Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tweaks Desktop Icon Licensing in XP
jeffy124 writes "Microsoft has made a slight adjustment to their recent change in OEM licensing in a direct response to AOL's hijacking of the desktop. The gist is show MSN's icon too, or don't show any." As jeffy124 points out, this comes, more or less, straight as a reaction to the AOL-Compaq deal.
If you don't know what "fair use" means, please stop throwing the term around to try and sound smart. It just makes it harder for other idiots to learn what it really means.
In no way, shape or form is this any sort of "fair use" issue.
Dear Small Business Owner,
In order to access the internet from a computer running any version Microsoft Windows, you must have a valid MSN account. You do not appear to have a valid MSN account and now have 30 days in which to obtain a valid MSN account.
Please contact us within 30 days with your MSN account number or your current internet access will be terminiated.
Sincerely,
Bill Gates
BSA President
Yep, and your comments are right on. What Microsoft keeps forgetting is that they don't *own* Compaq (or at least not enough of it to have any kind of meaningful control, from strictly a stock ownership standpoint, never mind the politics for the moment). Compaq has had a business relationship with AOL for many years, and AOL has business relationships with many computer vendors, some of whom like Compaq actually lower themselves to selling products that include Microsoft's so-called "operating systems". So, when Compaq decides that it wants to sell some of its own products, configured in a way that it feels makes good business sense in that they will be attractive to the market that they're trying to sell to, it's not up to Microsoft to try to dictate what those products will look like.
AOL does not publically discuss their server and network configurations, but you can comfortably assume that most of their systems are not Wintel systems - there are a lot of UNIX boxes of various types (and which are far more scaleable than MS' offerings) - and they are not tied to one vendor.
In other words, Michael Capellas finally took enough vitamins and good advice and told Bill Gates to shove it. MC is trying to be responsible to Compaq's stockholders, not Bill Gates, for once. Compaq makes more money (despite a very poor market at the moment) off of products using its own operating systems than it does from those that use Microsoft's.
What's hilarious is that, as others have pointed out, Bill Gates and his minions have once again demonstrated their tunnel vision and have just created another PR debacle for themselves. That, in itself, gives Compaq all the more reason to stand up for itself and not be so closely identified with a convicted felon that has already tried (as revealed in sworn testimony in court) to screw Compaq in a variety of situations.
Is that Microsoft listened to feedback from users and have designed Windows XP to have very few icons on the desktop. I haven't installed the latest beta but I think it may only have like one icon. I am not sure exactly why but I suspect it's because a large number of Win9x enabled desktops shipped with a whole lot of clutter and users didn't like that.
So Microsoft has said that icons should be only placed down in the Start Menu. It's very easy in recent versions to drag these icons down into the start tray or off onto the desktop, if the user wants easy access to those apps. This is a change from the way Win95 or NT4 worked.
So this is really about User preferences.
Now AOL has come out and said that they are going to not only install their broken piece of shit software on the machines, they are also going to spam the desktop with lot's of useless icons. Obviously they don't get it, but then they never have.
I don't understand Microsoft's position as to placing MSN icons out there as well. I guess they are taking the attitude... Well if you're going to destroy our OS, we want to be part of it.
Personally I'd rather just have a computer ship with a clean OS, and if they want to include extra crap to make my life easier, just throw a CD in the box and if I want it, I'll install it.
I'm not bashing, but I will make this observation...
StarOffice, Corel Office, and Applix Office happen to have consistent within themselves menus. Many of the other apps have menus that are consistent with the rest of things.
I'll bet your complaint is less that the menus aren't standard and more that they're not the way Windows presents them. But you never stop to think about that- you're so used to Windows you don't think about anything of the sort.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If Microsoft's stuff is as easy as they claim it is, you can offer installation services a' la Dell Plus for an extra charge. You could also offer install packs that blast the image out (Hell, if you're working with an OEM, you're already doing that!) on demand and in 15-20 minutes they're ready to rock- no matter which OS they want.
