Slashdot Mirror
Rivals Upset At Windows XP Features
Beowu1f writes: "Found an AP story on yahoo with a few snippet comments from the Iowa Attorney General, AOL, RealNetworks, Norton and a law professor. The article is relatively plain, talking about how rivals are getting pissed at the snowballing of features into XP, .NET and Hailstorm, saying it's the same as what MS did with IE, etc. etc." The article quotes David Farber, too. I don't mind that most Linux distros come with CD-burning software, IRC clients, a great paint program, etc. -- but then, they're independently written and optional.
Tilt your head 90 degrees counter-clockwise for the Eric Cartman effect.
There has actually been numerous lawsuits and fed investigations of the car stereo situation. So far, Detroit has gotten away with what they've been doing (for example, the oval-shaped stereo in Tauruses), but don't oversimplify the situation.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
It's been known since the early 90s (to paraphrase/steal the words of the authors of "Undocumented DOS"): Your product may be a DLL in the next version of Windows. If you develop apps for Windows, don't act all shocked when it finally happens to you.
You gambled: take the risk that MS will eventually get around to backstabbing you, and in the mean time, enjoy having a fairly large market. When they finally come for you, don't bitch about it. Where the fuck were you when Microsoft was preloading Windows on everyone's PC and making per-CPU licensing deals? Where the fuck were you when users of the minority platforms cried out for more apps? You ignored them because their market was too small, and you reinforced Microsoft's dominance and legitimized Windows as a desktop product. So shut the fuck up and quit begging the government to protect you now that you've reaped what you've sown.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Greg
Believe it or not Microsoft has got to actually SELL copies of Windows XP. If Windows XP is chuck full of stupid "features" that are actually disincentives to the upgrade then people will stick with what they have.
No they won't. Microsoft puts major pressure on OEMs to ship the latest version of Windows. Prices on older versions are typically not cut, and sometimes pricing it set so that older versions actually cost more. 6 months after XP is introduced, it will be virtually impossible to buy a computer from a major OEM that doesn't have it pre-installed. Most people won't know enough to go somewhere else. And it won't even really be a viable option for those few who do; new hardware and software won't support the old OS after a while.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Excellent point.
I suppose that operating systems are a tough business to be in anyway... that is, suppose a lot of the reasons why Windows is an "entrenched" OS (application support, hardware support, brand name recognition, ease-of-use, existing user base, etc.) were nullified by Monday morning at 10am. I seriously doubt that Linux, BeOS, and OS/2 would fill in all the gaps and/or do a better job for most users anytime within the next 2 years. But even more important, I seriously doubt that someone on Monday morning, deciding to seize the opportunity, could make an OS from scratch within the next two years that could compete among the remaining OSes. Considering that a very large user base, several times the size of the MS Windows core development team, has spent the better part of a decade building a better OS from scratch in an open and collaborative process, yet only 5% of the market uses it and most admit that it's not ready for most of the 85% majority OS users, that says something about the sheer difficulty of living up to the expectations set by Windows.
Before anyone adds that MS is anticompetitive and THAT'S why they're entrenched... well, Linux is free, it's been around awhile, and the business world knows about it. With all respect to the concept that people don't like change... I think the expense of Windows licenses would be enough motivation for the majority of the business world and computer manufacturers to jump ship by now. But Windows apparently has enough advantages to keep a lot of people in its tent.
The fact is, Windows, Linux, and now even OS X, constantly set a very high bar for what's expected in an operating system. OS X took YEARS to come around, and GNU/Linux is a very complex system for providing a very complete library of tools and applications that can be bundled as a package (and unbundled, as well). I marvel at innovation that's so speedy and prolific like this.
Microsoft plays unfair? Probably. But in this "business", I doubt that fair could ever win anymore. I think that at some point we have to settle for "unfair" but "pretty damn good". Just like with Intel... they might have a questionable lock on their market (well, AMD has been creeping in on them for a number of years and they're permanently in the game now), but can you really look down on a company that has kept up with Moore's Law for over two decades? If we had 10 processor vendors competing harshly today to sell 33mhz processors, would that be better for the consumer?
