No more need for Adobe Reader or even Fox It
WinSuperSite and Within Windows have another new Windows 8 feature to share. Soon, you may no longer need to install any extra software to view that ever popular PDF format, thanks to an integrated PDF reader called Modern Reader that will ship with Windows 8
While almost everyone running Windows these days has Adobe Reader, or some equivalent, Microsoft is building that functionality right into the next OS. Hopefully it will be a lightweight alternative.
Modern Reader also appears to be an early example of the new AppX application package for Windows 8. AppX is a packaged application model for Windows 8 that is much like the one used in Windows Phone 7.
- first off: the feature herein described. It is a PDF reader; considering a form of PDF format is now an ISO specification with an irrevocable, transferable, free license, and that it has several, free (cost and code) implementations, while the specifications is still under Adobe's control, I don't really see why there would be an EU investigation.
- second: previous EU investigations were on:
* restrictions and lock down in interoperability on SMB/CIFS: Microsoft almost bought its way out of it, except the Samba project led the investigation to its end, where MS had to open these protocols' specifications and allow... My goodness! Fair competition in the server space!
* abuse of monopolistic position in web browser space: well, suddenly, users moved away from IE in Europe due to a ballot screen. Surprisingly, since that investigation started in 2004, Microsoft got 3 different browser versions out in 6 years while there hadn't been one in 5 years before that, the latest of which follows a specification that Microsoft didn't write alone (IE6 tried to write 'DHTML', 'VML' by its lonesome, and to use Visual Basic as a webpage scripting language. Interestingly, last week a US author wrote an article recommending that Microsoft made IE optional, and proposed users to download a choice of web browser. And no, since IE is a 'system component', EU customers don't get an IE-less copy (the WMP-less copies are invisible) - they still use IE to download Firefox or Chrome. Or they stick to IE9, which is surprisingly a decent browser.
- third: Java's license does say that the only way for a piece of code interpreter to call itself 'java' or java compatible', is to pass the Sun/Oracle Java specification test suite; if it does, use of copyrighted name is granted and patents are freely licensed. Microsoft's 'java' VM never passed that suite, and it still called itself java. Breach of license, breach of copyright, and obvious attempt at subverting a specification with help from a monopolistic position.
- last: a monopoly abuse is one where a company gets so big it can influence the market; a liberal system ensures that a monopoly must remain competitive and not simply lock down the market with barriers to entry. Please note that, of all companies and bodies who asked for a regulation on MS because of IE, one was Norwegian (Opera), two were american (Google, Apple), and one was international but based in the US (Mozilla). Funny how the EU defends the free market to the benefit of US companies, while the US don't...
Mac OS has had this for 10 years.
Apple and Linux have got away with murder allowing things that Microsoft would get slammed with monopoly lawsuits with and in return we get a less capable operating system because of it. What did the EU accomplish? Extra browser choices during installation in an age where most Windows users have come to the conclusion that IE is crap? Whoopty-doo EU, thanks for wasting everyones time.
Anyone who has been in this industry long enough has seen this over and over. Microsoft's intentionally broken postscript. Microsoft's intentionally broken pdf. Microsoft's intentionally broken Java. Microsoft's intentionally broken non-proprietary networking. Microsoft's intentionally broken fonts. The list goes on and on.
We need to get more public control of companies. This is a symptom of corporate greed without concern for our society. We should restrict the US marketing of products by such companies.
That "european nanny state" to which you are referring has established a policy that truly takes into account the benefits of the consumers - not the corporations...so, ya, it might be a nanny state to you, but it's the Marry Poppins of a nanny state, and I like that!
Dude, they can simply release it separately instead of bundling it. Bundling is what makes the software kind of default and prevents users from looking for alternatives. That's what happened with IE.
- first off: the feature herein described. It is a PDF reader; considering a form of PDF format is now an ISO specification with an irrevocable, transferable, free license, and that it has several, free (cost and code) implementations, while the specifications is still under Adobe's control, I don't really see why there would be an EU investigation.
- second: previous EU investigations were on:
* restrictions and lock down in interoperability on SMB/CIFS: Microsoft almost bought its way out of it, except the Samba project led the investigation to its end, where MS had to open these protocols' specifications and allow... My goodness! Fair competition in the server space!
* abuse of monopolistic position in web browser space: well, suddenly, users moved away from IE in Europe due to a ballot screen. Surprisingly, since that investigation started in 2004, Microsoft got 3 different browser versions out in 6 years while there hadn't been one in 5 years before that, the latest of which follows a specification that Microsoft didn't write alone (IE6 tried to write 'DHTML', 'VML' by its lonesome, and to use Visual Basic as a webpage scripting language. Interestingly, last week a US author wrote an article recommending that Microsoft made IE optional, and proposed users to download a choice of web browser. And no, since IE is a 'system component', EU customers don't get an IE-less copy (the WMP-less copies are invisible) - they still use IE to download Firefox or Chrome. Or they stick to IE9, which is surprisingly a decent browser.
- third: Java's license does say that the only way for a piece of code interpreter to call itself 'java' or java compatible', is to pass the Sun/Oracle Java specification test suite; if it does, use of copyrighted name is granted and patents are freely licensed. Microsoft's 'java' VM never passed that suite, and it still called itself java. Breach of license, breach of copyright, and obvious attempt at subverting a specification with help from a monopolistic position.
- last: a monopoly abuse is one where a company gets so big it can influence the market; a liberal system ensures that a monopoly must remain competitive and not simply lock down the market with barriers to entry. Please note that, of all companies and bodies who asked for a regulation on MS because of IE, one was Norwegian (Opera), two were american (Google, Apple), and one was international but based in the US (Mozilla). Funny how the EU defends the free market to the benefit of US companies, while the US don't...