More Vista



  • While copying a program from a network server to the desktop in Vista, I got the following warning:




  • Haha, really makes you feel safe, doesn't it?  An "unspecified" security risk...



  • I think it's wild that it's actually IE that's given the warning and not the OS directly... it's as if IE is half the OS now!



  • @Morbii said:

    I think it's wild that it's actually IE that's given the warning and not the OS directly... it's as if IE is half the OS now!

     

    I think that actually started 12 years ago. 



  • @merreborn said:

    @Morbii said:

    I think it's wild that
    it's actually IE that's given the warning and not the OS directly...
    it's as if IE is half the OS now!

     

    I think that actually started 12 years ago. 

      Quite likely IE's only role in this was shdocvw.dll being used to render the thumbnail of an html file, and it is actually explorer doing the actual copy operation.

      Of course, that's not in any way to diminish the culpability of <font color="red" size="24">CONVICTED CRIMINAL MONOPOLISTS</font> Microsoft for indeed illegally entangling their OS and browser software...

    ;-) 



  • @DaveK said:

    Microsoft for indeed illegally entangling their OS and browser software...

    I'm going to assume that you actually know better than that, but for the benefit of everyone that may find this later, they really need to understand that MS could bundle whatever they wanted with little problem. They got into a lot of trouble for the business side of things. Unconscionable contracts, bad deals, etc. They weren't taken to court because they decided that Windows couldn't be Windows anymore without IE.



  • @HitScan said:

    @DaveK said:

    Microsoft for indeed illegally entangling their OS and browser software...

    I'm
    going to assume that you actually know better than that, but for the
    benefit of everyone that may find this later, they really need to
    understand that MS could bundle whatever they wanted with little
    problem. They got into a lot of trouble for the business side of
    things. Unconscionable contracts, bad deals, etc. They weren't taken to
    court because they decided that Windows couldn't be Windows anymore
    without IE.

      You're wrong.  A prime element of the conviction was Microsoft's tying of IE into the OS.  Why don't you go read the final judgement for yourself?

      Section 2, "Maintenance of Monopoly Power by Anticompetitive Means", subsection a, "Combating the Browser Threat", paragraph i), "The OEM Channel":

    "First, Microsoft bound Internet Explorer to Windows with contractual and, later, technological shackles in order to ensure the prominent (and ultimately permanent) presence of Internet Explorer on every Windows user's PC system"

      The "technological shackles" there referred to are the entanglement of browser and OS that made it impossible to uninstall IE from Win 9x series machines.

      Or try "II. SECTION ONE OF THE SHERMAN ACT", where it says

    "  The plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's combination of Windows and Internet Explorer by contractual and technological artifices constitute unlawful tying to the extent that those actions forced Microsoft's customers and consumers to take Internet Explorer as a condition of obtaining Windows. While the Court agrees with plaintiffs, and thus holds that Microsoft is liable for illegal tying under § 1, this conclusion is arguably at variance with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a closely related case, and must therefore be explained in some detail. Whether the decisions are indeed inconsistent is not for this Court to say."

      So, yes, they were taken to court because they "decided that Windows couldn't be Windows anymore without IE", it was an explicit part of the complaint against them, and an issue on which the judge found explicitly in the plaintiff's favour.

      Pretty much the same issues came up in the EU monopoly cases, but I'm not going to do your homework for you on that one; if you want to actually /know/ what you're talking about, instead of just spouting your own personal uninformed opinion, you could always bother to look it up.

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.