SuperSite Blog

I am sick and tired of this horse*hit. I will be bailing on Firefox as soon as I can. And I will never ever use Opera. It's time the losers concentrate on making a better product that everyone wants to use, than use lobbying tactics to one-up the competition.

Is Mozilla and the EU complaining about the bundling of IE or the integration of IE in the OS? There is a difference. Either way, I think that this is a farce of a suit and demonstrates, again, that it is cool to bash on Microsoft...no matter if there is merit or not.

By the way...I notice that Sharky keeps getting jumped on Paul's site...are you going to stand for that?

--tayme

I believe that the 21% penetration figure for Firefox understates its real share. Many business installations are locked down so that nothing gets installed. As a sometimes Sysadmin I can understand why. If we assume that locked down machines represent half of all Windows PCs then Firefox's share where people have a choice is starting to approach 40-50%.

I will not be giving up Firefox just because they have an agenda in the EU antitrust arena. Should I give up using Windows because Microsoft has often lied and spread half-truths about Linux? I think not.

www.pcpro.co.uk/.../firefox-exec-we-dont-want-to-be-bundled-with-windows.html

"Connor also attacked Opera's claims that bundling harms competition. "Opera's asserting something that's provably false," Connor said, referring to Firefox's ever improving market share, which now stands at just over 20% worldwide. "It's asserting that bundling leads to market share. I don't know how you can make the claim with a straight face," he said."

Paul I feel you are missing the crucial difference. You can remove Firefox from a Linux installation. You cannot uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows. You're forced to have it there even if you don't want it.

Firstly:

You can remove Safari from Macs.

You can remove Firefox from Linux.

You can't remove IE from Windows.

"Firefox is over twice as successful as the Mac (from a usage share perspective)"

You do realise that Firefox can be installed on Macs too right? Tssk.

In our early days as an ISP (we go back to late 1993), we used Opera as the browser with which to get Windows users connected to the web.  (And NCSA Mosaic for the Mac, nearly half our base then.)

I haven't seen much point in Opera since then (and won't have it on a machine as long as it includes a bitTorrent client).

Paul,

I have to agree with the sentiment on here. Every version of Internet Explorer has been removeable from Windows until we got to Internet Explorer 7. Then for some completely stupid reason, they were locking Internet Explorer into Windows. WHY?

IE is not an essential element of Windows. You can download a browser  using a USB thumb drive. That goes for Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome. Microsoft is adding to their anti-trust problems by doing this lockin strategy with IE 7 and 8.

My solution is to keep pushing Microsoft to un-bundle IE 8 and add it to the Windows Live Essentials suite along with Windows Media Player. Instead of a browser, why not include a download manager with a limited browsing component to download applications directly to Windows? That way users can download Firefox without having to untangle IE 8. Also, this could also be accomplish during the installation as long as you have Internet access.

This accomplishes two things. First, it pretty much kills Opera's argument cold. Nothing bundled in Windows and the option for folks to download Opera, FireFox, Chrome, or Safari first. You could then have Microsoft tab that gives you access to Windows Live Essentials with IE 8 and WMP.

Second, it adds a download manager into Windows. Make it deleteable too. Then if you don't like the MIcrosoft provided manager, you can delete it and replace it if you wish. That way if the internet connection is broken, you don't have to start completely over.

If MIcrosoft is going to end this nonsense in Europe, they've go to suck it up and deal. This part of removing IE is negociable, if Opera is willing to allow a limited browsing component download manager. I think this is a sensible solution to this situation. Windows 95 didn't have a browser when it was first launched and everything went okay then. We managed to get IE on the OS. If anything, Microsoft can hand out USB thumb drives with IE for those who want it. If not, this EU nonsense will go on for year after year. This is one concession that might do Windows a lot of good.

MS should make a Windows 7 version called Windows 7 Nothing and only make it available in Europe (no ones going to buy it anyway).  Have NO apps on it all so when you hit the start menu you only see utilities like control panel.  No browser, nothing, not even notepad.

Give everyone in the EU a free copy and tell them to shut up.

@subzero - I agree with most of your thoughts...although, what is then to stop Opera, Mozilla, the EU and the rest of them from b%#&ching about the download manager? And you know that they would do it...like I sad, it is cool to bash Microsoft.

Remember all of those floppies and CDs with AOL and then Netscape that you could pick up at Walmart, BestBuy, Frys, etc? That is what the thumb drives would end up being...

--tayme

Nutts, you can remove Safari from Macs.  But I don't believe you can remove WebKit (at least not without crippling many of both Apple and non-Apple programs).

At this point in the evolution of the business, I don't see the integration of the rendering part of IE into Windows as a problem.  I think Microsoft might be wise to let one hide the GUI part of IE.

Once the US Justice Department wimped out on the antitrust case, I believed that MS's big problem going forward would be the EU.  (I didn't expect Korea also to be a problem--I missed that.)

I also felt that MS would have been better off broken up (carefully, not necessarily by a judge).  Would the sum of the parts be priced under $20 today (and under $30 for a long time now)?  I don't think so.  But I'm happy, living within mortar range of Redmond, since the behemoth is good for the economy around here, and at least one of the parts would not have stayed (Austin was one likely target).

You can remove Safari from Macs.

You cannot remove Webkit framework from the Macs.

You can remove the IE executable from Windows.

You cannot remove the base framework and DLLs that constitute the web-browsing and HTML rendering functionality in Windows, without destabilizing application performance.

Posts like this make me think MS has hired Paul as part of its PR arm.

Oh, and Paul needs to learn what 'jump the shark' means.

I agree completely, Paul.

>>I will not be giving up Firefox just because they have an agenda in the EU antitrust arena. Should I give up using Windows because Microsoft has often lied and spread half-truths about Linux?<<

Well said.  Paul is just trying to start some kind of 'movement'.

I've been a Firefox user for several years now, but I'm ready to ditch it.  It's annoying me more and more each day I use it.  What keeps me using Firefox today?  AdBlock Plus.  That's all.  If I could find a product as good as AdBlock Plus on IE, I would switch back in a heartbeat.

Firefox just ain't that great anymore.

@tayme,

My idea is essentially a plea bargan. Removing IE 8 but with the concession of a download manager. You have to have something to interact with the web, until you get a full fledged browser. If Opera wants IE out so badly, a harmless download manager isn't going to be considered anti-competitive.

