Comment Feed for Windows 7 E (Coffeehouse on Channel 9)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

ZippyV — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:44:57 GMT

= Windows Installer

Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Joe Chung — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:07:18 GMT

Windows could use an HTTP-savvy package installer like the Microsoft Web Platform Installer, but for all Windows applications (including Web browsers), not just server-side Web applications.

Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Joe Chung — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:04:43 GMT

Re: Re: Windows 7 E

GoddersUK — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:18 GMT

Why force the user to install one?

That's up to them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Gio — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:27:41 GMT

You are right, consumers should choose, not OEMs! I wish there would be a way of slipstreaming the browser of choice into an installation of Windows.

Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Charles — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:34:00 GMT

What about all the dull lumps who can't find and experience the Internet without a browser? Not because they're dull lumps, of course. There's simply no alternative mechanism that provides the same level of efficiency (which is not maximal). But will this always be case? No. Of course not...

Re: Windows 7 E

Ray7 — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:49:38 GMT

The fact that Firefox gets installed just about everywhere shows that there isn't really a problem here. Not so long ago, I fired up internet explorer on a teacher's PC. The only items in the history list were MSN and Mozilla, which is where she went to download the browser that she has used ever since. There is nothing in Windows that prevented her from doing this as soon as she switched on the machine.

Suggestions for retooling Lynx are unrealistic but I'm wondering if there is something MS could do to help. Perhaps when IE first runs, it should present a tiled view of alternative browser sites, and refuse to move anywhere else until the user has installed one. I think that seems to be the gist of what is being asked for here.

... and I can't believe that after all these years, people still think that typing 'M$' makes them look cool ....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

brian.shapiro — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:33:51 GMT

Opera hasn't even tried any significant marketing campaign.

They don't market, they don't advertise, and when their browser doesn't increase in market share, they sue saying its someone else's fault.

Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Dexter — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:54:10 GMT

It's not the same thing. They get something that they don't seem to have, a way to promote their browser.

Look at all the other popular browsers, they're all made by big, known companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft) or by the "community" (Mozilla). Apple and MS ship the browser with the operating system, Google offers it for downloading on many of its sites. The "community" places countless of "Get Firefox" links on countless sites.

"Opera? What's that? That classical piece of music mixed with lyrics? That's uncool. Ah, it's a browser? Who makes it? Opera? Never heard of them."

Now they're trying to get some publicity for free, and not only for free, but using a competitor's software as a vehicle. Weird to say the least.

Re: Windows 7 E

jmar — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:50:20 GMT

A simple search for 'browsers' offers ample choice :

http://www.google.com/search?q=browsers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Why does the EU want to dumb down the world to the level of dull lumps who can't find their way to an IE alternative ?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Sven Groot — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:32:41 GMT

To be fair, Sun did a lot more to shoot themselves in the foot than open source their OS. That was just a last ditch (and frankly absurd) move to try and save the sinking ship.

I think Joel on Software still has the best explanation I've seen: a bytecode based virtual machine environment that runs on multiple platforms like Java has the effect of commoditizing hardware, which is precisely what you don't want to do when you make your money selling hardware. Sun's backing of Java is the single most puzzling bussiness decision I've ever seen.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Larry Osterman — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:24:07 GMT

Ummm... You do know that Sun effectively just went under (was bought by Oracle), right? The "open source your operating system and sell overpriced PC" business model sort-of doesn't work.

Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Sven Groot — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:38:29 GMT

Everyone knows Mormor is the best Zormfglasr. Even my grandmother knows that Garblfex is for n00bs!

Re: Re: Windows 7 E

ZippyV — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:28:32 GMT

The ballot screen is the same as a user typing firefox.com or opera.com in the browser. If they want another browser they can download and install it by going to the website. Even if there would be a list of browsers to choose from there is no reason to think that Opera would suddenly gain a bigger marketshare because people want to install their browser.

Re: Windows 7 E

Bas — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:04:47 GMT

Opera's CTO weighed in:

“We note with intereste that Microsoft now seems capable of separating IE from Windows. However, we do not believe that Microsoft’s move will restore competition for desktop browsers.

Yeah... explain again how this lack of competition cause Firefox to still be gaining marketshare while IE continues to lose it?

Most users get their operating systems from the OEM channel and Microsoft will recommend that OEMs pre-install IE8. As such, users are unlikely to be given a genuine choice of browsers.

