EU-version of Windows 7 will come without browser

[Skybird]

In the EU, Microsoft will release Windows 7 without any integrated web browser. Neither Explorer nor any other browser will be part of the package.

This is a reaction to the ongoing dispute between Microsoft and the EU over the claim that Microsoft is abusing a monopolistic position to keep rivals out of - or small in - the business. The argument that only Explorer is part of Windows, but neither Opera nor Mozilla are included by default, is part of that dispute.

In parts, in the past I supported the EU proposal. However, now that that Microsoft has radically changed it's strategy (to avoid certain legal consequences at the last minute) and now will not include ANY browser in windows 7 for the EU market, again the EU criticises them. They insist on that Microsoft should instead offer a diverse collection of browsers - that are in direct competition to Microsoft'S Explorer.

In other words - and this is where I have a problem with the EU demand - they want Microsoft to promote and distribute the products of their rivalling competitors.

I always argued against a totally liberal capitalistic market. I also always argued that some regulations of the market are needed in order to turn predatory capitalism, that functions at the cost of too many people only, into what in Europe is called "social market economy" that tries to acchieve a balance between the interest of the one and the social responsibility to protect basic interests of the many. As much regulation as needed - but as little as possible.

To prevent a company abusing a de facto monopole is one thing, and is okay for the sake of the superior common interest. But wanting to order a company that it should actively distribute the competing products of it's rivals, is absurd, and a serious distortion of the basic principle of market economy: the principle of competition.

I think the EU is overstretching its demands. On this detail it needs to step back.

[Rilder]

Heh sounds like they are just protecting their citizen's computers from viruses.

[bookworm_020]

So this is the safe mode of windows????:06:

[Letum]

Microsoft clearly has an anti-competitive clout in the marketplace.

Shipping the OS with IE and WMP was a little like a supermarket giving every
shopper a free mobile phone. It's good for the supermarket because they sell
more phone credit and get their brand logo out more, but it is bad for the
other mobile phone companies because they can't possibly compete. Even if
they gave out free phones they couldn't possibly hope to reach the vast
number of people that pass through the doors of a supermarket.

It would be daft to ship a OS with no browser, so forcing MS to offer
alternatives is the only workable solution.

SB: You have the same all or nothing attitude to the marketplace as you do
to warfare and morality.

[Arclight]

Sooo, if the OS ships without a browser, how does a user download one? :doh:

[Task Force]

yea... you got a point... (maby you have to buy one in a store.):hmmm:

well, I aint gotta worry about it. lol, I dont live in the European Union. lol

download the a browser, put it on a disc, instal after you put new OS on yer pc.

[Letum]

Sooo, if the OS ships without a browser, how does a user download one? :doh:

My understanding is that either you will select the browser you want when
you buy the OS or you will be presented wit an option to download the one
you want once you have internet connectivity.

[Skybird]

You install Windows, and then download and install the browser of your choice. Which probably is the most healthy, fair and unmanipulative solution anyway.

Microsoft was wrong when claiming that Explorer was integral part of Windows that could not be extracted and kept separate. Obviously they can extract it. ;) It was a decision to make that argument in an attempt to establish Explorer in a dominant market position. But that argument never had any substance. It was aiming to make benefit from psychologic effects: that people would not care for other browsers if Windows comes with a browser already.

Letum, you do not know the market functionality if you find it okay to expect one competitor to actively distribute and spread those products of his direct rivals that are in direct competition to his own products, nd to do so without compoensation and to his own disadvantage.

Rivals shall not use unfair cheats to limit market access for other competitors. But they also must not actively assist the other to distribute his own stuff. Demanding that makes mockery of markets' functionality.

Preventing Microsoft to manipulate market access for compoetitors and abusing its monopole, is one thing, and the EU was right to break that. Monopoloes should not be allowed, never. Demanding Microsoft to actively assist competitors to bring their stuff amongst people, is something very different - and here the EU stepped over the line, and now is riding on a moral crusade - and towards the direction of state-governed enterprise.

You could as well demand Mercedes to sell Toyotas in their own shops.

[Letum]

I know the market well enough.

I see no better solution than requiring MS to promote and distribute it's
competitor's products.

The company I work for follows similar rules to encourage competitiveness.
We are obliged to offer parts of our service to our competitors at a reduced
rate so that they can sell them on.