Saying that it'd kill the sales is disingenious- there's ways of carrying through with the suggestion that users and OEMs can not only live with, but would find workable just the same.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The license has to be with whatever installation of MS' product goes out. What they COULD do, however, is pre-package the system installer images with the machines going to Windows customers and let the system installer CD do the install work for them- no fuss, no muss.
But that would be a problem with the deals they made with MS, now wouldn't it?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
MS is so used to being a total monopoly that they can't even imagine playing (let alone winning) a game that has an even playing field, or where everyone uses the same rules.
Why don't they just get nostalgic and throw false error messages anytime anyone uses any blasphemous icon, offering to create a pious ms icon in it's place?
the cash from msn subscriptions should more than pay for the court settlement years after the fact.
Get a copy of the Mouse Basics Hypercard stack that came with the B&W Macs. It still runs. I encourage all new computer users to run through it, since it actually teaches people how to use a computer. Why isn't this shipped anymore on Macs? Why don't Windows computers come with one? There wasn't much to it. Probably the same resons noone ships manuals or disks anymore.
-----
My God, it's full of source!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If all MS produced was the OS, would they be upset by people bundling their icons (or software) on the desktop?
I would say the answer is 'no'. Why would they? If they were only producing an OS, it would be in their best interests to be as open (as in well documented and with known standards) as possible, to allow as many people to hook into their OS as possible and to allow people the flexability to do as they please with their OS.
The more people that can utilise the OS and the more they find the OS useful, the more OS product they sell.
However, MS doesn't think like that because it has an agenda - ie to sell it's other products. And as we all know, it does this by locking out other competitors. That is an abuse of your monopoly powers.
So in this situation, I would argue that MS should have no say as to what people want to install as icons on their desktop - to do so is to once again abuse their monopolistic position.
The thing that bugs me about this is that Microsoft is basically telling OEMs how to use the software that they have paid for.
This seems very harmful to consumers.
One defense Microsoft does have though is that they should not be expected to provide support for any non-MS software preloaded by the OEM. So the burden should be on the OEM to clarify this.
-Kevin
They don't sell 'Rum and Coca-Cola' or any other mixed drinks in your country?
Reselling is often *all about* making a few changes and enhancements to a product. Whether that be a more convenient location to buy it, services or an icon to a vastly superior and corn-flake compatible ISP.
In other words, even though people don't like MS's monopoly over the OS market, that by itself is not the problem.
But...
The real problem, as was so well pointed out in the above post, is that it is illegal to:
- Use your monopoly power to charge higher prices for your products than you would otherwise be able to charge, and...
- Use your monopoly power in one market to extend your power in another market.
This is the reason the whole Netscape issue was so important, because MS was shown to have used its monopoly in the OS to extend into the Applications (specifically, the browser) market.Now, it's happening all over again... in the ISP market. If left unchecked, it should be a pretty simple matter for MS to crush AOL as an ISP, by simply making it far easier to install MSN than it is to load AOL.
MS wants to control the Internet, as can be seen by their plays in .NET and Hailstorm, and they will go to any length to get that power.
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Ford may have a right to tell Ford dealers that they can't put GM signs up on their walls, or risk losing the right to sell Fords.
But after they've sold their product to e.g. compaq or AOL. they should be able to do with it whatever they like.
They don't 'sell the product' - they sell a 'license to use' the product - anyone who doesn't understand that difference shouldn't even be participating in the debate, let along being modded 'insightful' - more like 'clueless'.
If you buy a license, the product remains the property of Msft. Corp.
Should a theatre that bought the rights to show "Planet of the Apes" be allowed to 'do anything they want' with it? Like re-edit it? Put ads for the local hardware store in it?? Of course not- the movie is still the property of the production company or whatever, not the theatre that is charging per-seat tickets to view the movie. Now a theatre could actually purchase the product and do whatever they want with it, but it's going to be VERY expensive because the owners will want the production costs plus whatever profits they expect to get in the future from second run theatres, videos, television, mktng tie-ins, etc. etc. etc. Similarly, Compaq could purchase XP from Microsoft and do whatever they want with it but it'll be very expensive and would ammount to a corporate takeover of msft.