At least folks would have a free thumb drive they could delete and use for other things. If its on Microsoft's dime, that really wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

On the otherhand, what's to stop me complaining about Opera's crappy and useless browser? How much marketshare does Opera have? 0.70 percent. At some point, Opera has to really consider if its product is really viable against Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. At least Chrome has over 1 percent of a user base.

Subzero thinks the EC saga will end wen IE is unbundled from Windows. Well, it won't. It started with WMP. Now it's IE. It might be something else next. This is going to be a never ending saga if someone doesn't stop the EC.

It's not Microsoft's job to bundle competing browsers in Windows. It's the OEM's job. And for the right price, I'm sure OEM's will be more than willing to help out. Regarding unbundling IE from Windows, is that such a big deal? Will it really make that much of a difference to your computing experience?

Google has to really be careful with this one. When the EC has milked MS dry, Google just might end up being the next target.

"By the way...I notice that Sharky keeps getting jumped on Paul's site...are you going to stand for that?"

:-) Paul doesn't seem to care.

I think Chrome is a much bigger threat to Firefox at the moment than IE is.

Mozilla is probably using Edwards' strategy during last year's Democratic primaries, where he tried to gang up with Obama against Hillary and get her out of the race after Iowa, so that he could worry about Obama later.

I think to really understand this, you have to look a few moves ahead.

From what I've read, I suspect that what Opera is after (and a possible outcome of this EU action) is that Microsoft (or its OEMs) be required at first run to give the user the option of selecting their default browser from a list of pre-installed options.  As in:

Select Default Browser:

 * Internet Explorer

 * Opera

I further suspect that Mozilla sees this as a possibility, and doesn't want to be left out of that equation.  Which could be why they signed on to this case.  Makes sense to me.

@WebGuy:

OEMs are already free to install Opera or any other browser as a default for users, just like they can install other media players. Microsoft can't stop OEMs from installing "crapware". Of course, OEMs usually get paid for it. I think Opera wants that free of cost and the EC wants some money to help it during this recession.

Uh, oh, another faux outrage alert.

Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

I have to agree with Shark: it is not Microsoft's job to include every possible browser as an option during installation. If the OEM's feel like installing Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari or any other browser they manage to find, that is their prerogative, however it is not something that should be forced upon Microsoft.

You must realize that you can change the default browser and you shouldn't be allowed to remove the HTML rendering engine because so many programs rely on it being part of Windows. If  I were to say that .Net is harmful to competition and must be removed from Windows, that would cause quite a ruckus in the software developer community because having at least .Net 2.0 has become an expectation: the same goes for this situation, everyone expects the operating system has the necessary DLL's to render HTML.

Finally, if Microsoft were to bundle other browsers with their operating system they would then be responsible for ensuring that these browsers are secure. Imagine if Opera were to go out of business, could no longer provide patches and had some extremely exploitable hole in their code. That would be quite the source of problems for Windows users, would it not?

Letting Microsoft continue the sorts of tactics that it employed in the 90's would've been destructive to the market, however you can't go to extremes: what the EU is doing now is damaging the market as well.

@subzerohitman721: I don't believe such a solution would EVER work. Most people don't care what browser they use; they simply expect to have a web browser available, and for many people that means 'clicking the little blue "e"'. An OS without a browser is useless. How is Joe User supposed to get a web browser if all he has is a download manager? What use is a download manager without a browser with which to find links?

Not to mention, as said here already, it would be highly unrealistic for Microsoft to remove IE from windows. Doing so would break many existing applications which rely on its framework and rendering engine to display content. The best they could really do would be to remove the client interface binaries and leave the necessary framework files, but then what's the point? you may as well just delete your shortcuts and get rid of iexplore.exe, since that's about all they could really do anyway.

"MS should make a Windows 7 version called Windows 7 Nothing and only make it available in Europe (no ones going to buy it anyway).  Have NO apps on it all so when you hit the start menu you only see utilities like control panel.  No browser, nothing, not even notepad."

They should just release the NT kernel without a shell.  Cuz, you know, that's all that Linux is after all.

As a side note about Mac's:

You also can't remove the Quicktime API's and Adobe PDF components from OS X.

What about the shell?  Apple has a monopoly on the shell of OS X.  It's BSD Unix, but why can't they unbungle Aqua from it?

As someone else has already mentioned, Paul needs to research what "jump the shark" really means.  

Obviously, if Mozilla feels there some anti-trust issues that need to be deatl with, then they must be on to something.

Threatening to stop using Firefox "based on principle" because someone is picking on Microsoft doesn't do much for your credibility and debunks your objectivity when reporting on Microsoft issues.  

I've always enjoyed this column (though sometimes you sip the Kook-aid a bit much)  and you can be fairly objective at times when it comes to criticizing Microsoft, but even if you stop using Firefox, who wins?  Who cares?

IE has closed the gap on Firefox, but it will perpetually be in Firefox's shadow and I think Mozilla has no problem living with that.

I have downloaded Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and just recently Opera. I have gone back to using IE. I use IE because I like using the browser, not because it's the default browser in Windows.

People can download and use other browsers. I think those that complain about MS and IE fail to see that there are people like me, that know of other browsers but choose to use IE.

It sounds to me that what Mozill and Opera are complaining about -- Microsoft cramming its browser don't people's throat, is something that Mozilla and Opera want to do themselves.

@chuckb84

"Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage."

I think Paul has integrity and this post was not motivated by anything other than his being upset by Mozilla's statements and actions. I suspect that upon reflection Paul will soften his stance and not give up on Firefox. After all, where else can one find thousands of addons? No other browser has anything like that ecosystem.

I'm using Opera, Paul. Am I no one?

"chuckb84 said:

Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage."

Really? So you have the photo of Ballmer handing Paul a check, right? Or something that constitute proof to people who are not morons?

Yeah, didnt think so.

I could understand Pauls stance if Googles actions threatened the existence of MS...but they don't.  The Browser stuff is a blip on MS' radar.

This is fanboyism at its worst.

@RobertC, if he's watching:

Re:  Telstra

42Mbps is considered HSPA+.  According to their own press releases, they were only set to launch 21Mbps service by the end of 2008.  I highly doubt their entire network is able to carry that though.  In urban areas, it's altogether possible, but very doubtful they have towers capable of that in rural areas.