A competitive market is not an ends in it's self.
The only purpose of the competitive market is to provide benefit to the
consumer. When monopolies abuse their position in such a way that this no
longer happens it is right and proper that any rules necessary should be
enforced to ensure that a competitive marketplace is maintained.


You could as well demand Mercedes to sell Toyotas in their own shops. The closest car analogy I can come up with is:
(if it is tenuous that is only because cars are very unlike browsers)

Lets say it is the year 2050 and car production is so efficient that each car
is practically free. The only money to be made is from selling car batteries.

Mercedes is now almost the only company in the world that sells houses.
With each house they sell, they give away a free Mercedes car. This is
good for Merc. because they sell more batteries and get their logo out
more.

In this market Toyota can't possibly compete. Even tho they also give out
Toyotas for free, fewer people will take them, even if they are slightly
better, because everyone already has the free Merc. they got with their
house.

The only way to bring back competition is either to stop Mercedes sending
out any free cars with each house or to require them to distribute and
promote other manufacture's free cars with each house. The latter option
being far more practical for the consumer.

[Skybird]

As I said, breaking and preventing monopoles, is okay, since monopoles prevent competition and allow the monopolist to abuse his dominant position to dictate porices and conditions that are no longer dynamically settled by competition, then.

But demanding one company to get engaged in assisting it's rival in selling his products, by that damaging it's own competitiveness - that is something very different.

[Letum]

Why is that a bad thing?

The alternative is to ship the OS with no browser and no way to get a
browser other than through buying a CD with one one. That would be no good
for anyone, least of all MS.

[Skybird]

Why is that a bad thing?

The alternative is to ship the OS with no browser and no way to get a
browser other than through buying a CD with one one. That would be no good
for anyone, least of all MS.

Nonsens.

You can download the browser of your choice freely from the web. Choose Firebird, if you want. Or Explorer, if you prefer. Or Chrome, if you do not care for privacy. All that is okay with me.

Just that Microsoft is expected to help distributing competing Chrome and Firebird, that is what finds my rejection, since it seems to establiosh a dangerous, unwanted precedent.

I expect supervising authorities to prevent companies establishing monopoles. I do not expect companies to damage themseolves by selling/distributing the products of their rivals.

[Letum]

You can download the browser of your choice freely

Well, you can, but most people just stick with whatever the first browser to
come along with. Microsoft abuse their position as a software distributor by
guaranteeing that that browser is IE.

I do not expect companies to damage themseolves by selling/distributing the products of their rivals.

I expect companies to do what ever is good for competition and thus good for
the consumer.

[CastleBravo]

I guess the thing I find odd is that now Microsoft will continue to be the villian even though the EU anti-trust system manufactured the issue and now doesn't like the outcome. Didn't they see this coming or did they think it would never happen? Boggles the mind.

Another example of mis-management by crisis. The EU regulators seem to be as good as US regulators.

[Skybird]

Well, you can, but most people just stick with whatever the first browser to
come along with. Microsoft abuse their position as a software distributor by
guaranteeing that that browser is IE.

Yes, and the EU was right to end that. Now, Microsoft leaves the choice of browsers to the user of windows, since they must download one anyway.

Or do we now expect Microsoft to bundle Windows with Linux...?


I expect companies to do what ever is good for competition and thus good for
the consumer.
Me too, but in capitalistic thinking, competition is not really wanted, while having a monopoly is the ideal. Consumers and producers are natural enemies over this point.

However, it is unreasonable to expect one competitor to assist his direct rival. That's like one runner helping his rival over the hurdles. We can demand him to not hinder the others, and not to use bad tricks, and by creating fair market access for all (in ideal situation: equal market access for all). But while we should make sure that all horses find the way to the water, I doubt that we should try to make them drink. That'S something each horse has to do all by itself. And if it doesn't - that's its own problem.

[Letum]

They are only assisting to the point of giving fair, assessable and informed
choice.

The objective of the corporate 100m hurdles is not for the best company to
win, but for several companies to compete against each other as best they
can so that no one can afford to slacken the pace.
If one competitor is running the 100m hurdles in the rally car of universal
software distribution, then it is quite right that the competition should be
maintained by removing that advantage by any means necessary.

[Skybird]

They are only assisting to the point of giving fair, assessable and informed
choice.

