Quote:
Originally Posted by martino
So what if they rely on them? This could be simply solved through a dependency system; "If you want to install x please install y first".
|
So, the average joe will just browse through, click yes, and continue. Most other people who want to see the new features will also click yes and continue. So that leaves a minority that for some reason doesn't want IE integrated into Windows features. I wouldn't waste work hours trying to come up with an IE-less setup unless someone actually forced the company to, and even then, the average joe wouldn't know what to do without a browser. Also, this will fall again into the minority that just doesn't want to have IE inside, cause when offered with the option to install a browser (IE) or not, the average joe will just click yes again. A waste of employee time and a total waste of money if you ask me. Windows is a mainstream OS, not a tweaker's paradise, it's supposed to be as generic and simple as possible, for starters. Then, if there are tweaks you can do, they should not affect installing or uninstalling Windows features to pull them off.
Which brings me to my final point. Even if some organization forces Microsoft to cut IE out (like EU did with WMP), people will just buy it WITH the IE anyway, that's what happened with the infamous Windows N editions, no one wanted them. Those who just can't stand IE and WMP can just stay with Linux. But then, it's these people that end up hurting an OS's sales by spreading FUD all over the place (UAC IS a good idea, yeah it's a pain but so is Linux always asking for my friggin pass to install stuff from a source as untrusted as Synaptics... DRM, where the hell was it, I play whatever I want, I rip whatever I want, I do whatever I want since day 1, so where the hell did they hide it?... It wasn't... dwm.exe... right? /sarcasm. Slow, yeah it's slower than XP on the same system, get a newer PC, disable stuff, or just stay with DOS, I loved DOS back in its glorious days, clean to a fault, and stable as a rock). My experience shows that no one likes Vista (whether he actually used it for more than a day or not at all) until he actually tries Vista on a contemporary PC. I seriously doubt most people even care whether IE and WMP come installed with Windows and in the end, nor should they be. Microsoft doesn't prohibit them from installing other stuff inside. I'm mostly using Songbird for music and Firefox for browsing. I used to use MPC for all other media, but WMP 12 is good enough to give it a try and play most stuff on it (and test the thing anyway, it IS a beta version after all and I'm running it on a beta OS).
What is MS apparently doing with 7?
1. Make it lighter than Vista.
2. Make it faster than Vista.
Now hopefully they'll also 3. make it cheaper than Vista, so they'll give the ancients enough incentives to upgrade from a 6yr old system. Hopefully this will shield it from all the new FUD that's bound to arise.
On a side note, I had to use my Ubuntu disk to test Win7 and I kinda miss messing around linux distros. Hopefully MS will released 7 soon, so I can free up the Vista disk and install Kubuntu (want to try KDE 4.2 a bit).