From their press release:

"Trials of the 21Mbps mobile broadband modem will begin in December with a full commercial launch to follow early next year."

www.telstra.com.au/.../announcements_article.cfm

Also:

"Peak network downlink speeds on the Next G™ network will have evolved from 3.6Mbps to 21Mbps in just over two years, providing extra speed, flexibility and productivity in the network footprint covering more than two million square kilometres and 99 per cent of the Australian populations."

--dated November 2008 - so that means they don't expect to hit peak downlink speeds until early 2011.

"I could understand Pauls stance if Googles actions threatened the existence of MS...but they don't.  The Browser stuff is a blip on MS' radar.

This is fanboyism at its worst."

Reallly, Ocean. Reallly????

And who exactly are YOU to point this out to anyone?

I mean, dont you have some more MS sucks links to posts, Mr. I take no sides on nothing, ever!

Tell us more about how Paul is soooooooo E-VILE. Soooooo disgusting, and soooooooooooooo pathetic! And how you re here to save us from that SOB and his Prop-O-ganda!

It's not like you've got anything else to do.

What ever happened to 'if you don't want to use it, then don't use it"? People have plenty of unused BS apps on their computers. I do note that you can change the default browser in Windows to what you want, so what's the big deal?

Bing DRWAM.  And posted away from the blog, Paul has this to say about yesterdays news:

>>This is, I feel, unbelievably dangerous for Microsoft....By licensing ActiveSync to Google, Microsoft has in effect handed over the keys to the kingdom, allowing Google to give away what Microsoft once provided only for a heady fee. Google doesn't even use ActiveSync with Exchange, as is the case with most ActiveSync licensees.<<

I must say it works great.  But if you don't like it, don't use it.

Oh, and Paul calls for this too:

>>as far as Office on the Mac goes, I say we're well past the time where Microsoft can justify the existence of its MacBU. It's time to cut the cord and let Apple compete on an even playing field, not one where the number one Mac application is created by its most hated competitor.<<

No business justification...just fanboism.

"No business justification..."

Sure there is.

People buy Mac's....for whatever reason that might be....

People want Office.  That's a given considering that Office is the top-selling Mac program out there - it isn't iWork, that's for sure!

If Microsoft pulled Office for the Mac, those same people would need Windows.  That means more Windows copies sold.

-or-

The other side to that is that those same people would consider not buying a Mac.  Microsoft gets rid of a competing company that offers an alternate operating system.  They buy a PC running Windows anyway.

In either case, Microsoft wins.

It makes perfect business sense.

I seriously doubt you can remove all code used for safari from OSX (for the normal user anyway).  I uninstalled itunes on my wife's pc and it's still there - you just don't see a shortcut for it.

"Google doesn't even use ActiveSync with Exchange"

Is Microsoft charging to license ActiveSync?  If so, it's still money in pocket for them.

Come to think of it - Can anyone name 1 application that completly removes every registery entry, every file, and every bit of code that it uses?

Scott, practically every program that have have ever ran an uninstaller in Windows still leaves remnant files. You can remove every iTunes file from your Mac and it would not even blink. Of course, we're talkin browsers anyway.

My MIMvista software make CD's of patient's studies. They will not display for anything but IE. But if you have FF installed, it usually becomes the default. So, when doctors try to open/view/display the CD files, FF opens it and they get nothing but a window that tells them they need IE. If they are too stupid...I mean not savvy enough to know how to change the default browser, then they are screwed, thanks to FF. So am I [screwed] since they get pissed off at me!

Where are all these "fanboyism" comments when Paul criticizes Microsoft? Paul has been very critical of certain aspects of Windows 7 lately. He even lashed out at Microsoft for their handling of the UAC issue.

>>If Microsoft pulled Office for the Mac, those same people would need Windows.  That means more Windows copies sold.<<

That would be illegal use of its Monopoly status.

Killing the MacBU is dead on arrival proposition:

>>currently employing more than 180 people and having an estimated yearly revenue of $350 million.<<

en.wikipedia.org/.../Macintosh_Business_Unit

I can understand why Mozilla might want to go down this route, but they have gotten so far on the quality of the application, why spend time in the legal arena?  It's a low class response that we've come to expect from Opera, but not from Mozilla.  I can see where Paul is coming from.  However, I'm certainly not going to stop using the browser just because of this issue, even though I think it's a dumb move, and they're just trying to get on the MS money train.

Removing a web browser from the OS is just plain dumb.  What do you want to bet that the same people that are calling for this will be the first to deride MS for not including a necessary feature?  A computer without a web browser is like dry *****, useless (I'll leave it to everyone to figure that one out).

@Ocean - "Killing the MacBU is dead on arrival proposition"

Tell that to the thousands that have been laid off in many industries that felt that they were secure where they were? You can never say never right now.

"That would be illegal use of its Monopoly status."

Only if it could be shown that they were killing the BU off in order to increase marketshare of Windows. In these economic times, there are a lot of business units and companies that are closing the doors.

--tayme

I agree with most of you, I just transfered my bookmarks and feeds to IE8 using Foxmarks. I don't understand why Mozilla would go this route considering their success the last couple of years. I understand why the whiners at Opera did it. They are pathetic and weak, but Firefox just alienated me and many others that previously respected them. IE8 works great and manages my feeds fine, the reasons I used Firefox are moot now so screw em!

Wae, "LTE seems to be the next logical option for cellular providers since it doesn't require a huge change in infrastructure, although it will for a CDMA provider, since it's based on GSM technology"

Not really.  GSM is the natural upgrade path for GSM providers, but it is not based necessarily on the GSM standard.  GSM is just upgraded TDMA.  The All-IP infrastructure in LTE and the OFDMA air interface more resemble CDMA than anything else, because of the packet based nature and not being confined to time slots like TDMA based networks are.  The nature of LTE also provides a very open approach to the air standard, paving the way for multiple air interfaces on one phone.  AT&T in the US, instead of going to LTE, is actually going to hobble themselves with a more expensive rollout as they are upgrading to HSUPA and HSPA+ in the mean time.  Sprint and Verizon's built out EV-DO networks are already fully deployed.

"That would be illegal use of its Monopoly status."

I have yet to see any antitrust actions being brought onto a company because they were pulling a product from market.

@Dipsh, whiplash55,

I think the reason Mozilla chose to go this route is that the browser market is no longer dominated by two players any more. Things have changed since Chrome and (to a lesser extent) Safari were released for Windows. It's a much more difficult market for Firefox to be operating in. Also, if Google does to bundle Chrome with new PCs, it'll make things that much more difficult for Mozilla because they probably cannot afford to pay OEMs that kind of money to bundle Firefox. In the short term, Mozzila's decision (and Opera's decision) will definitely benefit them. In the long term, though, the winner will still likely be Google.

>>Only if it could be shown that they were killing the BU off in order to increase marketshare of Windows.<<

Thats what was suggested.  Lots of good commentary in the following thread:

>>MacBU makes money, unlike IE, Windows Media, XBox, GamesForWindows, Zune, or a zillion other product lines. <<

>>Bill once stated "we make more money off of every Mac sale than Apple does"<<

>>Macs can run Windows. So Macs and PCs are not strict competitors.<<

>>Either he had a brain-fart or he's just after page views....<<

episteme.arstechnica.com/.../487007707931

"The All-IP infrastructure in LTE and the OFDMA air interface more resemble CDMA than anything else"

Actually, LTE doesn't require a huge infrastructure upgrade from existing GSM 3.5G networks.  LTE is part of the 3GPP.  CDMA is not.  (Although UMTS is AKA W-CDMA, they are not compatible with the 3GPP2 version of CDMA)

"AT&T in the US, instead of going to LTE, is actually going to hobble themselves with a more expensive rollout as they are upgrading to HSUPA and HSPA+ in the mean time."

AT&T is only trying to compete against their current market competition.  HSPA technologies are the evolution of UMTS, and all of which are GSM-based.  Sprint and Verizon don't have anything on the go right now except for EVDO [Rev.a].  LTE and WiMAX are only in trials, and expected rollout isn't until a few years time at best estimate.  AT&T already has HSDPA.  HSUPA is only the uplink side of things, and HSPA is a general all-encompassing technology term, often used to designate networks that use both HSDPA and HSUPA simultaneously.  For AT&T to release "full HSPA" (that is, to add HSUPA to HSDPA) they don't need to do a lot.  HSPA+ includes service speeds up to 42Mbps, but doesn't deviate much from the HSPA standard.  LTE does, but it still part of the 3GPP Group's proposed roadmap.

There is no logical evolution of CDMA beyond EVDO Rev.A though.  It is a dead end.  WiMAX is a completely separate set of technologies that don't coincide with any set cellular data specification group.  

"Lots of good commentary in the following thread"

*** technica is all commentary.  What's your point?

Mozilla is against Opera's suggestion to force vendors to offer more options for browsers than just bundle ONE browser - like IE with Windows, Safari with Mac, and Firefox with most Linux distros.

If Opera manages to force Microsoft to offer multiple browsers, Microsoft might insist that this policy be enforced on not just Windows, but also Mac and *nix  to provide a level playing field. This might hurt Mozilla, and hence they are pulling a trojan horse by on one hand supporting Opera's case, while at the other hand diluting it's remedy recommendation of having to bundle multiple browsers with a [Windows] operating system.

@Ocean - I should have known better than to respond to you...Talk about seeking page views...only in this case, you are trying to hijack somebody else's blog to get the views...weird.

--tayme

When you buy a Mac, you are buying an Apple computer and an Apple OS which includes Apple programs. It's a complete package that comes from one company. It's not the same thing as Windows at all. I bought my computer from Apple, it comes with Apple's OS and Apple's browser. Fine.

The issue is that other than buying a Mac, the vast majority of computers come pre loaded with Windows. There are a handful that come with Linux, but not many. So if the majority of the worlds computers, from hundreds of different hardware companies all run Windows that comes with built in Microsoft programs, how are other companies supposed to get their browsers and media players noticed? If Windows only came on Microsoft's own hardware, fair enough, but it doesn't. It has a virtual monopoly on all other hardware manufacturers. If I buy a Dell, there's a very strong chance it will come with Microsoft's OS and Microsoft's browser.

There is no chance of getting rival software out there unless Microsoft is forced to, baring in mind that the vast majority of users won't change default programs, because they simpler don't know better.

"So if the majority of the worlds computers, from hundreds of different hardware companies all run Windows that comes with built in Microsoft programs, how are other companies supposed to get their browsers and media players noticed?"

So by default, you are discrediting all developers that want to offer the same alternate browser, media player etc., choices to users of *nix and OS X; just because they aren't a majority market share?  Sorry, but that just doesn't jive.

"baring in mind that the vast majority of users won't change default programs, because they simpler don't know better."

That's not an argument.  Any browser, multimedia program, imaging program, and even search toolbar will ask the user anyway.  Google, Yahoo, Ask, (and most spyware too) even prevents future changes to the browser search engine settings, and Microsoft just recently added change prevention in Windows Live Wave 3 by way of Windows Live Choice Guard.

Similarly, OEM's can change defaults as well, so you can't even argue about them either.

"When the European Union complains about Microsoft's bundling of IE, I don't get it. The US has already curbed Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior quite nicely, thank you very much,"

Of course you don't get it. But that's the US. The world is a much bigger place and the rest of the world doesn't run by US rules (even as hard as you may try to invade other countries and impose your beliefs). So when the EU goes after Microsoft, don't forget that it's about /other/ countries out there and they have a right to do what they are doing. And good on them for pursuing Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior too. So saying that "The US has already curbed Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior" -- it means nothing. So what? This is not the US.

Now Mozilla have jumped the shark? How many posts are you going to go on with with the same line "So and so jumped the shark". You've probably run out of companies to mark as having had jumped the shark; all except Microsoft (of course).

Why put the word "bundling" in quotes? No need for it. It's a plain and simple fact, just unquote it and you make the same point without the melodrama.

"So. Looking ahead, I need to think things through. Will IE 8 be good enough that I can simply abandon a product that is made by a corporation I simply cannot support? Perhaps. Is this issue big enough to force me to actually make a stand? It just may be."