The coice is there for customers already, and with Explorer no longer be part of Windows, the comfort-argument that people would stay with explorer for reasons of laziness, does not work anymore.

No need why one company should actively assist the other company at its own cost. That is not what market competition is about. microsoft offers Explorer as a separate download. Mozilla offers firebird as a separate download. and so on. Issue solved. No need for the state to overgovern things over nothing.

I see you are determined to push this up to the realms of absurdity again. So I leave here.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I expect companies to do what ever is good for competition and thus good for the consumer.

That kind of thinking is the fastest road to monopoly and oligopoly you can take besides simply nationalizing an industry.

While it sounds rational enough on the surface, the reality is that instead of barring companies from the power to create a monopoly, you just opened the door for them. Business' single favorite method of creating a monopoly is to use the power of the state to do it.
In the most common cases, businesses help legislatures to establish strict sets of regulatory, licensure, and legal standards for their own industry, shutting out a good deal of would-be entrepeneurs who cannot compete for lack of capital. Even when these entrepeneurs secure enough investors to get started, the state punishes them heavily by exacerbating their overhead costs through taxation.
Is it any wonder so many new companies fail so quickly? Of course, big business with a place secured by the state is always there to pick up the pieces afterwards if there is anything of value.

Another common usage of the state is for subsidization and penalization of the competition. Especially international competition. Who is always at the forefront of efforts to 'protect' national interests and jobs? All they really want to do is gain an unfair advantage over competitors. The same company that lobbies heavily to protect jobs through subsidization or tariffs will gladly cut or export ten thousand jobs the next year if that is deemed necessary to maintain healthy profitability.

Of course, there are thousands of other ways that business takes advantage of the state at the expense of the consumer and the taxpayer every year, not just these, but the point is that once you give government anything other than very strictly limited power over business in any capacity, you give business power over the state, especially in a democractic government and doubly so in multinational legislatures. The desire to guide the actions of the free market is a pandora's box that is not easily shut once it has been opened.
It is best to limit the state's power over business to the judicial realm, punishing fraud, theft, breach of contract, false advertising, harmful products, workplace abuses, and the like (only after they have been committed). While that still leaves a crack for business to exploit, it is a very small one. The threshold that must not be crossed is proactive government interference in the market.

In this particular case, Microsoft's most likely response will be to simply make their OS more expensive for consumers in the short term. In the long term, I have no idea what machinations they may put in place, but I assure you that they will totally sidestep the intent of this legislation.
Like bureacrats and politicians, the sole reason for my professional exsistence is not to evaluate potential market strategies for Microsoft.
However, the best thing to do imo, is to simply let Microsoft's natural monopoly run its' course, and give it no cause to intervene in state affairs. If people begin crying out for an alternative where none is to be found due to lack of competition, the state can always fall back on punitive trust-busting measures.

Perhaps you still see things differently, but I invite you to consider the wisdom of letting an entity that is almost universally detested for being incompetent, slow, corrupt, and inefficient, match wits with the best and brightest that private industry has to offer. I can assure you that business will beat the state every time and establish a shadow (and sometimes, overt) plutocracy, unless the state steps in and runs business entirely, which is tantamount to national fiscal suicide.

[Letum]

I can assure you that business will beat the state every time and establish a shadow (and sometimes, overt) plutocracy

That's more than a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?

[UnderseaLcpl]

That's more than a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?

Not particularly. The U.S. Federal Reserve is a sterling example. Although it was abolished (or rather, did not have its' charter renewed) by President Andrew Jackson's administration in the 1820's, it resurfaced in the early 20th century and is now the determining factor in Global Economic policy. Despite what it may sound like, and despite the fact that the Federal Reserve does have a state-appointed board of trustees (sort of), it is still very much a private entity.
Other examples include the rail Baronies of the late 19th century, which experienced their heydey after the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the late 1880's. Despite the fact that the rail Baronies were 'broken up' and consumers were 'protected' by the activities of the ICC( which became the surface transportation board in the 90's under Clinton, and a Republican Congress, with even more power), it did nothing to change the fact that within 50 years, the U.S. rail industry was reduced to only 5 Class-1 railroads(down from almost a dozen), and within 100 years to only 3, the two largest of which are practically the same company, so cemented are the policies by which they conduct their trade.
To this day the major rail companies routinely deliver goods late and at inflated prices because they are so protected. There only competition is the horribly inefficient trucking industry, which has become non competitive due to rising fuel prices, which have been exacerbated by (guess what!?) higher fuel taxes, which the freight rail industry lobbied for in the guise of promoting public transportation, which they provide 0% of.

