Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Change OEM Licensing
IdleMindUI writes: "According to this article on MSNBC, OEMs will now have the option of adding products to or removing products from the windows desktop. Earlier licensing agreements prohibited OEMs from changing the windows desktop. "Reserving its harshest criticism for this practice, the court said Microsoft used its power to illegally maintain a monopoly by pushing potential competitors off the computer desktop, considered to be the prime real estate of new computers."" Microsoft's press release has more information on what Microsoft will and will not permit OEM's to do.
And you said Antitrust doesn't work
Now they just need to be required to fully document the interfaces used so that any 3rd party components can integrate into the OS in exactly the same way that MS's own components do, and the whole lawsuit can be dropped. The OEMs can choose what pieces to throw into the box, and the consumer can choose which package they want. And if there isn't one they like, they can install their own. May the best components win.
(Aside: this is also exactly what the gov should've required of AIM as part of the AOL Timer Warner merger: documentation of the message format and a binding declaration not to change it expectedly and arbitrarily, so that all instant messaging clients could compete in the same ocean).
And if a man doesn't believe in heaven, what does reaching or grasping matter?
When I specced out costs for my PC a couple of years back, it turned out that adding Windows 98 cost me -£10.
So there's this huge, monstrous, gaping hole in the PC market, thousands, nay millions of PC consumers are clamoring for bare PCs, and there isn't a damned computer store in Massachussetts that sells bare PCs? In the middle of this slowdown? Everyone's just sitting back taking a loss to stay extra chummy with Microsoft? There are no new companies out there not beholden to them?
Put your money where your mouth is. If there is such a freaking huge demand and there isn't ANYONE out there to supply these bare/Linux computers, start your own damned company and make billions and retire in 6 months. Easy money, right?
How's VA Linux doing with hardware? Making so much money they don't know what to do with it, right? Besides, the Linux is free, so it's just as good as a bare PC, if you don't want the install or a different one.
Exactly. They won't give up on that restriction. That's one of the main points that lead to the failure of BeOS to catch on. A few big OEMs were wanting to offer dual installs with Windows/BeOS, but MS's licensing restrictions made that impossible. MS will let in other icons, because MS will still be getting a piece of the pie, even if other browsers are chosen, but they won't let bare/dual systems get by. The masses will never know there are other options than Windows on a PC.
I think we where told to do it that harshly because our owners resented microsofts tyrany. They made a deal with a local ISP and got paid for their new users who had one of our machines. I think the whole navigator thing was purely out of spite. Microsoft needs to realize you can ask your OEMs to do anyting, but if you force them, they will turn back on you viciously.
If microsoft is a monopoly, the only way to solve it is to let others make operating systems that can use thier win32 api. Tell the judge to take away the tool that lets Microsoft be a monopoly, to hell with break'n em up! It'll fall faster and harder as one!
Another Coward
Well, hell yeah... I mean why not pull out comctl32.dll, comdlg32.dll, and gdi32.dll while we are at it! Who needs things like standardized toolbars, menubars, check boxes, radio buttons, printer dialogs, file open dialogs, color picker dialogs, rectangle drawing, etc.
After all, application vendors can just ship whatever dll's they want and install 'em in their "application directory and run it when they need to without touching the rest of the system."
Or better yet, lets just force developers to go back to static linking and programming from the ground up at the interrupt level. I mean really, let's just roll back the past ten years or so of software development and entirely do away with the concept of dynamic linking and uniform shared libraries.
Grab a clue guys, IE is not just about "web browsing". A lot of the individual pieces that make IE work are useful in their own right, often independent of just the "browsing" functionality.
HTML parsing and rendering with support for DOM/DHTML, useful for all sorts of help and presentation files... sort of a glorified form of Rich Text and there is builtin support for RTF in Windows.
HTTP session management, URI/URL parsing, etc. useful for other applications... how 'bout SOAP remote component sessions via XML over HTTP?
Hyperlinking and link management... anyone ever hear of HyperCard? Isn't hypertext a useful concept even outside of the WWW?
Progressive GIF, JPG, PNG rendering. Hey, this can be useful on its own without "web browsing" can't it?
XML parsing... did you know that functionality has been built into the latest versions of IE's libraries?
Scripting engines... hey, these engines for VBScript and JScript/Javascript are useful outside of browsing. Ever hear of Windows Scripting Host?
Why shouldn't there be a uniform standard for many of these things, that developers can RELY upon?
Try reading a Napster discussion some time. :)
I'm not talking about tech support calls like "how do I start Netscape?". I'm talking about stuff like my parent poster where you are talking people through troubleshooting a complex problem that requires editing random config files. It is extremely difficult and frustrating for everyone involved because the person on site DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE/SHE IS DOING! (That isn't a bad thing, I don't know how to fix washing machines either.)
The washing machine/car analogy is quite appropriate, I think, for these type of problems because they require specialized knowledge to repair which you cannot communicate through the phone. You might tell them what to do, but you can't necessarily teach all they need to know to solve the problem themselves. Moreover, in all of these situations, an efficient diagnosis requires more sensory input than you can get through the phone.
And yes, they get away with this sort of stuff because no one will die if phone support fails. :)
I can't call up Toyota and ask them to walk me through replacing the starter on the car, especially if I don't know what a wrench is. They'll tell me to bring it to the repair shop. I can't demand that Maytag explain to me how to repair a washing machine through the phone, even if it is under warranty!
I suppose that this is because computers are fairly unreliable, and the tech support sort of offsets what would otherwise be a really high failure rate or a massive network of on-site repair people. But still, helping people fix a computer through the phone is a horrible experience.
The last time I checked, none of the first-tier PC OEMs offered dual-boot Windows/Linux systems. I'm talking about companies like Dell, Compaq, and IBM -- not Joe's PC Clone Shop & Bait Store. The article refers to OEM licensing, which makes Microsoft software available at a deep discount to the majors in exchange for arrangements such as exclusivity and advertising.
The availability of dual-boot and other customized systems is not an issue. Microsoft can't stop clone shops from doing customization. However, clone shops can't offer Dell's or IBM's level of support, either; many purchasers require that level of support before they will consider a system.
How about it, Mr. Dell?
Actually, it should just open a URL and let the OS handle it. The OS should know what app is registered for handling URL's and launch it.
Now, if they decide to put a control inside their application to handle HTML, etc..., then yes, they probably will use the Microsoft Internet control, which will still be there, since so much uses that now.
So now we'll see a new menu option (well just those stuck with windows actually will) to "Optimize the desktop", this will put the "correct" icons back after the OEM's screw up the trancendental default windows experience.
Now if only they could somehow convince thousands of ISVs not to "Create an icon on the desktop" as the last step of the default install...
Ditto. And I'd like to see applications categorized in the start menu according to what the application does,not by what company made it. Example: I don't care that Lucasarts made X-Wing Alliance, I just care that it's a game. Installers should always ask what the program goes into the start menu as.
Yes, diversity is bad. All systems must be the same for the benefit of poorly trained tech support staff. Why would users want to have the ability to shop around and buy a computer with the interface they prefer?
