I don't agree with it, but I can understand the reasoning behind preventing install as standard, restrictions on distributing it though would be even more ridiculous. By taking it out they have forced Windows to be a less integrated OS than any of it's competitors, surely that is anti-competitive against MS? While they are at it they may as well take out other value added features, CD Burning, Notepad, Paint, Media Player, Messenger, Disk Defragmenter, etc all have competitors to you know.
For those of you wondering how anyone is supposed to download a browser without a browser installed and without any other system at hand: Create a very simple HTML application (*.hta).
1) Create a new text file called anything.hta
2) Edit it with Notepad
3) Add this line:
<iframe src=”http://www.google.com/” width=”100%” height=”100%” />
4) Save the file, close Notepad
5) Double-click anything.hta and go get your browser of choice
HTAs don’t have the usual navigation buttons, no URL bar, no cookie support, no builtin security features, but they can download files, which is all you need to get a browser.
![]()
They were only supposed to stop the OS from automatically installing their internet browser and leave that as an option to the user when installing the OS.
However M$ have spat the dummy and decided to remove the browsing software all to gether
I thought the problem was that MS would have also had to provide additional browsers such as firefox as part of the optional installation so the user could choose. Obviously if they did this MS (and the OEMs) would have had to provide support for the other browsers.
I'm surprised that people don't have a 2nd hard drive or, at the very least, 2 partitions on their main PC.
By taking it out they have forced Windows to be a less integrated OS than any of it's competitors, surely that is anti-competitive against MS?
I'm calling shenanigans on that. They could have quite easily come up with a solution based around a HTML Application ... like the OP has done actually.
Judging by the top left of the box, we have to supply our own. Although the asterisk after the wording may reveal more details.
I don't think there's any doubt about the fact that there is no browser included in the OS. The important question is how are users expected to install their OS of choice.
If they are expected to have an existing browser install file on a seperate partition / USB stick, then imo this ruling has done nothing for anti-competetiveness and has just made life harder for the end user.
If MS are allowed to prompt the user to install IE through Windows Update, then this ruling has again done nothing to change anti-competetiveness, imo.
If MS put up a prompt to chose to download a browser of choice from a list of options, then imo that is a fine solution and achieves what most people would view a 'fair'. IE will no doubt appear at the top of the list and will be most 'casual' users browser of choice, but the other browsers will be there for all to see and chose from.
What my previous post was asking, is do we know for sure which of these options (or any others) are actually the method being used by MS? If we don't then it is all just speculation and conjecture.
Microsoft said:You will need to back up all your files before starting and you will need to have a browser such as Internet Explorer 8 or a browser from another software manufacturer saved to a CD/DVD or external storage device before starting.
Do .hta files run on a browserless environment though?
Can you imagine all the grief this is going to cause?