There are many, many, more examples here in the U.S that I can name off the top of my head; the aluminum industry, the agricultural industry, the steel industry, the lumber industry, the automotive industry, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I'm not particularly familiar with European state intitiatives but judging by what I have seen of the budget outlays(not to mention the insane taxes you pay and the insane prices for goods, and the lower standard of living) for Germany and the U.K. alone, I suspect that I'd have no trouble at all locating a wealth of plutocratic state-industrial combines controlling many sectors of E.U. industry.

So again, I do not think it is an overstatement at all, especially not in the context of Europe, a continent which has largely been fiscally re-invented since the end of the Second World War. It took the U.S. over a century, to really get started on the path to fiscal liberalism and plutocracy, and still another half-century before it really began to manifest itself. Europe launched into the fallacy of "Social Democractic" economics after barely a decade, less in some cases, and if GDP per Capita and PPP per capita are any kind of indicators, is hell-bent on becoming a plutocracy with a vast wealth gap and a massvie international defecit as soon as possible.

I think that the U.K., and the rest of the E.U. nations have placed far too much faith in the judgement of their elected representatives, especially those within the E.U. legislature. Only time will tell, but if history has anything to say about it, plutocracy it will be.

[goldorak]

My understanding is that either you will select the browser you want when
you buy the OS or you will be presented wit an option to download the one
you want once you have internet connectivity.


This is a non issue really. First and foremost 99% of windows pc are sold with an oem license and guess what, its the OEM that will install a browser on the system before selling it to the consumer. And you want to guess WHICH browser they will choose ? Of course IE. As for the 1% of consumers that buy a retail license and install the operating system themselves, well I guess they are tech savy enough to have a copy of firefox or another browser on some usb pen, usb drive or floppy disc. Non issue at 100%.
The real problem, is that by unboundling IE from windows and putting the choice on the OEM, for the consumer there is really no choice at all.
Its like Henry Ford once said : "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".
The EU comission has to enforce that browser choice be made available from within the operating system itself. Its the customer that has to choose which browser to use upon installation, and not the OEM deciding for him/her because we all know what they will choose. Microsoft had to comply with the EU comission decision, instead they took matters into their own hands to make a go-around the EU. I hope the EU fines them to death. Micorosoft is a company that deserves no respect, its like a bully defying continously the law.
There will be a time, when they step one step too far.

[Letum]

Why would whoever is selling the OEM always choose IE, given the choice?

[Arclight]

There have been lots of times MS went a step too far. I can still see Gates rockin back and forth in that courtroom chair. I actually felt sorry for him when I saw that, such a sad sight...

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/bill-gates-autistic-p1.php
Why would whoever is selling the OEM always choose IE, given the choice?
Because that's what people are familiar with. It's just the most obvious choice.

[goldorak]

Why would whoever is selling the OEM always choose IE, given the choice?

Because having IE installed means no compatibility problems with the OS, the programs and of course web sites. Some services such as STEAM require IE.
And its not the only one. So you see that from a customer oriented point of view the OEM really has no choice as to what browser install.
And thats precisely the reason that Microsoft shifted the choice on the OEM, ignoring the EU complaints. Pretty devilish is you ask me, but the EU will come even harder on Microsoft.

[Skybird]

Okay, but then it is still a free choice by the consumer if they chose to download IE instead of Firefox or Chrome or whatever.

If Firefox or Chrome want their's to be downloade, they have to make them more attractive. It is not microft's moral obligation to do their work for them, it just needs to accept the obligation to give them the needed infomation so that Mozilla and Google can make their browers working in a Microsoft Windows environment. It is the other competitor's job to make their products attractive enough so that they are compatible. And if they are not attractive for a wide audience, the EU should not force them down people's throat nevertheless by demanding Microsoft to distribute the rivalling products by Mozilla and Google.

They are competing - not cooperating. The EU does not seem to know the difference here.

[Letum]

If Firefox or Chrome want their's to be downloade, they have to make them more attractive.

The problem is that even if they are more attractive, IE still has an advantage.

They are competing - not cooperating. The EU does not seem to know the difference here.