Now if only the end user of retail box Microsoft products could do the same as the OEMs, so that they could avoid having the stuff that they specify that they don't want install itself anyway.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
What a clever move! (the bastards)
From the perspective of Microsoft:
1. We are trying to comply with the court even though the case is still going. See how much we are willing to compromise.....
(BS, but still good PR)
2. Oh, now that we have that deal to put AOL on the desktop, and they gave in some things in return for that. We'll allow other people to remove their icons. The best part, we're just trying to comply with a lawsuit that AOL is on the other side of.
"See, we're doing what netscape/AOL/SUN want, we're letting other people remove their icons from the desktop"
They are always scheming over there, aren't they.
something which made them pull 50% of their PC's off the Comdex floor the morning of the show. Hummmm, what was it.... Was it the fact that OS/2 was installed on all those PC's? Bingo!
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
This is Microsoft putting up a smoke screen. They will give some now so that it won't be part of the settlement later. Then they pull the rug out from under the OEM's again. Look at the XML junk that's going on now. The press thinks Microsofts use of XML means it's opening up it's formats. Wrong, binary is a open format too and all they did was keep changing how they used the format. XML will be the same thing. Anyway, it's also the fact that when a OEM puts an app on the desktop Microsoft has made it very difficult or impossible for that app to be the default via the Exporer. The user will have to actuall click on the app icon and then use the file-open menu. Clicking on the file directly will bring up Microsofts application already loaded with the file.
This will only confuse the user and OEM's aren't going to want this.
Microsoft NEEDs to become a OS company and a application company or the monopoly will persist til the end of time. IMHO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Windows XP is an incredible step forward for end users and partners, unlocking the possibilities of the digital world," said Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms at Microsoft.
It's just insane to say something like this, Windows XP is just a small step in terms of usability. And it's more about locking in the possibilities [for microsoft] than unlocking them...
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Quick link to CNet, since I hadn't seen their story posted yet.
So, now that box makers are allowed to remove all visible traces (but not all traces, of course) of IE, will AOL try to strike a deal to get Mozilla/Netscape 6.x installed as the sole, default browser on people's desktops?
IMHO, failure to pull a deal like this will mean the end of Netscape (not Mozilla) - but more troublingly, the possible end-of-funding of the hordes of Mozilla developers working for AOL.
That does not matter. Even if MS suddenly stopped being a monopoly tomorrow, it does not change the fact that they are a monopoly today.
If I am a thief today, but I stop being a thief tomorrow, it does not mean that I am no longer guilty of crimes I have committed in the past.
You cannot undo past crimes like that.
domc
Shouldn't it be "Who is General Failure, and why is he reading drive C?"
This is the most insightful comment on this article, bar none. Microsoft's hold on OEMs has always been financial, and it will take more than a press release to change that.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The whole thing is that the agreement allows OEMS to remove IE from the machine. Removing MSN or Windows Media is not allowed. They already have the market share in Browsers so removing IE on a couple machines isnt gonna hurt anything. On the other hand, the AOL-MSN and Windows Media fronts haven't been won, which makes their removal a bit more troublesome for the company. Should we expect anything less?
Good! The more frustrated people get with Windows, the better chance other OS's have.
Do you really believe MS will honor this agreement?
They will 'convince' the OEM's that it would be in their best interest to do what MS wants. MS knows how to make vendors cooperate.
photosMy Photostream
1.) Why would Microsoft place any other browser into the API slot?
I'm not saying they would. I'm saying that they could give the customer - the consumer - the ability to choose which browser they wanted. Microsoft could ship IE as the default browser, as is their right, but if the consumer preferred the Mozilla engine, or Konqueror's engine, or any other type of engine, they could simply replace it.
2.) What would this say about Microsoft's faith in its own HTML libraries if it did?
It wouldn't say anything about Microsoft's faith in its own HTML libraries. Does the fact that I can replace a car stereo say anything about the auto manufacturer's "faith" in the default car stereo?
3.) What are the chances that the Mozilla libraries will actually *work* with all the libraries other programs use in IE?
That's the wonder of COM. Interfaces are interfaces, and as long as a particular COM control/class fully implements a particular interface, external entities (all those libraries that other programs use) that use that interface don't need to know ANYTHING about what they are calling to.
In other words, the ONLY benefit Microsoft has in not exposing the full Windows integration API for a browser is in making an artificial tie into Windows for IE. That doesn't benefit the consumer - it benefits only Microsoft.
--
Why should Microsoft be forced to remove IE from Windows?
I'm not sure I completely addressed this in my previous post, so I'll just make a quick comment.
I don't think anybody can reasonably agree with forcing Microsoft to remove IE. It's their product, they should be able to include it if they so desire. However, having said that, not providing the ability for a third-party application to take over the functions that IE provides IS a legitimate objection.
--
It's worthless.
Why? Let's say you decide you don't like IE, so you uninstall it.
Then you try and install the latest version of Word. Oops, Word doesn't work without IE - so you have to install. Nor does any component of the Office suite. OK, maybe you can deal without Office - but what about Visual Studio? Oops, VS doesn't work without IE. Plus, without IE, the "standalone" MSDN ceases to function. Or maybe you'd like to install Quicken? Guess again. It requires IE.
In other words, it's an empty, empty promise. The core OS might not need the IE icons or whatever, but they'll be back in force each and every time you install a Microsoft product. Microsoft has spent too much time, money, and energy getting the industry hooked on IE to ever give you the real choice of removing it. Too many of their products depend on IE (whether artificially or not) for them to ever really allow you to dump it.
--
Exactly what is wrong with having the browser be part of the OS? It does OS-like things in a very natural way, and you have the advantage of using the same tool to browse the internet that you use to browse your hard drive.
My "objection" is not that the browser is part of the OS. My objection is that Internet Explorer is the browser.
What's wrong with having a published API so that if a competitor comes along and creates a better browser that obeys the published API, I can replace Microsoft's browser with the competitors? (Answer: that's not in Microsoft's best interest, and therefore they will not provide it to their customers - so much for being consumer-driven.)
Until the day Microsoft affords me the ability to replace - completely replace - Internet Explorer with a third-party browser control, and have that extend to Windows Explorer, Windows help, Visual Studio help (so that when I load up Windows Explorer, that third party browser is in the right-hand pane, not IE), then any offer by Microsoft to add IE to the Add/Remove menu, or the ability to get rid of the icons, is AT BEST a meaningless gesture.
--
An operating system should just load software and get out of the way. EVERYTHING else is in software land. The OS loads different program stacks, and does things like process handling and multithreading. Libraries that everything uses should be loaded into memory. I don't remember the last time IE had anything to do with any of my video games. Use static libraries and DLLs and all of that stuff to load the code that you need. This is all really making incorrect abstractions. MS already does these things, they just replaced explorers functionality with extensions provided by IE. Well, good on them. I don't know if it was just to get a browser monopoly, but who really cares? If the people at large don't make educated decisions, and MS markets to these bad decisions, good on them. They're trying to run a business, not bring about world peace.
Except burgle bundles from Burger King - man those were tasty! :)
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Netscape is dead. The law suit is not yet over. Hey, if we allow OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer icon, what other browser will they install??
Ok! Let's do it!
