|
|
|
|
|
by scholia
3716 days ago
|
|
> MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE Microsoft had already signed a consent decree with Janet Reno's DoJ. This specifically allowed Microsoft to add features to the operating system. In effect, it didn't have a choice about building IE into the OS. (1) The later anti-trust case was based on the idea of tying (forcing someone who wants one product to have a second product as well). Microsoft said IE was integrated, not tied, while the DoJ said it was tied. (Microsoft eventually won that one 2-1 on appeal.) > It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome). Less of a money grab than the EU fining Microsoft big bucks for bundling Windows Media Player, and forcing it to offer versions of Windows without it. (The EU refused Microsoft's offer to bundle three media players with Windows.) (1) Microsoft also componentized IE so that different programs -- including third-party programs -- could use components from IE. This wasn't such a bad idea at the time, before the browser became the main focus for malware attacks and we wanted it sandboxed. |
|