On the contrary!
The EU is ensuring that they are competing; that the best product wins,
not just the product that is shipped out with other software.

[Skybird]

Heck, I don't understand your problem. Microsoft has agreed not to bundle Explorer with Windows anymore. Have you even realised that?

The psychological advantage that people use Explorer for reasons of laziness and comfort, is gone (and for all Firebird and Opera and Chrome users it has been a questionable argument anyway, since longer time). All three products now line up at the starting line, at equal terms. People see them, weigh them, make their choice, download for free the one they want, and install it.

What else do you want...?

If people still prefer Explorer over the others, than this must not be your or the EU's concern. I would, for example, prefer Explorer nevertheless. and I do not see any problem at all to download it and install it. I do download a lot of additonal programs of my choice when installing, and I download updates several times a week.

I do not expect or demand Microsoft to actively distribute the competing products of their rivals. It violates common economic sense to demand that. equality of chances is what it is about - and this has been acchieved. Now it is up to Chrome and Mozilla to use their chances. They are free to fail, too. And if they fail, it is not the EU's job to compensate for that.

[Letum]

You have lost me!
That is what I want....I was under the impression you where against that.

[goldorak]

Okay, but then it is still a free choice by the consumer if they chose to download IE instead of Firefox or Chrome or whatever.


No its not. You don't understand it do you.
The situation Microsoft has created with this decision doesn't change a iota as far as the consumer is regarded. It has been the same situation for the last decade, pretty much the reason Microsoft was first investigated by the EU.
The real game changer (and the reason Microsoft doesn't want to comply) is to have a screen that offers the consumer a choice as to what browser to install before the installation of the OS is complete.


If Firefox or Chrome want their's to be downloade, they have to make them more attractive. It is not microft's moral obligation to do their work for them, it just needs to accept the obligation to give them the needed infomation so that Mozilla and Google can make their browers working in a Microsoft Windows environment. It is the other competitor's job to make their products attractive enough so that they are compatible. And if they are not attractive for a wide audience, the EU should not force them down people's throat nevertheless by demanding Microsoft to distribute the rivalling products by Mozilla and Google.

They are competing - not cooperating. The EU does not seem to know the difference here.

You simply don't understand the reason Microsoft was first investigated and found guilty. If Microsoft had never bundled at 0 cost IE with Windows and AT THE SAME TIME bullied OEMs to not install third party browsers there wouldn't be a problem. The most viable browser would have survived. As we all know thats not what happened and as a result we have a heavily crippled web that just in the last 2-3 years has started slowly very slowly to heal itself from Microsoft proprietary crap. This in and of itself doesn't not excuse the original actions made by Microsoft 10 years ago.

[SUBMAN1]

Sooo, if the OS ships without a browser, how does a user download one? :doh:

You hit the head on the nail. You beat me to this post.

Now a lot of lawmakers are going to get beat up because of this simple oversight. Microsoft will not be the loser in all this, the European people will.

You guys are just so smart over there! :D Opinionated to the point where you become useless.

-S

[Letum]

The head on the....? nevermind.

Anyway, read through the posts and you will find the answer to that question.

[goldorak]

You hit the head on the nail. You beat me to this post.

Now a lot of lawmakers are going to get beat up because of this simple oversight. Microsoft will not be the loser in all this, the European people will.

You guys are just so smart over there! :D Opinionated to the point where you become useless.

-S

Man I wonder if IQ has taken a plunge recently reading some comments.
Joe Sixpack WILL NOT HAVE TO INSTALL A BROWSER, the pc will already come with one, preinstalled by the oem.
Whats so difficult to grasp about it ?
People who buy retail and install the operating system are a niche, a tech savy niche to whom this new disposition doesn't constitute a problem.
You guys are creating a problem from thin air.

[SUBMAN1]

Man I wonder if IQ has taken a plunge recently reading some comments.
Joe Sixpack WILL NOT HAVE TO INSTALL A BROWSER, the pc will already come with one, preinstalled by the oem.
Whats so difficult to grasp about it ?
People who buy retail and install the operating system are a niche, a tech savy niche to whom this new disposition doesn't constitute a problem.
You guys are creating a problem from thin air.

You assume too much.

-S

[goldorak]

You assume too much.