Well actually it doesn't appear they have changed any of their regulations about adding stuff, just that you can remove IE from start menu (and possibly desktop though I couldn't quite tell from the wording)
And we all know how much we're hurting for disk space these days. I think that even if IE took up 100 megs and that wasn't removed that the consumer really wouldn't be hurt. Of course, IE *doesn't* take up 100 megs, it takes up signifigantly less, but really, does the amount of space used really matter that much these days (unless it's like 1/2 a gig or something).
What does WinAmp use to render web pages? Don't the newer versions have some annoying HTML rendering window thing in it now? I assumed it used MSHTML to do this, but I guess it's possible that they're packaging a web browser with winamp too... (wasteful, but possible, right?)
What's wrong with having a published API so that if a competitor comes along and creates a better browser that obeys the published API, I can replace Microsoft's browser with the competitors? (Answer: that's not in Microsoft's best interest, and therefore they will not provide it to their customers - so much for being consumer-driven.)
If the API to use MSHTML isn't published then how exactly are there all these 3rd party programs that rely upon it's existence? It seems to me that it's not the fact that IE can't be replaced, it's the fact that no one has choosen to do it yet (and I'm a little surprised by that too...)
Presumably MSHTML is just used as a COM control, right? Well, one of the thing about COM controls is you don't change their interfaces from version to version. If you want more functionality you add a new interface, and that way there's never a breaking change. So where's the problem with replacing MSHTML?
Isn't one of the new features of XP a built-in push-button type method to "clean" the desktop? Doesn't that make undoing vender changes just a click away?
No, they won't. They are giving OEMs and users the option of removing the icons and start menu. They are putting IE in the "Add/Remove programs feature". They even say:
Nowhere do they say that anyone can remove IE.
Who can tell whether customization is successful anyway? MS systems are already fragile enough that it will be hard to tell whether there are problems due to OEM customization.
It's not IE which can now be removed. It's the IE icon on the MS Windows Desktop. MS is not allowing removal of IE, only the obvious access to it.
We are getting one here in Austin, TX in the next couple of weeks. There are a whole bunch of us who can't wait.
There was a rumor that when Be was selling systems that they would not put anything into it that could not be bought at Frys. That is the way to do it.
Not! Well, at least they listen to the Government.
A-holes...
Microbob
I never quite understood how the web browser became the ultimate user interface for everything.
It doesn't do "OS-like things"...at best you could call it a network-enabled file manager, with the ability to directly view the contents of certain file types. Is it handling the actual disk operations? Process control? Running the virtual memory system? These are OS things. As far as natural, it's no more natural to browse the disk with IE than it is with any other file manager utility.
Maybe it's just that I hate most websites and most web developers and all this "seamless integration" fever and all that, but I'm getting sick and tired of every last little thing being HTML/XML/whatever'scoolthisweek enabled. Good thing there's plenty of free Unix-style OS's out there so I'm not pissed off all the time.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Unless I'm given a good reason to hate this
change, I think its something Microsoft should
be congratulated on for taking a step in the
right direction. This doesn't mean we should
love them. It means we should send them a sign
that says "That's a start, now keep going."
Congratulate? I didn't get convicted for murder today, can I have cookie too? No one should be congratulated or rewarded for something they are supposed to do anyway.
I didn't mean that they need to release their source code, just completely document the interface so others can reimplement the functions that IE performs.
Actually, I believe that Ford and other auto makers already document the specs for their engines. And if they don't, a mechanic with some wrenches and a ruler could document it easily enough. As a result, there are a number of third-party replacement parts available for cars, many of them higher-quality than the originals. With integrated computers being used for more functions in cars, this may change in the not too distant future, though I hope not. I don't want to see our cars' engines turn into mysterious, sealed black boxes where no one knows exactly what is going on except the manufacturer.
Anyway, with software, figuring out what is happening is much more difficult than with spark plugs and fuel injectors. And under the DMCA, it is potentially illegal to take the software apart to see how it works. We need to have some way to prevent the entire software business from being monopolized, as will surely happen in the current climate. That is, unless Open Source/Free Software seriously increases the inroads they are making.
As for the legality of this solution, the legal system is so obfuscated and complex that I think that just about any action that a person can take will violate some law somewhere. Just read my sig for my feelings on this. In any event, this case will probably eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, who will have the ultimate authority to decide whether any particular remedy is legal. It may turn out that you are right, but not being a legal expert, I can't say.
--------------------------
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
Don't get me wrong, I used to work for a small computer OEM and we chafed under Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics to control how we set up the computers we sold. So much so that we tried to subvert them at every opportunity until MS finally sued us (we won the court battle).
However, I don't think that Microsoft's decision will really change anything at this point. I mean, IE is integrated into the Windows, who cares if it has an icon on the desktop, or if the icon is replaced with a Netscape/Mozilla/Opera icon? A lot of IE code starts up whether you want to run IE or not. This makes running any other browser a waste of resources. For instance, Mozilla can't beat IE's start up time unless they use the IE tactic of cheating by using the "turbo" mode. But who wants to have two browsers loaded at start up?
I think the only solution for this is for MS to completely publish the interface IE uses to talk to the rest of windows, so other software makers can reimpliment it. Then OEMs must be allowed to pull out IE and replace it with a third part browser or rendering engine.
This would actually be a design more along the lines of the Unix philosophy, where we have many small, specialized components that work together to do a job, but where there may be any number of replacements for a particular component, each with its own strengths.
I don't see this sort of thing happening without intervention by the court. Used on a wider scale, though, I think this type of solution would be better then simply breaking up MS. I believe the FSF proposed something along these lines, but I can't find a link.
--------------------------
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
Although extensive consumer studies have
shown that system stability may be (positively)
affected, with the Tux icon, consumers will
have the option of removing windows itself
from the desktop.
Except, with WinXP, they won't give out the theme API calls - leaving only favored OEM's with the ability to create new themes in XP.
The API is out there and can be looked at in MSDN.
As for creating your own themes, MS are working with a 3rd party company to come up with a good themes editor, so they're not documenting any of it yet...
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You were right the first time, but I think you were thinking of a different incident. Compaq was talking to Be Inc about including BeOS. Allegedly, MS pressured Compaq to back down via Windows price. I can't remember what they did with HP.
-Jennifer
Didn't Microsoft executives swear in open court under oath that removing IE would break Windows? Is this perjury, or will every Windows user receive a patch to "fix" Windows with IE removed? :) Inquiring minds (with functional memories) want to know!
And there's other countries in this world that don't have Fry's, too (I've never heard of the place). But my original post was more corporate. I've worked at a few places (as I do now) that buy their PCs from the Big Guys (Dell, Compaq...). Just try and buy a desktop through the co. without MS on it, I dare you. Servers, fine, but desktops? No. And this is even when the company you're working for has an MS Select subscription with unlimited licenses for 98/NT/2k. I mean, come on!
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
This is great for tweaking, but I'm betting MS is still putting the squeeze on OEMs who want to make a "bare" PC available at lower cost. There was an article here a while back, ah, here it is. That's where the fight lies.