What is this? Some sort of moral ground you're taking? If people did that, no one would be using Evil Microsoft's products. It's amusing to read something like that by someone that makes a living from writing about Microsoft, and bagging other companies.

The rise and rise of Firefox can only be a great boon for the industry and for users as whole.

@ "Waethorn": "Sorry, but that just doesn't jive."

The word you're looking for is "jibe". I don't suspect they teach that in the Canadian "education" system:

www.wsu.edu/.../gibe.html

"If people did that, no one would be using Evil Microsoft's products."

They wouldn't use Apple either.

"The word you're looking for is "jibe"."

Sorry, but you're wrong.

It's "jive", a slang term meaning loosely, "to be consistent".

BTW:  Using WSU as a source just dropped yours (and probably everyone elses) IQ points about 20 figures.

"There is no logical evolution of CDMA beyond EVDO Rev.A though.  It is a dead end."

It *was* UMB.  It is indeed a dead end.  My point was that while the "brand" of CDMA is dead, the technological underpinnings are what is bringing on the 4G standard, not the long ago dead time division multiplexing.

No, it's "jibe".

Note the differences.

dictionary.reference.com/.../jive

"To talk nonsense; kid"

dictionary.reference.com/.../jibe

"be compatible, similar or consistent"

@boyreinvented - That is an extremely lame thought process. So, you are saying that if I go buy a new Ford and it is bundled with Goodyear tires that I should be able to force Ford to take the Goodyears off and replace them with Michelins? But if they made there own tires, it would be OK for them to force them on me? I should also be able to tell my town that I want my water from a different city, since they pipe it in from a larger municipality and I prefer the water from another place. But, if they drilled their own well and had their own treatment facility, they could tell me to go jump in a lake <--pun intended? Amazing!!!

In today's world, most people know how to download and install their browser of choice...heck, even my 70+ year old uncle was able to do so. The choice is there, its up to the people to make their own minds up...Do we still remember how to do that?

--tayme

"Do we still remember how to do that?"

I'll answer my own question...most people lost that ability in November, it seems...

-tayme

If you really think it's incorrect, go look it up in this book:  "The Dictionary of American Regional English"

@tayme:

You lost me at the point where you said "if I go buy a new Ford"....

Mozilla is doing what all companies do: Piling on.

Think about it: A competitor gets hammered by the government. Do you really care whether they have a good reason or not?

It might be sad, it might be a failing of the system, but Microsoft was the one who marshalled the government troops against the Yahoo/Google deal. Did they have a good reason? Yes. Is that why they did it? No.

For what it's worth, I moved to Chrome a little while back. It's good, it works well, I like it better.

It's disappointing that they've done this, but not surprising.

FYI, the EU is a bunch of idiots and they will eat themselves eventually.

Too right!

laughingsquid.com/os-x-software-we-can-believe-in-obama-themed-t-shirt-by-fastmac

Amen!

@Tayme

What I'm saying is, Apple doesn't push it's OS on other hardware. Microsoft pushes it's OS on pretty much all hardware going and in it's OS it pushes Microsoft programs. There is little alternative. Forcing the hardware market to only use your OS is anti-competitive and therefore bundling your software with the OS is also anticompetitive. If you think otherwise, you're just confirming my opinion of you.

"Master3 said:

"chuckb84 said:

Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage."

Really? So you have the photo of Ballmer handing Paul a check, right? Or something that constitute proof to people who are not morons?"

Uh, he writes books about Microsoft products, his entire livelihood depends on Microsoft succeeding. I didn't say anything about "Ballmer handing Paul a check". He just has a vested interest. He's not objective.

Paul says it himself, "It's time for Microsoft to respond to the challenges it faces with leadership and authority. And if you care about the systems you support now, your jobs, and your very livelihood, you might do demand the same from the company. All of us have backed the same horse."

His livelihood depends on Microsoft. That's his statement, not mine. I just point out that it makes his techinical commentary about, oh, Apple, Linux, Mozilla, and Google, somewhat suspect.

He may not even realize the double standard. Read the Upton Sinclair quote again.

ex-Vista boss releases solo album

www.pcauthority.com.au/.../136740,ex-microsoft-vista-chief-unveils-debut-solo-album.aspx

Explains a lot about Vista.

@boyreinvented:

I edited your illogical diatribe to show that it applies to Apple as well:

"What I'm saying is, Apple *prevents* it's OS *running* on other hardware. Microsoft *encourages you to run* it's OS on pretty much all hardware going and in it's OS it *doesn't prevent you from installing other* programs. There is *no* alternative *than paying the ransom to Apple to run its OS*. *Preventing the perfectly capable* hardware market *from running* your OS *so as to charge a premium from the users* is anti-competitive. If you think otherwise, you're just confirming my opinion of you.?

"And no one ever gets tired of talking up Apple's successes."

It's quite sad when the (scientifically proven) Windows user's inferiority complex shines through.

Really, the whole EU against Microsoft thing is... a good thing.

robertsjoe's posts remind me of wae's comment from yesterday:

""It's an Asian kid so in terms of intelligence she's the equivalent of a 10 year old white kid."

....or about 30 robertsjoes."

That was hilarious ... and so true. :-)

@robertsjoe - "the (scientifically proven) Windows user's inferiority complex"

Care to point me to the scientist or group that has "proven" this fictional complex that you like to toss around? Of course not...it is about as legitimate as you are...I do not expect an answer...I am assuming it is past your bedtime and this thread will be locked before you get up for school in the morning.

--tayme

@boyreinvented - "Forcing the hardware market to only use your OS"

Uh...that was over a decade ago and I will be the first to admit that they did that back then. At this point, they no longer do that...you know that, too, but are too blinded by bias to admit it. You are right up there with robertsjoe with your illogical behavior. I am guessing that you are a buddy of his from school that he talked into getting on Paul's site and spouting garbage.

--tayme

Really interesting work from Google

www.google.org/.../howitworks.html

Something for MS to copy. I mean, their search business is nothing compared to Google. Better try something else.

Hey Chuck, I'd missed that article.

Paul is really bummed about MS sharing Activesync with anyone...Apple, Google, etc.

From the article in July:

>>And honestly, why would Microsoft even license Exchange to Apple? Are they crazy? <<

Today:

>>This is, I feel, unbelievably dangerous for Microsoft....By licensing ActiveSync to Google, Microsoft has in effect handed over the keys to the kingdom<<

Microsoft should only sell "N" edition in the EU. I'd laugh.