-S

No I don't.
And for the simple reason that Microsoft has already stated that by unboundling IE from windows, they will give the oem the choice which browser to install, and for retail they will offer a cd at 0 cost that will contain IE. Now tell me exactly where is the problem for Joe Sixpack or even for a tech savy consumer.

[Q3ark]

On the contrary!
The EU is ensuring that they are competing; that the best product wins,
not just the product that is shipped out with other software.

It makes no difference weather windows ships with IE or not. People will download and use their prefered browser either way. It's not like windows is blocking access to third party browsers. It has always been up to the user which sofware they want on their system. The EU need not waste time and resources on this :nope:

[Arclight]

No I don't.
And for the simple reason that Microsoft has already stated that by unboundling IE from windows, they will give the oem the choice which browser to install, and for retail they will offer a cd at 0 cost that will contain IE. Now tell me exactly where is the problem for Joe Sixpack or even for a tech savy consumer.
Well, if you put it like that. :roll:

From reading the first post this wasn't exactly clear; browser provided by OEM or disc at 0 cost, but that may have been an oversight on my part.

You got to admit that it is the first question that enters the mind when you hear Win will come without a browser. Even though the answer is simple enough, it's a legitimate question IMHO. ;)

[Skybird]

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39663073,00.htm

If only I knew what is so difficult in understanding this.

[Arclight]

:rotfl:

That's the first time you provided a link to the source, and you ask what's difficult to understand about it?

*Anyway, to quote J.P. Gownder in that article: "The whole thing is pretty silly"
I agree, asking MS to distribute rivaling products with Windows is ridiculous. :down:

[SUBMAN1]

No I don't.
And for the simple reason that Microsoft has already stated that by unboundling IE from windows, they will give the oem the choice which browser to install, and for retail they will offer a cd at 0 cost that will contain IE. Now tell me exactly where is the problem for Joe Sixpack or even for a tech savy consumer.

I am not speaking from the OEM standpoint. They will load the machine properly.

I'm talking about from the end user that wants to try and upgrade his own machine with limited knowledge. You assume they are all techies. They are not. They will of course get a quick education on why its a good idea to have a default browser on their system. Every OS comes with a browser. Even text based browsers like lynx for text based OS's.

Basically how stupid the EU government is can be summed up in that even for the knowledgeable, you just created extra steps. Extra work for everyone, OEM's included. You also just made it harder if not impossible for the person who wants to learn to take care of his own system too. Typical of the EU these days. Legislate without knowing the whole story. They legislate on a feel good scenario.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

So if Apple reaches a certain market share % in Europe, will they be forced to pull Safari from their OS as it ships? And what is that market share %?

PD

[Skybird]

A study in Germany says that on the German market, Firefox is now the most used browser, with a market share of 40%. IE 7+8 reach 38% together.

If counting IE6 from 2001 also, Microsoft takes the lead again due to an additonal market share of 12% for it's oldtimer.

Taking each Explorer version for itself, Firefox has left them behind, all of them.

Safari 3.1%

Opera 2.4%

Chrome 1.3%

The study was done in in April and May and involved 120 thousand German internet users. Regharding statistical validity, that is quite much for assessing the German internet user market.


http://www.welt.de/webwelt/article3927687/Firefox-ueberholt-in-Deutschland-Internet-Explorer.html

Good to see that Chrome is being ignored. The German federal police gave the strongest computer-warning in its history over this piece of code.

The consequences are clear. For the German market release of Windows 7, we need a special rule that reflects both Firefox' leading position, and Firefox' and Microsoft's shared dominance over Safari and Opera and chrome. It must be demanded that Mozilla distributes Opera and Safari, and that they and even malware security risk Chrome get pushed to 16% market share each , while Firefox and Explorer have to give up market shares. :up: That's for the sake of competition and improving product quality! Free choice for free consumers. And if you still chose the wrong one, we'll make you making the right choice!

[Letum]

Interesting marketing of IE in Australia:
http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/

http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/image2.jpg

[goldorak]

What of those using IE6 ? Are they to get lost also ? :haha: :har:
Man, another proof the Microsoft hates its own customers.

[Letum]

What of those using IE6 ? Are they to get lost also?

They better get lost before they are attacked by angry web designers who
have to spend far too much time making sure everything is backwards
compatible.

[goldorak]

They better get lost before they are attacked by angry web designers who
have to spend far too much time making sure everything is backwards
compatible.

IE6 users, the zombies of the WWW. :timeout: