Windows 7 to ship without a web browser in Europe

[DanS]

And what was Microsoft's market share for Windows 3.1/3.11?

Edit: I recall that there was something akin to file explorer in 3.1/3.11.

[Asher]

And what was Microsoft's market share for Windows 3.1/3.11?

Not sure, but it's safe to say as someone who used computers back in the day that the combination of DOS + Windows 3.1 were dominant OSes.

Edit: I recall that there was something akin to file explorer in 3.1/3.11.

Yes, there was something similar. But it was very limited compared to Windows Explorer and Norton Commander. Commander still was more useful until Windows Explorer came out. People stopped buying Commander after they got Windows 95 with Windows Explorer.

The only reason IE is getting picked on is because Opera has incessantly been whining to the EU since 2001 about IE being bundled. Rather than pay developers to make a competitive and competent OS, they're paying an army of lawyers to file complaints and try to bully MS to bundling Opera with Windows. Even now, after MS has ceased bundling IE in Europe, they're still not happy. And because Opera is not happy, the EU is still going ahead with their case against MS for bundling IE. Why? Because Opera thinks it's not fair until Opera is installed with Windows.

This is not at all about consumer fairness or market competition, it's about Opera trying to increase their marketshare through bundling themselves since the merits of their product are, demonstrably, not enough to let them gain marketshare. They've had pathetic marketshare for years while their competitors gain ground at rapid paces.

[-Jrabbit]

Netscape -- who is up to over 20% marketshare now and rising (via Firefox)
Apple, whose Safari browser has usage that only goes up
Google, whose Chrome browser is similarly rising in marketshare

Why doesn't MS just load up all these free browsers with the new OS (along with Explorer, of course) and be done with it? Hell, if they did that, the EU would probably even let them make Explorer the default.

[DanS]

Not sure, but it's safe to say as someone who used computers back in the day that the combination of DOS + Windows 3.1 were dominant OSes.

I think that we need data on this. Like you, I remember that DOS + Windows 3.1 were very popular, but that there may have been OSes from the 80s that were still hanging on well into the early 90s -- f.e., DOS naked.

Regardless, even though I'm interested in the facts in the early 90s, this doesn't help Microsoft's case. It would just be another instance of Microsoft abusing monopoly power.

[-Jrabbit]

Personally, I think that the issue at hand -- browser bundling in Europe -- is a pretty pathetic attempt at browbeating by the EU. bundling your own browser with your OS (if you make both) is merely logical and convenient. It's also common practice (see Apple).

And since browsers are all free, the concept of monopolism shouldn't even be a consideration.

The EU is stupid and power-drunk over the billion-plus in fines they've levied. IMHO. (Of course, MS is certainly guilty of baiting them with the no-browser proposal.)

[Asher]

Why doesn't MS just load up all these free browsers with the new OS (along with Explorer, of course) and be done with it? Hell, if they did that, the EU would probably even let them make Explorer the default.

Because there are legal problems to distributing code you do not own. Further still, there's licensing issues. I'm not sure if MS would legally even be allowed to distribute many of the open source browsers due to their restrictive licensing schemes. Then there's the practical purposes of it -- if MS includes other people's programs, they're going to get contacted for tech support from consumers. You install Firefox in Windows by selecting "I want Firefox" or whatever in the install, then you have issues with it -- who do you call? Most would call MS.

Then there's the ability to keep it up to date. Let's say MS bundles Safari with Windows. How does Safari update itself? "Apple Software Update". But Apple Software Update does more than simply update Safari, by default it also downloads and installs Quicktime, iTunes, Bonjour, MobileMe support, etc.

By bundling software they do not make or control, they open themselves up to further exploits. Let's say they bundle Firefox. They either take a snapshot of the current version (3.0.11) and include that, but then Mozilla could use the Firefox update mechanism (which will assuredly be called very quickly after install) to bootstrap other installers. It would be trivial for Mozilla to install Thunderbird and Songbird and even make them default media players if MS bundles Firefox with Windows.

So, in short, there's MANY issues with this:
- Legal issues (over one hundred countries have different laws regarding software distribution that'd need to be checked -- MS may be responsible for the code they ship with the product, which includes code they do not own or have not seen if they ship other people's products)
- Licensing issues (Could MS ship a GPL-licensed product with their commercial software? That's a potential minefield)
- Security issues (Would MS be responsible for keeping all these browsers up to date with security issues? It's a logical next-step for the EU to demand Microsoft Update support all programs installed with Windows to keep them up to date. Another can of worms).
- Etiquette issues (Apple has already shown it's willing to exploit its update mechanisms to push its software like Safari on Windows computers, this would be trivial to do for any browser included with Windows during the install)
- Customer confusion (They installed Firefox during the Windows install, so if it breaks you call the Windows people...)

[Sir Og]

I think what killed norton commander was the casual user's adoption of the mouse interface. Not the fact that at some point WE became better. (You could argue that WE was better than NC for people using the mouse as primary interface, but that does not mean that it is a better tool overall)

[Asher]

I think what killed norton commander was the casual user's adoption of the mouse interface. Not the fact that at some point WE became better. (You could argue that WE was better than NC for people using the mouse as primary interface, but that does not mean that it is a better tool overall)

Norton Commander released a couple versions for Windows as well that had GUI support.

[Sir Og]

Norton Commander released a couple versions for Windows as well that had GUI support.

So you are saying that these versions were inferior to WE and that is why people stopped using NC?

As far as I remember WE has always been mouse interface oriented while NC has been keyboard interface oriented. When the majority of users became comfortable with copping files and folders using the mouse they stopped bothering with other file browsers and stuck with WE.

WE was always around it is not like it appeared at some point and became better then NC and people stopped using NC.

[Asher]

So you are saying that these versions were inferior to WE and that is why people stopped using NC?

As far as I remember WE has always been mouse interface oriented while NC has been keyboard interface oriented. When the majority of users became comfortable with copping files and folders using the mouse they stopped bothering with other file browsers and stuck with WE.

WE was always around it is not like it appeared at some point and became better then NC and people stopped using NC.

Windows Explorer debuted in Windows 95

[-Jrabbit]

Asher -- nice explanation, very comprehensive. Thanks.

So why not include IE with an opening screen that provides links to the alternatives?

[Sir Og]

Windows Explorer debuted in Windows 95

It was called file manager before that but it was the same thing.



How is this any different from WE from a casual user's POV?

[Asher]

It was called file manager before that but it was the same thing.



How is this any different from WE from a casual user's POV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Explorer

One word: Spatial

[Asher]

Asher -- nice explanation, very comprehensive. Thanks.

So why not include IE with an opening screen that provides links to the alternatives?

Because they're still bundling and installing IE. That's EU is demanding only people who ask for IE get IE.

So it would be an install-time choice. The Windows Installer would either be bundled with a plethora of web browsers to choose from, or it'll connect to predefined servers and download the browsers and install. That's why it's messy.

[DanS]

And since browsers are all free, the concept of monopolism shouldn't even be a consideration.

Many believe that the browser is becoming the operating system. That seems to be why Microsoft released IE in the first place -- to kill that movement.