All MS needs to do is to make IE completely uninstallable, like every other browsers on any OS

If nobody uses Opera, and yet I use Opera does that mean I no longer exist?

If so then I'm a remarkably tangible ghost. You could really make a great deal of money proving ghosts exists by using me as proof.

chuck, ocean, robertsjoe,boy, et al

Seems like your only purpose on this site is to point out how biased Paul is and to attempt to discredit him. (Of course, for ocean and robertsjoe trolling is probably a full time occupation.)

Again, just like no one is forcing you to use Microsoft's products, no one is forcing you to read this blog, so if you think Paul has no credibility, STOP WASTING EVERYONE ELSE'S TIME and go away. Please! You guys are more annoying than you realize.

@Waethorn,

Telstra's network is capable of 7.2mbps nationwide in Australia and will soon be capable of 42mbps. There is no regional/metro divide - the technology is the same and is accessible by 99% of the Australian population. The only factors that would effect one's ability to achieve maximum throughput would be the environment and distance from the cell tower.

The USA is very much behind the rest of the world in cellular technology, either way.

What is even more irksome is that the original antitrust case from 2004, in which Microsoft was found to have abused its market dominance by bundling Windows Media Player with every copy of Windows, the software giant was forced, among other things, to sell a version of Windows without Windows Media Player. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no demand for the reduced media edition of Windows, should a similar outcome be reached by the EU in the present case – whereby a version of Windows must be sold without Internet Explorer – the EU's gross imbecility will be cemented. Modern Operating Systems – be they Mac, Windows or Linux – are effectively emasculated without a browser. Indeed, without a bundled browser, consumers would not even be able to search for and download a competitor browser.

This leads me to conclude that the EU has become a rapacious addict to Microsoft's sizeable pool of profits, a pool from which the EU feels it is entitled to plunder as it so wishes. More disparaging is that this type of overzealous antitrust intervention fosters a market to become full of competitors that are prone to seeking regulatory solutions to their failed business plans rather than conducting honest self-assessments, rationalisation and innovating their way to success.

The late Milton Friedman's comments in relation to the US Department of Justice antitrust suit against Microsoft are as particularly resonant now, as they were in 1999:

"My own views about the antitrust laws have changed greatly over time. When I started in this business, as a believer in competition, I was a great supporter of antitrust laws; I thought enforcing them was one of the few desirable things that the government could do to promote more competition. But as I watched what actually happened, I saw that, instead of promoting competition, antitrust laws tended to do exactly the opposite, because they tended, like so many government activities, to be taken over by the people they were supposed to regulate and control. And so over time I have gradually come to the conclusion that antitrust laws do far more harm than good and that we would be better off if we didn’t have them at all, if we could get rid of them. But we do have them.

Under the circumstances, given that we do have antitrust laws, is it really in the self-interest of Silicon Valley to set the government on Microsoft? Your industry, the computer industry, moves so much more rapidly than the legal process, that by the time this suit is over, who knows what the shape of the industry will be. Never mind the fact that the human energy and the money that will be spent in hiring my fellow economists, as well as in other ways, would be much more productively employed in improving your products. It’s a waste! But beyond that, you will rue the day when you called in the government. From now on the computer industry, which has been very fortunate in that it has been relatively free of government intrusion, will experience a continuous increase in government regulation. Antitrust very quickly becomes regulation. Here again is a case that seems to me to illustrate the suicidal impulse of the business community."

"I've been a Firefox user for several years now, but I'm ready to ditch it.  It's annoying me more and more each day I use it.  What keeps me using Firefox today?  AdBlock Plus.  That's all.  If I could find a product as good as AdBlock Plus on IE, I would switch back in a heartbeat."

That is very true. Thats also the reason I use it.

Is it just me or does firefox turn into a piece of crap as soon as you start downloading plugins. Why are people allowed to write horrible code?

It reminds me of linux or the Apple app store. Most of the programs run like trash.

If anything the EU should go after how horribly itunes is written. Why do I have to restart my computer after uninstalling it? Why are over 5 services still running after un installing it? Why does it say 'unidentified publisher' for apple products? Are they that lazy? Why does it take 15 seconds to start up (like firefox after 3rd party plugins are installed).

I used to love the open source movement. But it wears thin pretty quick when nothing works...

I could help but laugh at Boyreinvented's assertion that Microsoft somehow forces themselves on people. You don't like PC's? Buy a Mac. You like PC hardware but don't want to use Microsoft products? Fine. Nothing stopping you at all.

Dell and plenty of others sell PC's with Linux on them. The fact that no one buys that crap isn't Microsoft's fault.

I honestly think that "boyreinvented"'s post was one of the dumbest things I've read on the internet. Sorry, that might sound mean, but I honestly had read it 3 times and it still reads stupid.

Nice copy and paste job, boyreinvented...it did not help your credibility, though. Your posts are still meaningless like your pal, robertsjoe.

--tayme

>>It reminds me of linux or the Apple app store. Most of the programs run like trash.<<

Really?

Ocean, don't feed the troll.

Jumping the Shark?

blogs.bellinghamherald.com/index.php

there  can be a good alternative for microsoft where it may customize the instalation procedure for windows..lyk linux had for years..then ppl who have faithful to IE with stick with it..the rest of us can simply ignore it cant we?

"Telstra's network is capable of 7.2mbps nationwide in Australia and will soon be capable of 42mbps."

Did you even read the press release?

They are moving from peak speeds of 3Mbps to 21Mbps - IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS!  (Starting with trials in "early 2009")

There is no mention of 42Mbps speed ANYWHERE in that press release, nor is there any mention of it in any later release.

Shark,

"Again, just like no one is forcing you to use Microsoft's products, no one is forcing you to read this blog, so if you think Paul has no credibility, STOP WASTING EVERYONE ELSE'S TIME and go away. Please! You guys are more annoying than you realize."

Yes, an echo chamber is much more comfortable with any of those annoying fact-based opposing views.

For the record---again---I find Paul a paradox. He does some of the very best, in depth, detailed, comprehensive technical reviews I've ever seen, and from a users perspective. But, he sees the grain of sand in the eye of Apple, while missing the log in the eye of Microsoft (biblical reference). He does, occasionally, criticize Microsoft, mildly, and without the scorn and derision he reserves for their competitors.