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
I think it is typical, at least for windows... but also even for Linux. For windows, the OS starts to disintegrate and the MS response is 'upgrade the OS'. For Linux, some new security hole is found, and the response is 'upgrade the OS'. I'm not saying Windows doesn't have the issue Linux has. It's just further down the list of priorities when you consider the operating system's daily function.
OSX (a la Apple) is probably in the same class with Linux, considering its heritage.
As for customer support, I think a lot of issues
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
The washing machine/car analogy is quite appropriate, I think, for these type of problems because they require specialized knowledge to repair which you cannot communicate through the phone.
Also the person making the call may well not describe the fault correctly in the first place.
Different link, same story, what the hell.
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Unfortunately, this is what passes for reporting these days, with the disclaimer that "other names may be trademarks of other companies" at the bottom. I highly recommend " Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the PR Industry " in case you're interested: it's a great book, and at least makes you think.
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
After 6.0, I think I'll let you go first....
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
From MS's press release:
"Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the Internet Explorer components of the operating system. Microsoft has always made it easy for consumers to delete the icons for Internet Explorer, but will now offer consumers this additional option in Windows XP."
Adding IE to the Add-Remove Programs feature sort of infers that you would be able to uninstall the entire program, wouldn't it? Kind of shoots holes in their argument that IE is "essential" to the OS.
www.poak.net
Actually it states that you can remove the icons for IE, not necessairily the application itself.
And the windows boot loader isnt used with any other os. Lilo can simply load up the NT/2k or Win98 boot loaders, they just load up Windows. Well, unless you are using an alpha and MILO to boot, then you are using the NT bootloader to load up Linux.
I honestly never thought I'd see the day. Wait .. I know! They must have removed the desktop and startbar altogether from XP. That's why you can do anything you like to them now, if you're a distributor! ;)
"Old man yells at systemd"
Hear hear! OEM clutter is like Microsoft clutter * 10. My girlfriend's laptop shipped with 15 apps from Compaq being started in the background. 15 processes?! Disabling all but 5 provided all the features she was ever likely to use and shortened the boot time by 90 seconds.
Yes and no. They purposely phrase it such that you realize that many of the DLLs will still be there. Why do you think they say you can remove "end-user access to the Internet Explorer components of the operating system" instead of saying you can remove "Internet Explorer"? They've implied that all you're doing is removing the ability to run the browser. But the browser's code will still be there. So if it's already taking up hard drive space, why would you remove functionality by forcing yourself to not be able to run the browser?
:-(
It will be interesting to test out exactly what gets removed and how much disk space is freed up. I'm going to guess it's a lot less than you'd naively expect from "removing IE".
[TMB]
Bob sucked to begin with. You were running a GUI on top of a GUI on top of DOS. Considering DOS and Windows wasn't exactly flawless, the problem may not have been with the customized software. Remember Bob was before everybody had 128M of memory.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
The first real workstation, the Xerox Star, had a wonderful feature called TeleRAID. If your computer was misbeahving, you could call an internal support number at Xerox. The guy at the other end would tell you to press three magic keys (sorry, not CTL-ALT-DEL) which would start a very low-level program running in your Ethernet controller.
This program would bring your machine to a screeching halt, and then wait for a simple protocol across the Ethernet which boiled down to FETCH-BYTES/STORE-BYTES. The guy at the other end could examine the entrails of your machine (using a debugger on steroids), and fix it remotely.
There is no reason something like this couldn't be done today, by building it into a modem card with a hard-wired toll-free number. Problem is, the only people who could do it would be OS vendors, like Microsoft, Apple, or any of the Linux distros.
Hmmm...
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
--Mike--
If they insist on moving the help, etc.. to HTML format then they should make sure it works in the browsers that are available.
Allowing competition into the market will allow (gasp) innovation to be present, possibly forcing M$ to do something new for a change, like make a better product.
--Mike--
You know, it's a really sad state of affairs when this seems like a major breakthrough. Anyone should have the right to sell dual-boot systems.
---
---
Quoth the /. user:
7 81 900,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
Um, nothing I've seen in XP forces you to use anything that wasn't in win2k. All the fancy photo thing seems to be is a twain client in the OS. That means that adobe and all that crap still works. If you want to use the wizard then you are limited to what the OS provides that I agree with, but if you use the existing technology (which windows would be commiting suicide to get rid of because its too big of a standard) then you have whatever capabilities you want.
Quoth:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2
His team [Koak] was developing new software to manipulate digital photos and needed to make sure it was compatible with Microsoft's latest version of Windows, the basic software that runs most new computers. An early version of Microsoft's newest software, code-named Whistler, had just arrived at Kodak's software labs. When Mr. Gerskovich and his team loaded it onto their computers, they were shocked by what they saw.
When Kodak cameras were plugged into a PC loaded with Kodak software, it was Microsoft's own photo software that popped up--not Kodak's.
This is sorta like IE grabbing at html docs and aserting itself as the application for html. However it's deeper since I can install mozilla and it can have code in it to alter my system to steal back html. Although the battle rages on, applications can steal and re-steal. In this referenced instance Kodak could not write software to "steal" access to it's own camera from MS.
Continuing the quoth from zd:
Camera customers would have to go through a cumbersome process to get Kodak's software to pop up every time, and most would probably just use Microsoft's.
It's a pain enough to get mp3s back to winamp from media player and I know what I'm doing. Kodak sees that to stay alive it needs to get in on the ground floor of average joe sixpack user of digital photography. They are kinda like Xerox of the 70s. So, their target market is the "point and shoot" family: this is the type of person who can alter file assocaitaions and what-not?
Does MS prohibit running of (as you suggest) adobe: no. Can you and I get a system to do what we want (get around the wizzard): yes. Can Kodak assume it's target market can do that: no. Does Kodak want people to use its process to get prints made: I'm sure (it wants to make $$ just like the rest of us). Should Kodak have to pay MS like the other development companies to be listed on XP systems in the default software: uhhhh NO. Is this unfair: well, flame away...
Wheeeee
It's deeper than sending your photos to who they want. The reason for that send procedure is that you can not set the default software to handle pictures from your digital camera. Put aside a feature not everyone will use, this means MS is in control of file formats you can use and interface standards with your digital camera. Say I make a digital camera in my basement that uses my own method of transfer that MS doesn't support - uh oh, XP users are cut off from my product. Take it from the other end, let's say tomorrow MS develops a new jpg standard that only they own. Since we've taken this baby step in XP, is it a strech to think XP' won't force you to not only use their software, but their compression scheme? And ofcourse their image scheme would only work under their software... ever use adobe stuff and do a default save to their proprietary format? Sure it holds tons of great undo info and such, but try to share it. Granted adobe doesn't have the market share that anyone would think they are going to force us to switch or die, but does MS?
Wheeeee
And I won't hit Bobby on the head, anymore, with the shovel, I PROMISE ..
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/?id=11362
Expert Java EE Consulting
But you know what, those applications can install MSHTML.DLL in their application directory and run it when they need to without touching the rest of the system.
That's the problem... Microsoft has used, oh say, Office's Dependency on parts of IE as an excuse to install all of IE and let it take over the system (take win95 or example which definitely does NOT come with IE).