The real question in the courts is how much can companies like Msft can use their license terms for monopoly maintenance and abuse?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
No, it's more like McDonalds trying to tell me I'm not allowed to dip my McNuggets in any sauce except theirs.
Or that I MUST take their sauce, and dip my nugget in it before each bite. Even if I prefer to use my own sauce, or just plain don't like them with sauce at all.
It's also like them telling me that I can't take their nasty tomato off of their burger, even if I want to put a slice from one of my homegrowns on it instead. I'm permitted to put my nice tomato on it if I like, but the slimy razor-cut one they provide must stay. (Their tomato will be on the burger, or there will be no tomatoes at all.)
It's also like a local burger shop buying their buns from McDonalds (wholesale or whatever) only to discover they come with the "special sauce" pre-smeared on them. And they're not allowed to try to scrape it off. (Not to mention that nobody else sells buns that their burgers will fit on... because McDonalds sends jackbooted lawyers to scare the bejeezus out of any local bakery that tries. They have a patent on buns, you see...)
If Microsoft wants its MSN icon--or any other icon for that matter--on the desktop, then it should enter into the SAME SORT OF LICENSING DEAL THAT AOL IS MAKING WITH OTHER OEMS. Stating that their icons must show, or no icons will be allowed, is just another example of how Microsoft flexes its muscles to promote its inferior products (not that I wish to imply that AOL's product is in any way superior).
I have a term that Microsoft should learn: It's called playing fair.
If Microsoft doesn't want to play fair, then they deserve to be bitch-slapped by the DoJ and court system for being a monopoly and illegally protecting that monopoly.
Get a clue, Microsoft!
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
It used to be that the courts held that regardless of the EULA text, software was sold, but I understand that they now agree that it is only licensed. This demonstrates the power of advertising ... or something.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So you can also add an icon called: 'Remove Microsoft MSN access icon'
-- Cheers!
So.... Would that be Microsoft, or AOL?
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
My father is convinced that double-clicking on links makes the page load faster.
I just tried that and it worked!
cpeterso
> Gotta love that quote though. People don't use the word 'ballyhooed' anything like enough.
That's probably why he's the VP of a big corp, and we're just ordinary geeks.
I'm going to start saying "ballyhooed" once a day, to see if it gives my career a boost. Maybe I'll throw in a "23-skidoo" every week or two as well.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> When those icons are irrelevent to to the actual core non-marketing functions of the system.
I liked the description of the Windows boot screen as "an ad for a product you already bought".
Sorry; can't remember where I read that. It's been a few years.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> > How can this guy sleep at night?
> On gold-lined silk pillows, while throngs of bare-naked nymphs...
Somehow I suspect that under those circumstances I'd get rather less sleep than I do now.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
My father is convinced that double-clicking on links makes the page load faster.
Oh, for chrissake, Advertising is not a product modification! It isn't even useful! It doesn't serve the consumer in any way!!!!
*sigh*Sorry for all exclamation points but it sickens me how accepted advertising has become.
Look at 7-11. One of their big selling points is that they carry both Coke and Pepsi at the fountain. The cost per ounce is also very very low compared to the burger places. I don't think there's a lot of price elasticity in the fast-food drink market...which is good because that $1.25 soda cost McDonald's a whole nickel.
My point is, from the customer's perspective, it's not a big cost increase. It does mean more profit margin for the retailer. It's also why I don't go to Taco Hell...I don't like Pepsi. : )
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
That's silly. If, say, Boar's Head were to do that, the deli would say "OK, fine. I'll go do business with Thumann's." PC vendors are over the barrel, however. They CAN'T substitute a work-alike product for Microsoft Windows, because it doesn't exist.
