All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
Damned if they do and damned when they don't
7031:
--- Quote from: davidnix71 on 14 June 2009, 21:24 ---I don't think you actually need Safari for OSX to work. I haven't tried it, but you could probably just delete the app if you didn't want it. OSX help files use the system Finder app, they aren't html or chm files like Windows. I rarely use Safari and after I set Firefox as the default browser, I've never had it start unless I deliberately called it.
--- End quote ---
True, though isn't the rendering engine still part of the OS, regardless of whether the actual app is installed? For example, doesn't iTunes use it for the iTunes store? I may be wrong though...
You do have a point though, and again, the fact that the actual app can be removed is probably the reason for the EU not going insane. That, or again, the lack of marketshare.
Lead Head:
IE is no longer integrated with Vista/7 as well. It will too function fine without a browser. But imagine OSX or Windows without any means at all to get on to the internet. Could you picture Apple/Microsoft including all their competitors browsers default to provide a choice? I can't.
davidnix71:
I delete iTunes from every Mac I own, so I don't know if it uses Safari or not. iTunes has accelerated privileges that I find unacceptable, plus it keeps track of all your media. iTunes will run from the Trash. I'm not going to pay money for something with DRM anyway.
The other app I delete always is the DVD player. It will require you to set a region code and I refuse to do that. VLC always works as long as you just let it follow the dvd disc menu. As soon as rpc1 flashes are available I flash my drives region free.
The older version of Shiira for Panther and up is only 3.3 MB. Off-By-One for Windows fit on a floppy. Adding a second browser to an OS disc is trivial.
worker201:
I'm not going to go read up on case law or the Microsoft court decisions. But I think forcing them to dike out IE was stupid.
Over the past 50 years, the concept of an operating system has gone from a basic instruction set to a multi-tiered hardware/software architecture. OSes these days are judged based on how many cool little apps and utilities they include. Not including a text editor, for example, would be ridiculous, and the OS wouldn't sell. I honestly think that Solitaire is one of the reasons why some people won't ditch Windows. Now, a browser is considered an essential app for a computer. Believe it or not, Microsoft was the first company to ship an OS that included a web browser. And they get punished for this? Good god, why?
If you want to see some real crazy embedded might-even-be-illegal shit, take a look at QuickTime. Most people only know about the crappy little frontend program that plays videos. DVD Player is another shitty little frontend. Behind it is one of the largest system frameworks in OSX. I don't even think OSX could perform the mundanest of tasks if all references to QuickTime were removed. But that's okay - it provides all kinds of weird functionality that a standalone player never could. I can't think of any reason we should punish manufacturers for coming up with innovative software technologies.
If Microsoft deserves to be sued, it's for its exclusive OEM distribution deals that punish sales partners for shipping computers that don't have Vista installed. That's exclusionary and monopolistic, and it doesn't do a goddamm thing to advance the technological art.
FYI, I like iTunes, and I like the iTunes store. The integration from network to desktop to device is just so dang convenient. The DRM is easily skirted, if you absolutely must.
Calum:
--- Quote ---Believe it or not, Microsoft was the first company to ship an OS that included a web browser. And they get punished for this? Good god, why?
--- End quote ---
is your question rhetorical? you answer it yourself!
--- Quote ---If Microsoft deserves to be sued, it's for its exclusive OEM distribution deals that punish sales partners for shipping computers that don't have Vista installed. That's exclusionary and monopolistic, and it doesn't do a goddamm thing to advance the technological art.
--- End quote ---
Substitute "Vista" for "Internet Explorer" in that quote, and think back ten or fifteen years. perhaps this isn't as relevant now as it was back in the day, but that's the reason historically. MS had no interest in making compliant web browsers, or advancing open standards, in fact they wanted to completely crush any organisation who had those aims, because they perceived them as a threat.
As it turns out the only way Netscape managed not to let their browser lose the browser wars was to initially make it free, which worked to some extent, and then to allow it to become Free, which worked to some extent as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version