The only thing stopping Microsoft from installing those components needed to get the job at hand finished and nothing more is Microsoft.
That's some of the dumbest logic I've ever heard. "I can't do blah with product A. Why should I expect to do so with product B?"
They're two entirely different products and, trust me, if it was possible for people to repair their Maytag washers over the phone and Maytag had thought of it, we'd have Maytag phone support already. The simple reason for this is the fact that phone support is so much cheaper than bringing the washer in or sending in a repair person. The other big difference is that a poorly repaired washing machine can KILL and cause serious damage while the damage from someone clicking on the wrong icon is never nearly that serious.
Mmmm.. Donuts
take a look at:
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/mozilla.htm
"Wouldn't it be great if the Mozilla browser engine were an Active control that could be embedded as in applications?"
That's a question that myself and other had asked on the Mozilla groups soon after the Mozilla project began. And further:
"Wouldn't it be great if the Mozilla control used the same API as the Internet Explorer control?"
The aim of this project is to be both of these things.
This is nothing more than a PR move. Anyone who has seen the XP previews or read the press release carefully will know that Microsoft has simply changed their opinion on desktop icons in general.
They have decided, through user studies, that too many desktop icons are confusing. So, the default installation only installs 1 (one). Software developers are required NOT to install icons automatically on the desktop in order to pass the Windows compliance testing. Now they change the OEM license to reflect their change of opinion.
The reason they are making an announcement out of this, is to get public support and 'kudos' for supposedly making a positive step towards resolution of the law suit.
This is neither a good or a bad thing. It is really a non-issue which they deserve neither praise or admonishment for.
GXW is watching you.
Read carefully what they're stating... "end-user access" IS the icons. They never say they're giving you the ability to remove IE from the system.
--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
I live in a retirement community in southern california ... A buddy of mine works at the sears out here, and the computer department has *EXACTLY* this problem. The department has been losing money since it opened because the elderly buy computers, can't work them or do something stupid -- then take them back ... They've been loosing money hand over fist but aren't allowed to close the department because sears requires them to have one.
A true story about the kind of customers they get: "Hey son, that computer you sold me last week is broke, Im gonna bring it back." "Well sir, whats wrong with it?" "The screen is half taken up by this grey thing!" "Does the grey thing happen to say 'start'" "Yes it does!!" ...
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Take a look at http://richinstyle.com for a comparison of CSS implementations in various browsers.
Joke right? Netscape is no more standards compatible than Explorer. Not that I'm condoning the use of Explorer of course.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
My problem isn't with that, my problem is people who bitch about the integration of IE & Win. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Period. Use a different OS, I did. But Microsoft produces Windows. They shouldn't be told what they can & can't do with it. If you don't like the way they do it, make your own OS. Groovy, yeah. But the whole topic isn't even worthy of me finishing this post...
jred
www.cautioninc.com
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
How gracious of them. Note how this does not say that OEMs can actually *remove* the IE software itself. Proof that this isn't just an oversight in the phrasing comes in another benefit where "consumers will have the option to remove the IE program using Add/Remove Programs."
Oh, and won't it be grand to have the desktop icons as added revenue for OEMs. I'm gonna hold out for the Gateway "HornyGuy 3000" which comes with a desktop full of 31337 pr0n link icons.
Big deal! bah.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
An interesting point, really.
I'm not totally up on what the MS Windows OEM license looks like, but would this mean an OEM distributer could make its own style of shell replacement for the default explorer shell, like many users already do? I must admit that would make for some variety between pre-builts.
Ice Cream has no bones.
I think smnolde was asking more if OEM Distributers would be allowed to bundle shell replacements like litestep preinstalled, not just whether its possible to do on your own. Also theres quite a few different shell replacements out there, not just litestep.
Ice Cream has no bones.
He's a Lawyer? :-)
IE will still be in windows and will be as easy to get to as typing: <window-r> iexplore.exe <enter>
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Um, nothing I've seen in XP forces you to use anything that wasn't in win2k. All the fancy photo thing seems to be is a twain client in the OS. That means that adobe and all that crap still works. If you want to use the wizard then you are limited to what the OS provides that I agree with, but if you use the existing technology (which windows would be commiting suicide to get rid of because its too big of a standard) then you have whatever capabilities you want.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I blame this on Microsoft
There used to be a time when to use a computer meant you had to go through some sort of training. But Microsoft has brainwashed the masses that computers are really simple to use and training is not needed. You see this in all their propaganda as to how they brought computing to the average user. I'm not saying only geeks should have access to computers by any means.
But we have to stop living under the delusion that they are really simple to use. They aren't. Maybe they will be one day but today they aren't. That includes any flavour of Windoze you choose. At least Linux is honest about the fact that you have to RTFM. I have installed Windows from 95-Win2K on a clean machine and sometimes its a piece of cake and sometimes I curse Bill and his merry gang of thieves. Same with Linux (Red Hat) sometimes it's easy other times ... lets not go there.
But once you have people believing computers are simple to use and fix then it's natural that they will expect to be able to fix problems through the phone.
Funny thing is the same people who won't open the hood of their car think they can install hardware without knowing an IRQ from a hole in the wall.
The reason to hate this change is that, microsoft is only doing this to look good for the next round of legal actions. They have to now go back to court and figure out the remedy phase. They can point to this action and go see, ew ARE working on it, so they aren't punished in ways that will hamper the monopolistic behavior in emerging areas where they really want to make the next round of money. MS did not listen to users, or to partners. They are giving away this "flexibility" to OEM's in the hopes of dodging a legal straight-jacket. This might be a step in the right direction, but microsoft is being led there kicking and screaming. The analogy that comes to mind is having a theif stop stealing apples from one store becuase the store-owner threatened to cut off his hands....better to lose access to the apples than to lose the hands that can steal from another store. I'm not going to congradulate MS for this. This is damage control...and not altruism.
What, me worry?
Cute quote, but the fact is they did garner a verdict in their favour regarding the break up. This new OEM deal is simply an appeasement, nothing more.
---
While this is a small victory I guess, the question is how many OEM's are actually going to bother doing this? I mean they've bitched and moaned about MS, but how many are actually going to take advantage of this?
---
actually, i think winamp does use some part of internet explorer. If you try the winamp browser (alt-t), it brings up a semi-functional browser, which records its history in your normal Internet explorer. ofcourse the functionality of a browser in an mp3 player is questionable, but the point is that it is there
Selling a Windows box from which you've removed access to the world's most entrenched browser would be financially stupid. Like MS or not, IE is the standard... experienced users can get around IE installed anyway, and new users will be pissed that you removed the program that all their friends and relatives have.
MS Token Gesture 3.0
PDHoss======================================
======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
The press release also says that you can now "remove" Internet Exlporer...
Great, In my opinion, Microsoft control of the desktop was essential for our well being. It was the only thing keeping OEMs from trying to lure customers, and having a "race to the bottom"
Now it will we'll just see more computers ship with the only profitable digital information: porn. That's it, more and more will creep on without the watchfull moral eye of Microsoft there to protect us.
---Lane
I like fighting robots
---Lane
What's the point of moderating?!
...and if there was anyplace else in the country that would have one other than central Cali it would probably be here.
