Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Jan 2007 17:05 UTC
Internet Explorer Groklaw has an article arguing that Microsoft has not yet complied with the DOJ order that users must be able to remove Internet Explorer from Windows. "So he explained the blue and white screens of death, what a dual boot startup is, commingling code, and then tying or bundling, specifically tying Internet Explorer with the operating system. He explained how you can't use Add/Remove to get IE or Media Player off your hard drive, but that you can use SPAD, 'set program access and defaults', to choose Firefox or another browser as your default browser instead of IE. However, IE remains on your hard drive."
Thread beginning with comment 200818
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

Well, windows update works from IE (and IE only!!) so I guess that Server 2k3 would have update issues.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Why that? IE6 is a part of Win2K3. It is just running with a very (obnoxious) high security level.

My Win2K3 has IE7 installed besides K-Meleon and Firefox.

Personally I think relying on one particular browser engine is a major mistake. What Microsoft _should've_ done from the very beginning is: A plugin architecture allowing for several browser engines side by side (this plugin architecture actually exists), with the option of removing any of them. The OS it self should not have any kind of hardcoded dependency on MS HTML (nor a dependency on _any_ browser engine), but none-the-less explorer.exe does have such a dependency (even with IE7).

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Oh I agree with you, but your arguments don't sound good to Sharholders' ears. Why should microsoft destroy IE's main competitive advantage in the interests of interoperability?

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1