“We believe that the idea of a ‘ballot screen’ is better: when going online, users will be asked which browser(s) they prefer to use. The browser(s) of choice will the painlessly be installed and ready for use.”

Who decides which browsers get to go on the ballot screen? In what order? Remember that this has to be totally fair to everyone. Also:

"It looks like you want to garboozl. You'll need a Zormfglasr for that. Which Zormfglasr do you want to use? Garblfex, Yomyomyom or Mormor?"

Yeah, that's real painless.

Re: Windows 7 E

Ion Todirel — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:47:34 GMT

hehe, soon we'll have to use hex numbers for a OS name, Windows 7 E 9 C lol :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

GoddersUK — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:40:07 GMT

Oh yes, I think most people I know do that :s

*pulls out a copy of unatteneded installations scripts for dummies*

I mean, seriously, unatteneded installations scripts have their place and all in large organsiations, but this is really home users. Do you really, seriously, think ACME inc. is going to change it's browser choice because of something like that?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Ubuntu — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:36:20 GMT

I second that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Ubuntu — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:35:22 GMT

as I just can't find it

And do you know why - because it takes a fair amount of good will to find something while you just seek to make a point by writing a long post since you assume that the longer the post is the more valid are the points make in that post.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Bass — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:16:51 GMT

By shipping an operating system people will buy?

I don't think this is something Microsoft would do voluntarily. But if the EU was really serious about fighting monopolies they are targeting the wrong product. They should be levelling the playing field of operating systems not web browsers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

dahat — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:13:41 GMT

Is there a choice not to install IE during windows setup?

So by now allowing the choice at setup time... they are preventing the user from doing it... ever?

Would you at least be consistent with your arguments? Think you already are? Well lets see...

Next you are going to tell me that the car companies are illegally preventing me from installing a custom stereo because they refuse to install it for me at the factory, or that McDonalds should be forced to serve me Burger King fries with my Big Mac meal.

Surely Microsoft should also be required that StarOffice be an optional installation component alongside Word Pad, MediaPortal instead of Media Center, WinAmp instead of Media Player, The Gimp instead of Paint, Korn Shell instead of PowerShell. Heck, why don't we just go back to the good ole days before windows even shipped with a TCP stack cause heck... I bet there are some starving programmers out there that want to sell their very own super version just for windows.

Need I go on?

While the argument you make is a popular one, it's a dishonest one as you fail to define how far your argument should apply. Why just artificially limit it to the web browser when there are so many other built in apps that have similar functionality to 3rd party ones?

Can I choose a different browser at installation time in order to run a given browser on all machines in a corporate setting?

See that is a completely different argument... and one that asking it either reveals your lack of understanding of the product, or lack of sufficient education from Microsoft on the subject.

Personally I suspect the prior.

Pre Vista it was trivial to install a 3rd party web browser (or virtually any other 3rd party component/application) as part of the install process.

In Vista & 7 it takes a hair more work... but gives you so much power.

In a corporate setting... chances are ones IT department has their own custom windows installs/images that they deploy to new PC's as needed... and it is in this image that they can install whatever applications they want so that when the underlying image is deployed... the apps will be to.

If they do not have such an image... why again are you singling out the web browser as being so horrible to manually install when they will still have to manually install whatever kind of Office suite they use as well as any other LOB apps?

<blockquote>What's more you weren't following the discussion so you'll find the answer to your 2nd question in this thread.</blockquote>

Given the small number of pixels between the comment I was addressing and my reply... perhaps you can draw my attention to the exact comment where it was said otherwise... as I just can't find it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Ubuntu — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:12:12 GMT

Through unattended installation script.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Ubuntu — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:11:17 GMT

My point was that's it not possible (what I described in my post) or can be quite tricky (what you referred to in your post) as it was extensively discussed by me and Bass and some other guys on C9 about how difficult it is to install a non-IE web browser using unattended installation on let's say 20 machines.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

GoddersUK — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:09:12 GMT

Is there a choice not to install IE during windows setup?

That makes it easier to install a competing browser how? Maybe I'm just weird, but I'm sure that actually makes it harder :s ...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 7 E

Ubuntu — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:06:13 GMT

Good point but I wouldn't stand by my argument if somebody made a counter-point - you make a counter-point as if you were sure I got the thing wrong.