Re: Microsoft warns of IE7 lock-in with XP SP3

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Tom Fairlie [tfairlie () frontiernet net]
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:51 AM
To: Brock N. Meeks; David Farber
Cc: cnull () yahoo com
Subject: Re: [IP] Microsoft warns of IE7 lock-in with XP SP3

I said "forces you into a choice" not an upgrade. However...

...it sounds like you're backing up my point. Let's just put all
of the language about "forces" up on the shelf for a moment
and ask why an update to the Windows operating system
should have any significant impact on the web browser that
you're using, other than improving (or reducing) its overall
performance due to architectural changes. This isn't so much
about a user's particular browser choice or whether they can
or cannot uninstall it. I'm just saying that this practice is bad
from a pure engineering point of view and offensive to a segment
(however small) of the user population.

Tom Fairlie
----- Original Message -----
From: Brock N. Meeks<mailto:bmeeks () cox net>
To: Tom Fairlie<mailto:tfairlie () frontiernet net> ; dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>
Cc: cnull () yahoo com<mailto:cnull () yahoo com>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] Microsoft warns of IE7 lock-in with XP SP3

As an earlier commenter noted, Tom, MSFT is NOT “forcing” you to upgrade to IE7 from IE6, that choice is left to the 
user.  It’s just that once you do pull the trigger, you can’t go back.

And I don’t know how much you followed the anti-trust trial, but my ass was in the court room for 98 percent of every 
active court day and the way the Msft tied the browser to the OS--and to what anticompetitive lengths they dreamed up 
to make sure that happened--was a huge part of the anti-trust case.


On 5/9/08 9:33 PM, "Tom Fairlie" <tfairlie () frontiernet net> wrote:

Brock,

Who was talking about monopolistic behavior? I was referring to
Microsoft's tying of their browser to their OS. This tying is what
I object to (and what I believe Dave testified about back in 1998 (?).

Unlike your other apples-to-oranges comparisons, all of which
are *applications*, Microsoft's *OS* upgrade forces you into a
*browser* choice (and yes, I know that there is a way around this).

It's getting so bad that I cannot even use Firefox to (easily) access
my (Fortune 100) company's intranet. I would have switched (at
least at home) to Linux, but the recent release of "Hardy Heron"
(Ubuntu) crashes every time I try to install it. Are we all stuck with
overpaying for Macs or is someone going to ever get it right?

Tom Fairlie

----- Original Message -----

From:  David Farber <mailto:dave () farber net><mailto:dave () farber net>

To: ip <mailto:ip () v2 listbox com><mailto:ip () v2 listbox com>

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:45 AM

Subject: [IP] Microsoft warns of IE7  lock-in with XP SP3






Begin forwarded message:



From: Brock N Meeks <bmeeks () cox net>
Date: May 9,  2008 10:29:59 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject:  Re: [IP] Microsoft warns of IE7 lock-in with XP  SP3




Having covered the Microsoft anti-trust trial from gavel to gavel, I  read the comment below and say, "Big F'ing deal."


This recent development is far from the original monopolistic behavior  that it barely warrants a raised eyebrow.  
First, the company is openly  warning people about this situation--I'm not sure how much publicity or  effort Microsoft 
is giving to this "awareness" effort, but it's there.   And there doesn't appear to be any back room deals wherein box 
makers  and Microsoft are cutting exclusive deals for automatic desktop placement  and on and on.



Don't want IE7?  Don't upgrade to the new service pack.



"But, but, but... that's holding my service pack upgrades hostage!" you  say.  Umm... good point; hardly unprecedented.



Witness the shenanigans that Mac owners go through every time  Apple upgrades QuickTime.  No one forces you to upgrade 
to the newest  version of QT, but if you don't there is a whole lot of new content you  can't access.



Or Adobe's Flash player... if you don't upgrade to the newest flash  player, forget about accessing cool new online 
do-dads.



Why is that different from what Microsoft is doing?  Yes, you can  always drop back and install an earlier version of 
QuickTime, no restriction  there; however, for that "luxury" you're going to pay a price.   You  want to drop back to 
IE6?  Well, alright, uninstall (forestall access  to) the upgrade service pack.



It's not a pleasant business practice, but it hardly carries  anti-competitive overtones.












On May 9, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Farber wrote:







Begin forwarded message:



From: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie () frontiernet net <mailto:tfairlie () frontiernet net><mailto:tfairlie () frontiernet net> 
>
Date:  May 9, 2008 9:22:09 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net><mailto:dave () farber net> >
Subject:  Microsoft warns of IE7 lock-in with XP  SP3





Dave,


I guess what's old is what's new again. Egad!



Tom Fairlie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microsoft warns of IE7 lock-in with  XP SP3
Gregg Keizer

May 06, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft  Corp. has warned users updating to Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) that  they 
won't be able to downgrade from Internet Explorer 7 to the older  IE6 without uninstalling the service pack.



The warning first appeared in a post Monday  to a company blog written by the Internet Explorer development team.  
Microsoft released Windows XP SP3 to Windows Update as an optional  download Tuesday.



"If you choose to install XP SP3, Internet  Explorer 7 will remain on your system after the install is complete,"  said 
Jane Maliouta, an IE program manager, in the blog entry. "Your  preferences will be retained. However, you will no 
longer be able to  uninstall IE7. If you go to Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs, the  Remove option will be grayed 
out."



The inability to downgrade to IE6 after  installing XP SP3 was by design, said Maliouta, because the service pack  
includes newer versions of the old browser's files. If Microsoft had  allowed users to revert back to the pre-SP3 
version of IE6 -- the one  saved on users' PCs when they upgraded to IE7, and what was used until  now to back out of 
the newer browser -- Windows would have ended up in a  "mixed file state," Maliouta said.



[Rest here:  
<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9083318><http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9083318>
 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9083318 
<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9083318><http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9083318>
  
<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9083318><http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9083318>
 ]


________________________________

 Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now><http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>    
<http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/><http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>    
<http://www.listbox.com><http://www.listbox.com>



________________________________

Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now><http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>   
<http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/><http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>     
<http://www.listbox.com><http://www.listbox.com>


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com