Actually, a lot of those stereos are built by the big-name brands - Sony, Blaupunkt etc - and then rebadged by the car manufacturer. That's why the manufacturers don't complain: they're the ones benefitting!
Yeah. Just like getting long-distance service bundled with your local phone service was a really good thing, and we all love getting Windows bundled with our PCs - oh. Wait. We don't. That's why it's illegal...
The whole point of the anti-trust legislation is that when you have a monopoly in one market (local phone service, OS sales) you aren't allowed to use that monopoly to boost market share in another market (long distance, applications) - that's illegal abuse of monopoly power, which is what AT&T were cut up for, and what MS will hopefully be cut up for...
Ok, lets take a look at Windows. People don't want HTML rendering engines and stuff built in. Fine, so you take out high-level network stuff. What about low-level? Remember the days of Trumpet Winsock, and how you needed third party software to even get onto the Internet? Ok, so we take that out, because it's unfair bundling. What about device drivers? Remember the old days in DOS when you'd install a game, and you'd pick your soundcard and video card from a list? Gravis Ultrasound Max, Sound Blaster Pro or compatible, ATI, S3, Trident, all that? What about windowing environments? In the PC world, they started out as third party addons for DOS; Desqview and the like. So out they go. What about memory management? Quarterdeck got pretty pissed when EMM386 got bundled in with DOS. Hell, what about filesystems? Do you honestly think Sun's incapable of making a filesystem worth having? Of course not. But Veritas would get pretty pissed. Operating systems are including more and more stuff as time goes on, and I, for one, think it's a good thing. I like the fact that I don't have to tweak TSRs and IRQs in Windows the way I had to in DOS. I like the idea of buying a network card and having it work with the OS, and not needing to get a third party TCP/IP stack. I like the idea of software being able to say 'Requires DirectX 7' and that being the end of it.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Ok, look people, I'm not a Microsoftie.
I wrote my first "free software" project in 1976, ( Blackjack for the IBM/360, in APL).
I run Linux as my prefered desktop. It boots in console mode by default. I edit in vi. I use cdparanoia and lame from the console to encode in Ogg Vorbis. I use png for all my graphics. I converted my entire business to Linux years ago when I got tired of MS breaking all my apps with each meaningless 'upgrade'which they charged me thousands for. I do all my development work in Linux, from the console, no IDE, no prorpriatary libraries.
I've got fsckin' free software creds, ok?
However. . . Let me delineate a few of the reasons I hate MS products and see if some of these complaints don't sound familiar.
Virii. The system is inherently insecure. Everybody bitches about it, in fact it's the number one complaint of the pro Linux crowd that Windows is insecure, and rightfully so. *System* security is a *system* problem.
System tools, configuration, install and uninstall, etc., are criminally in short supply or, where they exist, of poor quality. The very idea that I need to purchase an aftermarket uninstaller is criminal, as is the fact that I have to pay a license fee, ( built into the price of my software), to companies such as InstallShield to get the install and uninstall processes at least somewhat properly done. It's criminal that I have to pay money to an aftermarket software company such as Norton simply to secure and configure and maintain my Windows system.
It's criminal that I have to pay money to Adaptec/Roxio * to make an I/O device function properly!* CD burning is an OPERATING SYSTEM function, just as much as writing to floppy or HD is.
Norton and Adaptec are part of an entire cottage industry of companies that exist solely off of the increadable failings of the Windows operating system to provide what it should * as an operating system.*
I am NOT going to critize them for all of these various failings and THEN critize them for *bundling apps* that should have been part of the OS from day one.
Norton and Adaptec have no inherent right to make a living from the shoddyness of Windows. They were handed a cash cow.
When MS fixes these deplorable flaws in their operating system I'm not of a mood to praise them, but I'm willing to at least speak up and say, " It's about bloody well time guys!"
Now if we want examples of MS being just plain evil they are easy enough to come by. Kerberos, WMA, extortionate licensing practices, the extreme arrogance with which they handled themselves during the antitrust trial, Clippy, etc., but bundling legitmate OS level functionality into an OS just isn't one of them.
For that matter, as far as I'm concerned, all development tools and MS Office ought to come with the OS at no additional charge as well, * just as they do with most Linux distros*.