When I get a ham sandwich, I'm not AWFULLY concerned about who made the ham. I mean, I'd like it to be of good quality, but many quality hams are compatible with the sort of bread I like. Not true of PC operating systems.
That's why monopolies are bad.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Oooooh no.
But if you do anything we don't like we'll just change the rules again.
"North American Airlines rejects this month's issue of your in-flight magazine. One of the advertisers is an automobile rental company which violates our standards. We remind you that any advertisement for automobile rental must include a mention of North American Auto Rental, our affiliated company."
Wouldn't it be fair if double-clicking on the required MSN icon brought up a notedpad window with the instructions for downloading Internet Explorer, and the 27 steps required to install it and configure it to run when the icon was clicked?
Wouldn't that give users a fair choice?
Microsoft seems to think so in the case of Kodak's picture processing format, or Sun's Java files.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
Coke cans painted green. Must be St. Patricks day.
From this you have you choice of the following national online services:
And what about the smaller companies? Isn't this just crying for a large-company-only world? People like easy stuff, and if four companies are made much easier by putting ready icons on the desktop...
Who would get the icons there anyway? Where do you draw the line of a "major" ISP?
Those who can pay enough to Microsoft? Obviously ridiculous.
Everybody? No chance.
You quote four large "national online services", but you're forgetting Windows is a global product. The service providers in other parts of the world are very different, somewhere I'll guarentee there are no "national online services".
If it is allowed to sell a box that has only Microsoft icons, it should be allowed to sell a box with only AOL icons -- it's the consumers choise!
On the other hand, if AOL should be required to add a Microsoft icon on the desktop, then Microsoft should be required to add an AOL icon on their desktop. And if Microsoft should be required to add an AOL icon on their desktop, they should also be required to add a Columbia Internet icon.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
But if I go to the computer shop around the corner and buy a windows license, I am allowed to install whatever program I like on it. why isn't AOL or compaq allowed to do the same ?
Because they're re-selling it, you're not. You can take your copy of Titanic and re-edit it any way you want at home for personal viewing, but you cant do that and resell it.
-- Ryan Watkins vamp@vamp.org http://www.vamp.org/
Er, no sir - you either put Quaxxon gasoline in it every time you fill up, or if you DO fill up somewhere else, you're required to make sure you ALSO run down the street and put in a half a tank of Quaxxon.
Which might apply if you just bought a license to use the car, rather than actually purchased the car.
-- Ryan Watkins vamp@vamp.org http://www.vamp.org/
And there it is. A non-monopoly may engage in a broader scope of anticompetitive behavior to its advantage than can a monopoly.
Microsoft's evils have now come home to roost. I rather love listening to them whine about how "tough" it is in the fast lane. . .
I understand your point if Microsoft didn't do the same thing themselves. They tried very hard to prevent their competitors from getting onto the desktop. But when a OEM does it to them, they cry murder.
I don't buy your analogy. MS has a monopoly on the windows desktop. Now if McDonalds made buildings, and BurgerKing had to buy one of these MD buildings, and then McDonalds told BurgerKing that they must sell Big Macs along with their Woppers, or not sell anything at all. Then you would have a similar analogy.
The difference here is that the desktop is not just a medium for marketing. But it is an active place where the consumer does their work. Having that icon is not just advertising, it is a medium to actually sign up. Microsoft plays this game so much, when removing their competetors from the desktop and placing them into the start menu only, and they say they are cleaning the desktop. MS just says, that the user can still put the icon on the desktop and calling it "consumer choice". Now the shoe is on the other foot. The OEM decides what is on the desktop and MS is up in arms.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
from the simpsons:
...
jay sherman (film critic): how do you sleep at night?
rainier wolfcastle (based on ahnold): on a lahge pile of money, wif many beautiful ladies
Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
A-ha you fell into my trap!
