Delivering their OSes with half a dozen pre-installed standard-compliant
alternatives to IE/win isn't a
technical problem, so why not?
I'm no lawyer and I'm also no MS fanboy, but I think 'why?' is as equally
a valid question as 'why not?'.
My latest computer with Vista came pre-intalled with Windows Mail, Windows
Media Player, Microsoft Works and Roxio CD Creator (this one may be more
of an HP choice than MS); should I also expect my system to be
preinstalled with Eudora/Thunderbird/Lotus Note, RealPlayer/Quicktime,
OpenOffice and Nero? Is it reasonable for any OS vendor to have to install
any more than one type of any application? For the less savvy users,
having more than one option may actually make things more difficult for
them.
Surely it's any manufacturer's right to choose what components they use in
their own product (as long as there aren't health and safety concerns
involved)?
--
Tyssen Design
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
