it isn't nearly as all inclusive as Microsoft claimed it was (or at least they didn't make it so.)
So is it a "basic OS" utility or advanced application? Now, if Microsoft had two versions, like IE and IEpad, or IE works and IE, the incarnations would be clear. But they don't.
At this point in time, I guess I'm satisfied that Microsoft has been granted a gray area. Browsing is a basic utility, but the market also needs opportunities for other advanced applications to compete.
The O/S doesn't need to have all these bells and whistles. It only stifles innovation. If Microsoft didn't include them, there would be dozens of options and many, if not all of them would be superior.
Leave the "essentials" to the system builders. Microsoft hasn't demonstrated a particularly good stewardship in this area.
Yes, things like Dos certainly 'helped innovation' when companies and people spent more time finding programs and hacking configuration files then doing anything....
And if you want to talk about leaving essentials to system builders (Which I guess means ignore anyone who builds their own pc, or buys a new OS), you mean make it more difficult for them to put the same programs back on? Because it would esp. cost businesses and such more money to teach people different programs.
Nobody has given a valid reason why OS's shouldn't have these beyond making things more difficult for people who buy OS's and whining because Microsoft has extras.
For everybody in the topic who argues that OS's shouldn't have bells and whistles:
Stop listening to mp3s on your pc. You have a radio to do that. If not get one, it's a bell and whistle right?
Stop using word processing software and go use a typewriter.
Stop printing things digitally and write it out.
The point is, there are alot of things today that aren't exactly NEEDED, but are helpful to have. And this entire argument that computer programs don't need bells and whistles is completely idiotic and goes against the complete foundation that computers have had when they replaced radios, type writers, etc.
Computer systems have LONG been about bells and whistles. Computer systems have been meant to replace a large number of things. Computer systems are supposed to do the widest amount of things possible, and computer software goes by that same premises.
Hell, in all honesty, your computer isn't a requirement for your survival, neither is any of this electrical stuff, so why not go live in a cave and use a stick to get food?
The point is that those things don't need to be included in the OS. An OS doesn't need to be any more that just that, an OS, a basic program to make the machine run other programs. All the other stuff is fluff, bloatware.
There are dozens of free calculators, music players, video players, readers, browsers, word processors, games and other programs and utilities. Let ME choose what I want.
Remember the KISS philosophy ...... Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Considering you use your pc for everything from communicating to people at any one moment, to watching movies, playing games, downloading stuff, word processing, animation, buying stuff, nutrition, weight measurement, so on and so forth... The KISS philosophy doesn't belong in the computer realm.
Again, you guys may want to go live in a cave. That is keep it simple, stupid. That is KISS in a nutshell.
You know, in all honesty, in the days of dos only us real geeks were into computers. Sometimes people laughed at us, at our geekdom.
The only reason more people use it is due to computers being what they should be. And sorry to say, computers were never meant to be black and green with everything typed on a keyboard, they were meant to replace everything you do.
The reason computers are so popular today is because they do anything you want, and that includes the OS. It's helpful. There are a few programs I would rather download then use, but sorry to say, I'd rather have a majority of the stuff that is on Windows on it.
If some of you guys were decision makers, 99% of you guys wouldn't be on this forum. It would be back to only those who knew what they were doing did it, and as a person who has been thru that time as a child, I'm glad it's over.
And lets be clear here:
Maybe MS paint is a cheap as hell program (Which actually, the windows 7 version isn't bad). Unless I need a good image editing program, if all I am doing is adding text or shrinking pics to a different resolution, do I NEED another program?
Calculator... The Win 7 and Vista versions are decent, but it still pales to a graphing calculator. And guess what? Still gets the job done unless you are doing high level math.
Notepad? Wordpad? More or less 'office 2007 lite'. And guess what? Unless I need office 2007 (Which I do), why should I not have the program?
You guys are talking an OS, but this is a program you buy. And this is the first program that is installed on your pc. Saying it should simply run other program is a ludicrous argument, because taking away stuff preinstalled simply hurt others.
Whats most hilarious of all is that people are basically suggesting that Microsoft include other competitors products while saying an OS shouldn't have bells and whistles. Should it come with Norton as well guys?
Perhaps you guys would rather have all of the Microsoft stuff included with Windows replaced by adware, trialware, and crapware that is usually found in any pre-built machine?
I think the point of all of this guys, is that you are busy telling consumers what their best interests should be, when really, these programs are helpful. Guess what? Calculator and paint programs are a dime a dozen, why would I need to download something else to have the same type of thing because you guys hate Microsoft?
You guys are ignoring what consumers who use the OS (Like me) say and still try to argue that you care about consumers. The reality is all you guys want to do is hate Microsoft, and the people have spoken, rather you like it or not.
In all honesty, why does it even matter to you if I use MS Paint, or MS calculator? I mean I could find any free program and have the exact same thing, so why does it matter so much? It's my choice.
Why would you guys want to force everyone to download another program when these programs work perfectly fine unless you need something else? Are you guys so desperate to stop seeing the Windows label on all software apps?
Your ideas aren't adding to choices. Your ideas are Microsoft bashes without actually looking at what customers want. Your ideas TAKE AWAY CHOICE.
And again, I see nobody whining when people who buy an Apple pc use what Apple adds to their OS.
The point of an operating system is to facilitate the operation of useful software, not to include marginal examples of same.
If developing good software for the operating system is so difficult that simple tools are prohibitively difficult to create, maybe there is a place for quick and dirty tools to accomplish basic needs. Apple is guilty of this in a big way as well.
In the grand scheme, an operating system should probably include a minimal screen oriented plaintext editor and something that will view (and possibly convert) text files from other platforms. To provide much more is to step on the toes of people writing real applications.
I'll take improved versions of Paint, NotePad, WordPad, and the Calculator. I use these regularly. They don't bog down or bloat the actual operating system; they are not part of the kernel.
So why all the hullabaloo? They are just nice extras that obviously are not meant to compete with full fledged industrial strength applications. Use them if you want or delete them if they are wasting too much space on your terabyte hard drive.
In respect for the Op post, this thread is not utilities delivered on Windows and their value.. It is about the EU wanting Windows to provide browser choice with their OS delivery.
Lets try and keep to the subject as much as possible.
I thinks this whole issue is absurd. Windows does not block users from downloading and using whatever browser they want. It comes with IE because it is a Microsoft pproduct. If you want to use Safari go download it. I cant believe they are wasting their time worrying about this.
It's obvious MS and the EU don't like eachother. They've been fighting for years and MS decided it wasn't worth the PR battle.
To the other comments well it's history but I remember when compuserve and AOL were bundled with Netscape not IE and they were the largest ISP's in America at the time. Millions of people used Netscape and went away from it.