John Faulds wrote:
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?'.
Indeed. Which would make any such case valid for testing.
[...] Is it reasonable for any OS vendor to have to install any more
than one type of any application?
I think that would depend on the application in question. AFAIKS only
one application is mentioned in the article.
For the less savvy users, having more than one option may actually
make things more difficult for them.
Sure, and the least savvy users may get lost with only one option -
especially if it's a weak one. Making choices for users rarely helps,
unless the aim is to keep them ignorant.
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)?
Don't know about the rest of the world, but in the EU there's also
something called "ethics" involved when products and sales methods are
evaluated.
Microsoft has been evaluated on ethics before - in the EU, and it didn't
pass the tests. The same has happened to other companies - big and
small, so it doesn't really matter what name it has and what its
products are.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
