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.

9 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Oh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5
    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.

    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?

  2. Re:"Get Linux Now!" by Frater+219 · · Score: 5
    Actually, through the use of Loadlin or a similar mechanism, this seems to give OEM licensees the right to sell dual-boot systems of a sort. Currently, one can buy Windows systems and GNU/Linux systems from OEMs such as Dell, but not dual-boots. This may offer an out. Many of the folks I work with would quite like to be able to get first-tier vendor support for dual-boot systems.

    How about it, Mr. Dell?

  3. workaround by wardk · · Score: 5

    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.

  4. Its too late... by gamenfo · · Score: 5

    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?

  5. Re:Oh yeah by Shadowlion · · Score: 5

    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.


    --

  6. Re:Oh yeah by Shadowlion · · Score: 5

    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.


    --

  7. "Get Linux Now!" by rkent · · Score: 5
    Okay, who wants to be the first to sell some OEM systems with a Tux icon on the XP desktop titled "Get Linux Now"?

    :)

    ---

  8. Re:Boy, this is gona suck by DerFeuervogel · · Score: 5
    Why did it become expected that technical support people should be able to fix any software problem through the phone?

    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.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5

    Comment removed based on user account deletion