He's too smart for this to be accidental, so, since it is deliberate distortion, I think it is legitimate to point it out. Paul makes a fetish of "balancing" the supposed Mac fanboi-ism of other web pages, so it is fine to hold him to the same standard, unless you prefer an openly hypocritical commentary?

And, on the one substantive issue you raise, "just like no one is forcing you to use Microsoft's products", I'm sorry, but nearly everyone IS forced to use that junk, and Microsoft is using everything in their monopolistic arsenal to keep it that way.

Note especially Paul's concerns over "Paul is really bummed about MS sharing Activesync with anyone...Apple, Google, etc." He's no dummy, he KNOWS this undercuts Microsoft's dominance----and that is his paycheck.

I've got NO problem with Microsoft if they fully open up and license the proprietary file formats that they use to keep the computing world in shackles. As soon as you don't have to have Windows for basic functions, office, exchange, directx, users will run screaming to alternate choices. It's already happening.

So, to finally return to the POINT of this thread: Mozilla, Opera, the EU, et al are basically trying to break the bundling that is the foundation of Microsoft's continued dominance in the industry. I think the data formats are the more important part of the problem, but bundling browsers is an important secondary issue.

The efforts by Apple, Google, the EU, Mozilla, Opera, et al are a good thing, even (or perhaps especially) for Windows users. If the 800 lb gorilla is reduced to a 400 lb gorilla amongst a group of 100 lb gorillas, the big gorilla's behavior changes. High time for that.

I don't actually recall anything in the DoJ case where it specifically said that Microsoft was forcing companies to use their software.

I do remember that they were "caught" giving computer manufacturers discounts on software when they met exclusivity contracts.  They do the same thing to business customers that sign "Company-Wide" volume license agreements though.  How is that any different?

"Yes, an echo chamber is much more comfortable with any of those annoying fact-based opposing views. "

Echo chamber?

What, you think trolls like you, Ocean, Yawn, and robertjoe , actually provide anything of value that supposedly balances out this alleged echo chamber.

All you idiots do is post off-topic links, flames, threaten other posters and generally attack Paul for just having the nerve to be critical of Apple form time to time.

it's a #$@ blog and you @zzhats act like this is CNN and is corrupting the minds of the public.

Like a lot of people said. If you dont like the views here, then stat you own damn blog where you can post negative MS links all darn day!

"boyreinvented said:

"What I'm saying is, Apple doesn't push it's OS on other hardware. Microsoft pushes it's OS on pretty much all hardware going and in it's OS it pushes Microsoft programs. There is little alternative. Forcing the hardware market to only use your OS is anti-competitive and therefore bundling your software with the OS is also anticompetitive. If you think otherwise, you're just confirming my opinion of you."

Ok, smartguy, who's forcing these companies to use Windows?

A. The Market

B. Microsoft

Oh I know you want to say B, because you have this bizarre little troll in you head saying that icrosoft goes to these companies and at the point of a gun, is DEMANDING that they use only Windows and Windows ALOOOOOOONE.

But you see, that isnt happening. Some of these companies are using Linux on some machines, like netbooks, and they are finding out that they.....dont sell all that well.

That is what we call the market deciding.

You know like how the market wants to use iPods over other brands, thus allowing ITunes to be FORCED UPON US!!!!!

The Apple-fawning tech media calls that the "halo effect". And I'm sure you do too, because Apple is goooooooooooooooood and MS is ((((((EVIL)))))). because these childish debates always seem to boil down to that with you clown.

Typically glossed over but quoted for truth:

chuckb84  said:

"Master3 said:

"chuckb84 said:

Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage."

Really? So you have the photo of Ballmer handing Paul a check, right? Or something that constitute proof to people who are not morons?"

Uh, he writes books about Microsoft products, his entire livelihood depends on Microsoft succeeding. I didn't say anything about "Ballmer handing Paul a check". He just has a vested interest. He's not objective.

Paul says it himself, "It's time for Microsoft to respond to the challenges it faces with leadership and authority. And if you care about the systems you support now, your jobs, and your very livelihood, you might do demand the same from the company. All of us have backed the same horse."

His livelihood depends on Microsoft. That's his statement, not mine. I just point out that it makes his technical commentary about, oh, Apple, Linux, Mozilla, and Google, somewhat suspect.

He may not even realize the double standard. Read the Upton Sinclair quote again."

This is the most "on the mark" commentary of Paul yet.

**********************************

tayme  said:

Is Mozilla and the EU complaining about the bundling of IE or the integration of IE in the OS? There is a difference.

**********************************

Agreed. Give me the ability to be able to remove IE on the PC (and Safari on the Mac  for that matter) and it would be gone.

Firefox the best thing to happen to the web since the dawn of the web itself; Anything that breaks the strangulating grip of IE is to be applauded dispiet what others are cheer leading about in IE8.

@chuckb84 - "I'm sorry, but nearly everyone IS forced to use that junk"

This is an old and tired argument. Please explain to me who is being "forced" to use Microsoft software. Don't fall back on the lame argument that at work, people are forced to use it...that is not Microsoft's fault. We are all free to choose where we work, if you don't like your job or the tools that are required to do that job...move on.

If somebody built a better mousetrap, it would get used. The fact is that Windows on the desktop is easy to deploy and support. In the datacenter, the same can be said...but the big horses are *nix powered there.

I've said this before, being the family and neighborhood "tech guy", if I have a home user that I know does not have safe browsing habits or tends to foul things up regularly on a PC, I always suggest a Mac. It saves me a lot of headaches. But in the enterprise...not so much. By now, I'd think that the rabid Mac fans, like you and the rest of the glee club that hangs out here, would be over that...but obviously, you are not.

--tayme

"I've got NO problem with Microsoft if they fully open up and license the proprietary file formats that they use to keep the computing world in shackles. As soon as you don't have to have Windows for basic functions, office, exchange, directx, users will run screaming to alternate choices."

