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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
--
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!
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
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!
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
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"
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--
---
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
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
Unfortunately, nobody ever slapped Microsoft with the fact that a HTML component does not a web browser make.
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.
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
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.
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.
I believe their appeal almost completely failed. Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr wrote an editorial in the WSJ that showed how bad the ruling really was for Microsoft.
The article states
While trumpeting last week's "victory" in the Court of Appeals, Microsoft executives would do well to recall the words of King Pyrrhus after his famous battle with the Romans: "One more such victory and we are lost."
and
when the court addressed the charge of monopolization of the operating-system market, which was the core of the case, the news was all bad for Microsoft.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
---