[citation][nom]har_boed[/nom]I dont really see any problem microsoft bundling lot's of stuff. Because all of other OS do the same thing anyway. But only microsoft get sued. Apple bundled safari, Linuxes bundled Firefox. And anyway what is an OS without a browser. And that also applies to security, it's good that microsoft give extra effort to give user security with free anti virus.When you buy a house, you will get a standard lock, but I guess you are free to change the lock and gives extra security.But why no one sued apple when they launch iPhone with safari pre-installed and you can't install any other else I don't mind I can't uninstall IE, but I can install something else, but what apple did to iPhone just horrible...Well.. I know it's not fair comparing a mobile phone and a computer..[/citation]
I can't believe how many people are missing the boat on this or can't grasp a simple concept. It has very little to do with microsoft including a browser with windows. the only thing that was a problem with that was the fact it could not be uninstalled period. some people say that is fixed in Win7. the fact apple includes safari on anything doesn't compare. you're not comparing apples to apples so to speak.
damn microsoft did a great job at slanting this to confuse the masses. when apple includes safari apple is not influencing web sites to use proprietary code that ONLY displays correctly with safari but displays incorrectly with other browsers. thereby making simpletons think other browsers are broken and want to use their product. now if apple did this on the mobile web and used their influence there so that firefox mobile or opera mobile (etc.) did not work on a large amount of heavily used mobile web sites it would be just as guilty. microsoft's IE does not adhere to the web site coding standards. they regularly code things strictly for IE which is wrong. the libraries someone mentioned in that crap article about IE not coming on Win7 in the EU, another example of IE having a proprietary side. if IE followed standards you would not need those but microsoft has so many of you snowed under a blizzard of geez, I don't know what. is it really that hard a concept to grasp? and just for examples - MSNBC, HOTMAIL, MSN, BING, ENCARTA, CITYGUIDES, etc., etc., etc., who owns these sites basically? Hmmm let me think. and what browser do you think they code especially for? they probably only give enough basic coding so the other browsers load the site. sure I get that it is THEIR sites but hey, that's the price for being the King! in today's world no one likes the King screwing the little guys...hmmm, screwing over the other guys? maybe that sounds better. THINK people!
I can't believe how many people are missing the boat on this or can't grasp a simple concept. It has very little to do with microsoft including a browser with windows. the only thing that was a problem with that was the fact it could not be uninstalled period. some people say that is fixed in Win7. the fact apple includes safari on anything doesn't compare. you're not comparing apples to apples so to speak.
damn microsoft did a great job at slanting this to confuse the masses. when apple includes safari apple is not influencing web sites to use proprietary code that ONLY displays correctly with safari but displays incorrectly with other browsers. thereby making simpletons think other browsers are broken and want to use their product. now if apple did this on the mobile web and used their influence there so that firefox mobile or opera mobile (etc.) did not work on a large amount of heavily used mobile web sites it would be just as guilty. microsoft's IE does not adhere to the web site coding standards. they regularly code things strictly for IE which is wrong. the libraries someone mentioned in that crap article about IE not coming on Win7 in the EU, another example of IE having a proprietary side. if IE followed standards you would not need those but microsoft has so many of you snowed under a blizzard of geez, I don't know what. is it really that hard a concept to grasp? and just for examples - MSNBC, HOTMAIL, MSN, BING, ENCARTA, CITYGUIDES, etc., etc., etc., who owns these sites basically? Hmmm let me think. and what browser do you think they code especially for? they probably only give enough basic coding so the other browsers load the site. sure I get that it is THEIR sites but hey, that's the price for being the King! in today's world no one likes the King screwing the little guys...hmmm, screwing over the other guys? maybe that sounds better. THINK people!