They license ActiveSync freely as we can see, so anyone is free to build a better mouse trap if they wish.  Exchange is a product that they sell, so is Office and DirectX is part of the OS that they created.  I don't understand your contention here.  These are products that they developed (or bought the company that did), and they are selling them for profit.  Same thing with Office formats, which are available for free for anyone to use.  

en.wikipedia.org/.../DOCX  

In fact, Apple uses the format too.

Under this reasoning, Apple should do the same and open up the dominant iTunes store to other players, should they not?  

"If you really think it's incorrect, go look it up in this book"

Well, I already looked it up in respectable dictionaries, and they all seem to agree with lotsa and I.

Microsoft's bundling IE with Windows hurt competition in the 90s. I agree with that. That said, OSs today are a lot different from those in the 90s. A browser is more or less an integral part of the OS and forcing Microsoft or any other company to unbundle it, IMHO, would only hurt the consumer. It might help competition, but it'll definitely hurt the consumer. Firefox's growing marketshare indicates that people are smart enough to download it and install it on their computers. This is especially true in Europe.

Another argument is that Microsoft is forcing companies to use its software. That's a tired, old argument. Do you mean that OEMs wouldn't be glad to install other OSs on their computers if there was a market for it?

I 100% agree with you, Paul.  100%.  The EU is quite simply an socialist, anti-innovation, anti-profit, anti-American anti-prosperity mess.  This is the regime of nations like France who won't let failures like Airbus die.  It is a museum of dead economic ideas and companies where unemployment was in double-digits during the boom times.

Microsoft should be able to do whatever it wants with it's products.  Period.

@tayme:

This statement is wrong:

"You sell the solution, possibly assit in the deployment, and move on."

Most of my customers also get managed services or on-site maintenance from me as well.  There are only a few that don't, but only because they have full-time on-site IT people.  (There are even some that have on-site IT but still rely on services in the operations cycle post-purchase)

I am not just in IT sales, sorry to say.

@Dipsh t Admin

"Under this reasoning, Apple should do the same and open up the dominant iTunes store to other players, should they not?"

Yes, they should. However, I don't feel that music downloads are as fundamental as spreadsheets and office documents. Microsoft knows that .doc, .xls, .ppt and Exchange are how they keep corporate America right where they want them.

It's true that some slow progress is being made, .docx is "open", well, mostly. However, most offices still use the older, proprietary Microsoft formats. This change will take some time, but it is a good change. Question: Do you think Microsoft wanted to do this? Every action they've taken has been in opposition to these changes. Paul, in particular, is utterly opposed to Microsoft opening up formats, and this is from the guy who says he's all about "choice". Read the Upton Sinclar quote AGAIN.

@Master3

"What, you think trolls like you, Ocean, Yawn, and robertjoe , actually provide anything of value that supposedly balances out this alleged echo chamber.

All you idiots do is post off-topic links, flames, threaten other posters and generally attack Paul for just having the nerve to be critical of Apple form time to time. it's a #$@ blog and you @zzhats act like this is CNN and is corrupting the minds of the public."

You're quite right. I provide nothing of any use, like background on the blogger, his previous postions, contradictory statements, biases and vested interests. Your erudite commentary shows me to be totally wrong.

"Well, I already looked it up in respectable dictionaries, and they all seem to agree with lotsa and I."

I guess you don't consider an American dictionary legitimate then.

Funny, that.  I'll bet that losta will disagree with you.

@Waethorn

Stop being vacuous. Your press release is out of date.

money.cnn.com/.../0473293.htm

"Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC) will perform the first-ever demonstration of the new HSPA multi-carrier technology for peak downlink data rates of 42Mbps at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. Australian operator Telstra, currently pioneering HSPA downlink data rates of up to 21Mbps in their Next G(TM) commercial network, welcomes the demonstration of the multi-carrier technology, which will significantly improve consumer experience in the entire network coverage area.

...

Mike Wright, Executive Director Telstra Wireless says: "This exciting concept demonstration shows the strength of the HSPA technology on which we have based our Next G(TM) network. The Telstra and Ericsson partnership has grown through the various releases of HSPA and has delivered tremendously successful high speed broadband services to millions of Australians. It is impressive to see the next evolution in action today as an indication of what carriers will be able to experience by the end of the year."

11th February 2009

"However, most offices still use the older, proprietary Microsoft formats. This change will take some time, but it is a good change."

Change for the sake of change is pointless.  If there are companies using binary formats now, the reason is because they don't care about cross-platform compatibility for the foreseeable future.  For a company to invest thousands in converting users over to the new format just to say that they, themselves, are "open", and maybe, sometime in the future, just possibly they might need interoperability, they should just go ahead and fire their CTO.  If a company is already set on Microsoft platform technologies, they won't make any kind of investment outside of their planned cycle, and even then, backwards compatibility is going to take precedence over some perceived future "openness".  Only if they need platform compatibility are they going to actively investigate the need to convert.  Otherwise, they'll just accept the defaults given to them or force older already-established standards.

""Under this reasoning, Apple should do the same and open up the dominant iTunes store to other players, should they not?"

Yes, they should.""

Thus the DRM-free music downloads.  

@RobertC:

Thanks for backing up my argument with additional proof.

A demo does not equal deployment.  This is a technology demo only.  With Ericsson hardware.  Only 1, fixed (ie. needing AC power) broadband router.  Not Telstra's network.

How can an Australian provider do a legitimate demo in Spain anyway?  Answer:  They can't.  It's a demo by Ericsson to showcase the technology.

"Australian operator Telstra, currently pioneering HSPA downlink data rates of **up to** 21Mbps"

This also backs up my quote from the November 2008 press release stating that it will take a few years to reach this peak data rate for the entire network, and that they are only beginning the rollout.

Here's the most important line too:

"Ericsson's HSPA multi-carrier technology will be ready for commercial implementation by the end of 2009."

That also doesn't mean deployment.  It only means that Ericsson will have the equipment ready.  Carriers have to do their own testing after release, with limited-area trials.  When it's approved, they'll start mass-deploying it.

Get a clue.  Just because a company releases a new piece of technology doesn't mean a provider will deploy it instantly.

Also, being that this is a plug-in router, it makes mobile broadband still forthcoming, since there are no other devices announced with dual-channel HSPA+.

Pingback from  fire  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; Mozilla jumps the shark - SuperSite Blog

Pingback from  The Weekly Spin  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; The Weekly Spin 12-Retail Spin