The fact is that you can't buy a bare system at Best Buy or Circuit City. Gateway Country can't, and I get the sense they get their fair share of requests for it. It's only the mom-and-pop operations that slip through the cracks and the places with a heavily geek audience (like Fry's) that will cater to that need. Everyone else is being kept in the corral.
/Brian
BTW (in an attempt to add some meaningful content to this post), Toxic Sludge Is Good For You IS a good read, and once you know the ways corporations influence the government and the media it becomes a lot easier to see just how little meaningful investigative journalism goes on anymore.
---
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
For most Americans, a running car is a necessity while the computer is a hobby.
Cars are mostly more expensive than cars.
A botched car repair might kill folks.
Now, that doesn't give the computer novice the right to complain if his "repair" disables his sound card. But I can see how a guy could get there.
-Dave
Now you can remove IE and start Mozilla or Netscape 6.1 with -turbo on start up and enjoy a preloaded standards complient browser. :)
Quick link to CNNFNs story.
I didn't get convicted for murder today, can I have cookie too?
Careful, day's not over yet.
OMG, don't remind me. We used to get really old PB boxen in once in a while back in my CompUSSR days with that hideous "living room" interface still enabled. Click on the picture of the computer to launch Win3.1 progman.exe. Click on the picture of the stereo to launch some crappy midi player. Click on the picture of the handgun in daddy's sock drawer to end this nightmare.
Amen to that. I ran an ISP help desk for about a year and a half and that was a common nightmare. In one case I spent close to three hours with an elderly lady on the phone trying to figure out what was going on... turns out Netscape (this was a few years ago) tosses three lines in the autoexec.bat file that are required for their browser to work. Because of the proprietary interface on her box (quiet you sickos), there was a branch in the autoexec that gave you a choice between the proprietary interface or windows... when you selected windows, the autoexec.bat never made it down to the Netscape lines, so they never got executed. Try walking a 70-year old lady thru editing autoexec.bat over the phone sometime...
____
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
Good for them.
Why, yes they can.
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
You can not purchase a computer that has Windows and another operating system installed on it. Microsoft does not allow this. This new scam from Microsoft changes nothing.
People may think that this is nothing, but remember how adamant Microsoft has been with its licensing terms and how OEMs had to conform to stricter guidelines. Allowing them to remove Windows icons and programs from the desktop and system as they please when they ship their products, is actually a bigger step than some may think.
MS may be trying to defer suspicion of something greater, but for now, they're proving that they realize they don't have the hold on the market that they once had, and that people, like Big Blue, will just as easily jump ship and promote other software when Microsoft demands too much.
I'm waiting for these steps to get to a more open licensing of Windows, so we'd see other companies getting licenses to distribute their own versions of Windows which are 100% compatible with Microsoft Windows.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
CNN-FN reported this earlier today...
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
Maybe because now all well-behaved WinME/2000/XP apps' dialog boxes are supposed to open (by default) at "My Pictures" for graphics and "My Documents" for other documents (and "My Music" for XP)?
Now if only they could somehow convince thousands of ISVs not to "Create an icon on the desktop" as the last step of the default install...
____________________________
2*b || !(2*b) is a tautology
I could not agree with you more on your points. I mean that everywhere I turn I run into pseudo-geeks who have no more than 4months experience with windows "icons" and that makes them a "guru". Even though they cannot explain to me what is happening under the hood of their PC, or how TCP/IP actually functions. Surely I blame Windows for this . I like to say that Windows makes people silly and uncreative. If you think I am wrong, then show me a cutting edge technology that emerged out of an enviroment that is saturated with windows. On the other hand, is is easy for me to point out that Linus and countless others did not get there computer knowledge/inspiration by using DOS or Windows 3x . No, they got their knowledge/inspiration by using an OS that demands that one gets a deeper knowledge of the underlying process the governs computers. Once this knowledge is obtained , then creativity/inovation comes naturally. Take the present crop of "MCSE'S" for example. Most of them that I know simply remembers a series of isolated facts and lacks a true understanding of the protocols that governs the computer industry. I can attest to times when I spent long hours trying to get something under Linux to work, and when I finally got it solved I realized that the problem was greatly due to my lack of understanding of the principles that governed the process. In order words...Windows is no more "easier" than Linux, if you truly want to understand what is going on. I would even venture out and state that "Due to its openess, Linux is actually easier than windows " to "understand" since the docs and codes are right there for your eyeballs. How many MCSE's(the windows guru's) understand the simple notion that "an icon" is nothing more than a "shorcut" to an underlying processes, and it is those underlying processes that are actually doing the work. Therefore it behoves them to make every effort in trying to understand those underlying processes, not just "which button to click".
Recall the episode of The Simpsons, when Homer got the chance to design a car? Well, technically there is nothinig more like a "consumer" than Homer: it just became a nightmare for the constructor....so I think it is unwise so solely listen to the consumer.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
market research is all it is. microsoft tests the water before it unleashes a campaign, then looks like the good guy when they admit they made a mistake. but a smaller company tries to do that, they get run out of business/ sued.
So they did the right thing once, big deal. Does MS honestly expect us all to bow down on our knees in praise of them, for "voluntarily" doing the right thing, after the court basically forced their hand? What's next, are we going to say that a rapist who's being trialed for rape is a great man because he refraimed from committing any rapes while on trial? Really, there is nothing to praise -- MS has given OEMs the "right to do" what should have been their right to do all along. If we're going to praise them for that, it's like praising someone who gave you asperin after wacking you on the head with a mallet. Quite frankly, when someone buys a piece of software -- the physical CD, that is, or downloads the data that constitutes the program for the price of unlimited use -- they should own it in the same sense that you'd own a book you buy: you can modify it, change it, make a million copies of it(so long as you don't give them away to other pepole), lend it to friends, try to understand how it works, and so forth. I think furthermore, that I should also comment on MS's .NET plan: they want to force the private consumer to pay for renta-software, without the option of physically buying it in the same sense they would today, and for the same or better value(if anything, people pay too much money for software today, largely due to the MS monopoly). This is certainly not something worth praise. Now, on the other hand, if they wanted to offer the OPTION -- not the ULTIMATUM -- of .NET to people, that would be ok.
We shouldn't bother praising MS until they stop doing the wrong thing(i.e., imposing their draconian EULA license on people, and using the BSA to ruin individuals and small business'), and until they start doing the right thing: i.e., giving away their software for free to public schools, open-sourcing the OS standards that determine how programs interact w/ the OS so that non-windows OS' can run windows programs.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'd like to see my windows desktop look like Windomaker.
Can my OEM do that??
Of course, the problem with this used to be that Microsoft put advertisements for MSN (and other ISPs that paid MS) directly on the desktop.
However, with the release of XP, they've embedded this marketing into the OS itself, so changing the desktop isn't a problem anymore
An example of this is their Photo-Editing software, which automatically will send your digital photographs to a choice of developers: all of which then much pay Microsoft a fee for the reference.
Richard Stallman -- The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software
---
MOD THE CHILD UP!
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Now that I think about it, it wasn't Compaq who was bullied, it was HP....
