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.
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 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.
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.
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
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?
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.
--
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!
Not! Well, at least they listen to the Government.
A-holes...
Microbob
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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"
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]
--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.
---
---
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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,"
Europe thinks it might.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
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.
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?
---
Office 2K has a feature that MS tossed into Office98/MacOS that replaces any part of it that gets damaged. If they want IE there it's damn well going to stay there -- it's designed that way. I think that in principle that's actually not a bad feature (a bit misguided if you have a small hard drive), but with MS it's a little scary...
/Brian
...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
Okay, first off I'm not up on Fry's and my characterization of California geography was, shall we say, nonstandard. I apologize... to others.
But *you* are missing the point completely. The issue here has nothing to do with convenience; it's all about clout. *Yes*, I can fdisk Windows out of existence when I first get the computer -- nobody is disputing that. And no, it's not all that difficult. (And yes, I can find bare PCs in Massachusetts; it's not especially easy, but I happen to know one or two places that will do it happily).
The issue is that if I buy a name-brand PC I have no choice but Windows. That's just the way it is, because Microsoft Said So. That's the problem here.
/Brian
But my point being that many of them couldn't if they wanted to.
*slap*
Microsoft doesn't have the *right* to compel preloads, but damn straight they have the clout to. You're apparently just not listening to me -- since most consumer outfits can't sell them, most people *don't* *even* *know* they can't buy them.
Oh, well. IHBT. IHL. HAND.
/Brian
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
Quick link to CNNFNs story.
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.
Wine's job is difficult because they have to reimplement the API - meaning rewrite all the Windows functions from scratch.
If there are any undocumented functions in Windows anymore, they are very likely obsolete functions that have since been replaced by something better. This doesn't help a project like Wine, which would like to run any software written for Windows - if there are older programs that make calls to obsolete functions, Wine somehow needs to know about these. Still, that in no way prevents you from writing competitive software for Windows.
I once argued with Jeremy Allison(lead Samba programmer) about this back when there was still an undocumented feature of Windows - single sign-on. Single sign-on was the only example Allison was able to give of undocumented functions. However, even this is now documented and anyone can write programs that use built in Windows authentication to authenticate their own programs.
Since that has been taken care of, I don't think there are any hidden functions in Windows. MS says there aren't and there are about 1,000 universities/companies who have the Windows source code who could come forth and refute this, but they haven't.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Since the integration of IE with windows, it has been very integral to my system. A browser makes an ideal way to access the contents of your computer. Hyperlinks are an ideal way to link related documents.
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.
Why should Microsoft be forced to remove IE from Windows? That to me seems the weakest of the antitrust arguments, because it is clear to me that IE is not just "bundled" but an integral part of the system.
If someone has a clear refutation of the above, I'd be very interested to hear it.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Why, yes they can.
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
start Mozilla or Netscape 6.1 [sic] with -turbo on
Ok, that -turbo option is VERY cool, that was exactly the feature I've been waiting for to allow me to finally dump IE as my primary browser (can't kill it completely, web programming yadda yadda).
Thanks for the tip!
---
Hammer of Truth
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
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.
Unfortunately, nobody ever slapped Microsoft with the fact that a HTML component does not a web browser make.
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!
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
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
A feature that is vital for every other app that M$ writes belongs in... the operating system, not the damn web browser! That is where your OS-wide uniform standards that developers can RELY upon should be placed. Did you actually read your comment before submitting it? You seem to mean that M$ is doing the best thing here, but none of your arguments support that.
"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.
They've alwyas acted like a "real" company. They're just really really good at it, and have some advantages that others don't. Abusing their position is wrong, it's ilegal, and it pisses me off; but I wouldn't say that they arn't acting like a "real" company. Real companies succeed by using their resources to the fullest. Monopoly power is a resource.
___
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
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?
No, it doesn't.
A lot of parts that come with IE are required for programs (MS and third party) to work.
Practically any Windows application with builtin browser need IE to function.
What they remove is the ability to run IE.
I don't see a reason to do it, at best, it will take a MB or two off your HD, the bulk of what makes IE is still there.
And can't be removed, even if MS wanted to.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Actually, it doesn't un-install IE.
That would make a *lot* more than just Office, MSDN, VS & Quicken stop functioning.
The Windows Help, the file browser, the desktop, etc, are been done with IE.
What you get when you uninstall IE is the in-ability to run IE directly. That is *all*!
--
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?
Mozlla is a browser by itself, it wouldn't use IE.
Neither would Star Office or Opera (for that matter).
Cross platform applications has little use of IE, because they would need to integrate a browser anyway on non-Windows machines, and it makes sense to do it in a cross platform and use it on Windows as well.
But a *lot* of programs are using IE's DLL.
Macromedia is a company, not an application.
As for WinAmp, it MiniBrowser uses IE.
--
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.
Fantastic - I was having problems with this. Being a netscape guy, I uninstalled IE from my work machine. Then I got passed a copy of Office2000 professional. During Install, I chose not to install IE. However, after installation - huh? whats that on my desktop? Yep. It had gone right on ahead and installed IE. Then I uninstalled IE again, and installed some components from disk 2 of Office2000 (which (supposedly) doesnt contain IE). You guessed it. After that, IE was back again, like a little lost flea-ridden dog.
Please excuse my bad analogy and random ramblings, but this really wound me up.
Anyways, this all stinks of coporatations trying to force their products on you. I wouldnt mind windows if it wasnt so intrusive. Adverts on the desktop anyone?
I dont think this shift in policy will make alot of difference to the consumer: It will just be someone else's products being forced down your neck. However, it is probably a good idea for business, stopping monopolies etc.
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...
1.) Why would Microsoft place any other browser into the API slot?
2.) What would this say about Microsoft's faith in its own HTML libraries if it did?
3.) What are the chances that the Mozilla libraries will actually *work* with all the libraries other programs use in IE?
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.
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.
---
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