If MS maintained fully open standards, supplied all needed development tools, had transparent APIs that remained fairly stable and * bundled every possible app they could* with the system for about $99 I'd be a lot HAPPIER with them as a company. To hell with Adaptec. Don't forget that they arn't 'good guys' either. They're just another lawyer happy corporation claiming they have a right to take your money.
Windows would STILL be a buggy toy OS, but they would be giving to the consumer what they should expect to get for a reasonable price, and so long as the development framework remained open fairly in the marketplace.
Untill all of the above happens I'll continue to use Linux, thank you very much. Perhaps that is why some Linux advocates are against such *bundling of apps*? Because it would put Windows on a better financial footing with respect to a good Linux Distro?
As for breaking MS up into seperate companies, Should ESR be prevented from from working on emacs because he's on the VA Linux payroll? Should he be banned from being payed to work on vi as well!? Isn't part of the whole "open source" movement to get as much software, of high enough quality, at as low a price, as possible available to the consumer?
Ok, and how about this, *ISN'T* Linux a valid, open, standards based alternative to Windows? Hmmmmmm?
MY desktop says it is.
And where it fails, say gaming and web browsing, is it truely MSes fault for being anti competitive, or have we just failed to come up with the code so far?
Let's kill MS with tons of high quality, functional code people, not by letting lawyers say that some scumsucking corporation deserves to rip off part of your money as much as MS does.
KFG
Personally, I think the next MS case should be over the fact that they no longer support versions of their software; if it could be legally proven that one version of windows (let's say Win95) performed the same tasks as another version (i.e. WinME), but was no longer supported by the company, then they should have to purchase those licenses back (imho). Now *that* would make them suffer.
Somehow, getting more for your money is bad for the consumer.
Guess what? Many cars come "bundled" with car stereos. You can't get the car for less money if you don't want the stereo. Guess what else? That stereo was probably built by the car manufacturer under a different name.
Yet, somehow aftermarket car stereo manufacturers manage to survive. I don't here them whining about "monopolistic" policies of the car manufacturers, even that clearly costs them huge amounts of market.
Deal with it. Getting more applications for your money instead of less is a good thing.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I just killed a field mouse for 120 XP, how much do I get if I kill this Windows thing?
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
I have no objection to buying a $50 OS, and then adding freely downloadable apps funded by, for example, sales of streaming software, advertising, etc. But I do have an objection to buying a $200 OS and having to pay for the development of those apps, and not having the choice of being able to choose a competitors' alternative.
The key is the word bundling. In this case, things are being added to the operating system that have nothing to do with the operating system, and people are being forced to buy them if they buy the OS, regardless of whether they want them or not.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Believe it or not Microsoft has got to actually SELL copies of Windows XP. If Windows XP is chuck full of stupid "features" that are actually disincentives to the upgrade then people will stick with what they have. This is nearly as dangerous for Microsoft as if the user had switched to Linux. Remember, Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't Corel, or Oracle, or IBM, or even the amorphous "Linux," Micrsoft's biggest competitor is previous versions of their own software.
Even worse issues like games and compatibility with work also make it more likely that people will stick with what they have. I don't know of any businesses that have rolled out Windows XP (nor do I know of any that have done a serious desktop rollout of Windows 2000, for that matter). They should be making their operating system as attractive to buyers as they possibly can. Instead they are lining up an initiative to treat their customers as copyright breaking thieves. Things like WMA and the new copy protection scheme aren't likely to entire current Windows users to this new OS.
Meanwhile Linux will continue to grow. naysayers have been predicting its imminent demise since it's first arrival on the scene, and they have always been spectacularly wrong. The reason for this is simple, Linux is too darned useful. It's price tag is a siren song for hackers and entrepreneurs everywhere, and the cost of maintaining the infrastructure that keeps Linux alive is negligible. Microsoft can't bankrupt Linux, it can't buy Linux, and it can't intimidate enough Linuxers to make a difference.
This doesn't make Linux better than Windows. I personally don't think that Linux is ready for the desktop, for example. But it does guarantee that Linux will keep growing, and that it will continue to become a more viable alternative every day. If Microsoft continues to misuse their customers they will someday find that most of them are jumping ship.