Burn Hollywood Burn
Having control of the desktop is bigger than some icons. If IE, WMP, and other such things are still bundled with Windows, icon or no icon, developers will ASSUME they are there and when you need to connect to the web while interacting with an app, you know what that app is going to call up...IE....
This doesn't even mention thier bullying of Intel, Apple, Compaq, and others...
Burn Hollywood Burn
Yes, so, wow, we won't HAVE to use I.E. in Windows anymore. Here's a problem though, they killed Netscape already. Netscape left the browser business remember? Now I won't say they're aren't alternatives. I use Mozilla (And love it) on all my computers. But besides Opera and Mozilla, how many actual alternatives for windows computers that aren't just shells of MSIE.
Perhaps Netscape will decide to get back in the browser buisiness now? Or even better, more browser companies will emerge producing browsers that are better than what we have now and won't have to worry about not being able to get desktop space.
Finally, maybe we won't have to deal with those MSN Internet Access icons on the desktop to start with to begin with.
I wonder though, if perhaps in the end Microsoft doesn't care anymore (which is probably the case) because they have already killed their primary competitors...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Make IE optional
But Microsoft has brainwashed the masses that computers are really simple to use and training is not needed.
Actually, that was Apple. Microsoft -- as usual -- tried to rip off Apple, resulting in something dumbed down and screwed up.
I agree with you on the OEM efforts - Compaq and Packard Bell shipped some shells that gave WinBOB a run for its money. Shudder...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
at least with win98. just grab Revenge Of Mozilla at http://www.programfiles.com/index.asp?ID=1711
--
What ? Me, worry ?
Microsoft is making this change because they HAVE to. Not out of any goodness in their hearts. At this point in the game, they can easily give up forcing IE on the desktop since they now dominate the web-browser market. To NOT include IE would be foolish on the part of the OEM since IE is used by the majority of websites. If Microsoft was to not force MediaPlayer, for example, then that might be something to feel good about. But they're not going to do that until the day that MediaPlayer is the only media... err... player.
Kudos? Having effectively broken the legs of their only major competitor, they now graciously consent to a foot race with it. The fact that they've agreed to a level playing field doesn't change the fact that their competitor's legs remain broken.
PC manufacturers will retain the option of putting icons directly onto the Windows desktop. Based on extensive customer usability studies, Microsoft had designed Windows XP to ship with a clean desktop and improved Start menu, but PC manufacturers will now have the option of continuing to place icons on the Windows desktop if they want to.
For most people who run computers with a default manufacturer's install of any Windows OS, the desktop is always bloated whether it comes with the icon's on the desktop or not. The level of expertise for that average user isn't high enough to know of any directory other than c:\windows\desktop, to which they are under the impression is their root directory if you notice Windows filesystem hierarchy. Having seen one too many home user's systems, I understand that even windows can be too complicated for some people. They save everything onto the desktop! I've seen some people whose desktop's were so full icons they started pouring off the screen!
Why Microsoft would want to ship their desktop "clean" is beyond me, they should already know that "clean" isn't going to stay that way for very long.
This is a shrewd strategic move to head off any legal action based on MS projects undertaken since the events that led to the original suit - further integration of apps into the OS, subversion of standards, etc.. If MS is now perceived as making concessions (though they are at this point only token concessions) on the original (albeit now less relevant) issues, or its conservative friends in government can use this to depict MS that way, a meaningful remedy in the antitrust suit will be less likely, and so will additional actions.
When my parents got their first PC, I convinced them to take a class. All the teacher did was rant to them about how Bill Gates was evil. They learned nothing. Next time I buy them a PC I will buy them a Mac.
'Same speed C but faster'
It now appears that the threat of AOL switching at least partially to Linux was just a way to put some pressure on Microsoft, in order to get just that. I know, AOL doesn't sell PCs, but think about the number of OEMs that sell PCs with AOL preinstalled... (and get payed for that).
Nobox: Only simple products.
I think another part of the problem is that around 70% of all americans think they are more intelligent than average. This in a country where half of our high school students can't find the US on a map. Unfortuantely, in addition to our God-given right to do 50 in the left lane, we've got one to be on the information superhighway. Bleah.
"You know, the golf course is the only place he isn't handicapped."
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
So many computer problems are conflicts or user error that every effort to avoid having it sent back more than pays for itself. It is under warranty, and charging customers penalties for non-hardware related issues would lose their business and the business of everyone they know. Bad PR is the kiss of death in a commodity market, when all you really have to sell is your company.
I do feel sorry for the poor folks who have to suffer for this- taking people whose VCRs are still blinking 12:00 and trying to get something constructive done is brutal. I can't even talk someone through configuring a box when I'm in the room with them.
"You know, the golf course is the only place he isn't handicapped."
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Okay, sorry, what? *cough, laugh, shake head* Isn't the standard cry "Windoze is for the idiots that don't know how to use a real OS"
If user friendly more of the crap Gateway/Dell/Compaq put on the their "consumer" besides the standard M$ icons, I want no part in it.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
I think the problem here is that this really isn't a step at all. What difference does it really make if they give OEM's the abiltity to remove certain icons and IE is not automatically installed? Since there really isn't any widely known competition for IE that most Windows users know about, IE will continue to dominate. It simply means that users will have to choose to install it (which they all will).
This step seems, IMHO, to be simply a PR move to make themselves look better during future legal actions. Kudos to M$ for appearing to take a step, when they're really getting the jump on the fools in the DOJ.
If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?SLUG=MICROSOFT %2dLICENSING
MS, CNET On 7-Day Messenger Outage--Slashdot misidentifies a ZDNet story as a CNet story, and misdentifies a ZDNet-written story posted on MSNBC as an MSNBC story.
Or from last week, MSNBC on Slashdot, where Slashdot mistakes an Inside.com story for an MSNBC story.
I'm not asking for perfection, just a genuine effort--Slashdot doesn't even seem to try to get this stuff right. And by the way, I do make sure to let other news sources know when they make mistakes. You should, too.
It is my hope and dream that one day Slashdot will start properly attributing news stories to the organizations that originally produced them. I'm not holding my breath, though.
The problem with this philosophy is that when something goes wrong on a computer it could either be the third party software, software that came with the computer/OS, hardware, or any combination of those. While when something goes wrong with your Toyota there's only one person to call. Now if you have a problem playing Halflife on your new Dell system and you call Dell they will tell you its not their problem and to call Sierra and you can't expect every software maker to have onsite tech people.
Thats what I think most new users find so frustrating about computers, you can't use the so called playstation mentality for fixing problems. (If you put a game into a playstation and it doesn't work, then you put another game into the playstation. If that game doesn't work then you know its the playstation that is broken. If the 2nd game does work then you know its the 1st game thats broken) This kind of problem solving simply doesn't work for PC's.
"Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the Internet Explorer components of the operating system"
Hello? What will it do, remove iexplorer.exe file? ( 61,952Bytes )
You can't remove IE from Windows, too much will break without it.
What this will do is to take out the easy way to get to it. (Removing icons & shortcuts etc and maybe the executable itself (which doesn't do much, most of IE is in COM components)
This is like saying, that you can remove KDE from the system, by running GNOME.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Are you aware that on most occuastions, when the OEM tried to built their own shell. It was crappy & uninutiative.
I think that this will be more in the way of XP themes, though, rather than their own shell.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
I think you mean the themes' ABI (file format).
I'm sure that there will be something by th time XP is out, though.
If not from MS, than from someone else.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Actually, you don't get the option to remove it.
You get the option to remove your *access* to it.
Not very useful, I would say.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Here is an additional link to the same story at cnn.com .
Perhaps this is partially a bid to counteract the suit against them to make the penalty weaker the second time around in the ongoing lawsuit or to help quite some of the PR criticism over smart tags or the forced registration for XP products?
I suppose this is a good thing. Microsoft seems to be listening to some of the harsher criticism that has been circling about. It is cool that OEMs will be able to make the Windows desktop more user friendly for their customers. I am fairly sure MS is doing this because of the bad PR lately. Even a company as huge as MS responds when its customers start getting mad. Its nice to see that no corporation is so huge that it can ignore the complaints of its clients. Use this as an opportunity to let your opinion is heard, rather then saying, "I can't make a difference."
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Am I the only one who recalls how bad the systems where that got to be "customized" by the OEMs? Sony and IBM both had customized Bob like interfaces that made the systems imposible to support over the phone.
I wonder if this isn't going to cause more problems than it solves... I think most people will be pretty peeved if they order a Windows PC and find that they get a version without IE installed. This could end up being a real non-event... what OEM is going to want to remove software from their shipping OS?
It IS a good thing that people can now Add/Remove the IE components -- makes sense for most workstation machines to have the components running, but a server is probably better off without the overhead.
At any rate, it's good to see MS being more flexible... now about product activation...
Umm...MS press release specifically says they will put IE in the Add/Remove programs windows...
Debian - It's an open source community, why are you still in your closet hacking on that slack-box, kid? Come out and
So? Seriously. So fucking what? Is that what you're so upset about? Excuse my rant, but you can't buy ANY computer with more than one OS pre-installed on it. Of course, some nerd is going to come back with one, but who cares? Even if anyone besides 10% of the readers of this post gave a shit, how hard is it for one of you Linux geniuses to dual-boot on your own? To respond to the article: MS is taking steps to do what all of you bitch about them not doing;i.e.:letting OEMs ship Windows without i.e.. I.E. integration is part of Windows' charm, to some people. Personally, I'd be happier if I didn't have Dell or Compaq changing my computer's interface.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
But if we congratulate them everytime time they make a token gesture, token gestures will be all we'll ever get.
I don't think that's true for all companies, but Microsoft has consistently shown that what they consider to be the right direction has nothing to do with the criteria most people would use. I don't think we can interpret this as a sign of anything other than that they don't consider the IE icon on the desktop to be as important now (and they're probably right).
If their primary motivation was openness, I would have to give them some small amount of credit. But it's not, so I don't trust/like them any more than I did yesterday.
After several weeks of Microsoft bringing attention to Open Source by attacking it, trying to violate IP laws by changing web pages with Dumb Tags, and trying to drive customers to Open Source through increasingly draconian licensing provisions, Microsoft finally does something in its self interest.
By voluntarily changing their behavior and admitting that the court found them guilty of some things, they have finally done something to lessen the belief that they are an amoral entity with no regard for the law or their customers.
Hopefully, this is just a first step.
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could, man!" - Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
The next step should be to allow OEMs to decide which default links are set up in Internet Explorer, including the default home page. An idea: MS should be required to PAY OEMs if they want the OEM to leave some of the links pointing to MS properties.
The governing principle should be: OEMs have the right to make any changes that an end user could make. Including disabling/deleting IE, MSN, Media Player, etc. (Of course, requiring MS to make those things easily uninstallable.)
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could, man!" - Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
Can I get Internet Explorer added to my Add/Remove Programs menu? That way I might be able to roll back to a prior version that worked.
Whoopdee f-ing do. If this is the sole concession they have to make to win "The Browser War", they'll take it. Heck, any company would take that deal.
You're reading to much into what I wrote. That one line was a quick summary of what MS is up to. Focus on more the why this doesn't change their business plans or anything.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
This may please the Justice Dept, but won't please the techies. Microsoft will continue to push their products as bundles by forcing dependicies between their products. They will continue to embrace&extend other technologies the same as they always have in recent years. They will continue to swipe the little guy's idea and make it theirs, leaving the little guy out in the cold.
But this may be a step in the right direction. If enough lawyers out there realize the effects of these other practices, they can use this case as a basis. If Microsoft claims they are unable to untie certain dependicies, the lawyers can argue back that Microsoft first said that IE and Windows were inseparable, yet today they made them able to separate.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
AOL will not do such a thing, not until Mozilla becomes stable enough to even begin competing with current versions of IE.
Preinstalling Mozilla in its current state is like asking for customer support nightmare scenario.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
I worked at an OEM company that licensed Microsoft products. Let me tell you that this isn't a news story - it's a legal & marketing strategy.
As a licensee, I'd do what's best for my bottom line, and that's almost exclusively dictated by pricing.
Although Microsoft states these are new licensing options, perhaps designed to address illegal monopolistic practices, Microsoft doesn't state that it will make these options a financial possibility for the OEMs. For most, they may as well not exist.
Unless I'm given a good reason to hate this change, I think its something Microsoft should be congratulated on for taking a step in the right direction. This doesn't mean we should love them. It means we should send them a sign that says "That's a start, now keep going."
If we continue bashing people when they take steps towards openness, no one will ever see a benefit for moving in that direction. No, Microsoft isn't perfect, and no I don't plan on willingly using Microsoft products more than I have to. However, this does make me hate them less. Just a little bit. A tiny bit.
Then again, this is Slashdot. Not bashing Microsoft whenever possible is a good way to destroy your karma I guess. Ah well...its just Karma.
---
I know your post got modded up as funny, but I think it's not such a bad idea really. My old man bought a Compaq w/Win2k awhile ago, and the thing shipped with so much useless software and clutter on the desktop, it was unbelievable. I have yet to see OEM software for desktop PCs that didn't make me scramble to get rid of it.
So I would actually like that idea... don't laugh too hard!
501 Not Implemented
You can't remove IE from Windows, too much will break without it.
I think that is partly the point. If every MS application (including those attached to windows such as WMP and Windows Explorer) requires MSHTML.DLL -- giving the "option" to remove it is akin to giving people the "option" to shoot themselves in the foot.
So its not "required" by the OS anymore because the damage was done -- most every corporate Windows-based PC requires IE to run for some application or another. I know my in-house applications require IE5 to run, we took advantage of it because it was fast and free. But now that the apps rely on it, MS can drop the OEM requirement as the software vendors will continue their requirement in their place.
Microsoft is so damn smart at times it's scary. You can almost look back at the last few years as if they planned it this way.
501 Not Implemented
Have you seen how icons are put on the desktop of the average OEM computer? They cram about a dozen of them on there anyway. So now the average user just has to look harder to find IE as it's icon has been replaced by an icon that Dell sold to someone for advertising. Many businesses start by formatting the HD also, so they never see the desktop.
I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.