The dealer is like the OEM. Microsoft is saying to OEMs that they can't put their icons on the desktop. That's like forbidding the car dealer form putting their advertising on the back window, the number plate etc, but they have to live with 4 foot stickers plastered on the door saying 'Ford' or whatever.
> just because they happen to own it.
err - do they actually own it?
I'm an OEM. I paid for each and every copy of windows that I sell onto the purchaser. Don't I own the desktop? - shouldn't I be able to put MY advertising on it?
I'm a PC purchaser. I paid for Windows as part of the price of my PC. Am I allowed to put anything I want on the desktop? Suppose I sell the PC onto someone else - like my sister. Do I own the desktop? Am I allowed to put extra icons on it for my sister's benefit? Am I allowed to take off the ones that are just advertising?
... so what's the difference?
I don't see why the default desktop should be seen as an advertising medium at all. I mean - I've already shelled out good money for the OS, why should I have to be advertised to as well?
If I buy a new car, I can live with a badge on the front and back telling people what kind of car it is, but I don't expect to have the doors and the roof emblazened with the complay logo and the phone number for the service department
Ah that brings back memories. When I was little, this used to be my favorite "game" to play. I'd watch all the animations move and play around with all the objects on the screen.
My Power Mac G4 did come with a tutorial but it was really short. It was nowhere near as fun and actually wouldn't run without manually switching resolutions. What person who doesn't know how to click a mouse will know how to do that?
and if people don't like Microsoft products, they won't buy them
That's the problem. Nobody is actualy buying these products. MS bundles them for free with the OS and requires the OEM's to display them and make them the default applications. People buy a new computer, which happens to have windows pre-installed. Because it has windows pre-installed, it has to have all these other products installed (IE, media player, msn internet access and messenger, outlook express). Not only that but you can't completely remove them. If I uninstall outlook express, open IE, and click a mailto address link, I get a message composition window from outlook express, and find it has been reinstalled. That's crap. I didn't buy IE or outlook express. I don't want them. I can't get rid of them.
--
Your alternative, as mentioned above, is don't buy Windows. There are certainly windows alternatives which you should know about as a member of the /. community. Or you could go with the masses and complain about these things but continue to use them.
I think the major issue is the forced bundling of their non-OS software. I shouldn't be forced to use all that stuff just because I chose to use windows. Of course I can install Linux, but that's skirting the issue. For certain tasks, I prefer linux, for other tasks, I prefer windows. When I use linux, I am free to use whichever application I want. With windows, I am not. MS can't prevent me from using linux, but they seem to do a decent job of making it frustrating to use non-MS apps on windows. They do this by abusing their monopoly of the desktop OS market, which is why they're in court. I am technically able to get around the hurdles that MS has made for me, but not everyone else is. The consumers that MS and the court are conserned about are the ones who just take what their presented with, because they don't know how to replace it.
--
There's a slight difference: Microsoft has never sold a single copy of any version of any software package they produce. They license.
But if I go to the computer shop around the corner and buy a windows license, I am allowed to install whatever program I like on it.
why isn't AOL or compaq allowed to do the same ?
---
But after they've sold their product to e.g. compaq or AOL. they should be able to do with it whatever they like.
to me, this is kinda like a consumer buying a retail windows install, and then finding out he's only allowed to install Microsoft Certified applications on it.
"Instatallation of Mozilla on this OS is not permitted"
for now it's only OEM desktops, but when will the rest follow ?
---
Compaq sold space on XP to AOL, Microsoft should do the same thing. Pay Compaq to put MSN on the desktop.
In fact, that's what they should do with it all. Ship Windows with nothing but DOS and the Windows Shell. Then if Microsoft wants to put icons on the desktop, they pay the OEM's for the privledge just like other companies.
Step two is releasing the Windows shell code so that others can code to it.
Carl
Shit better not happen!
No, wait. The Microsoft situation is different. But you could imagine if they were the same, right?
I suspect that the vast majority of Slashdot readers would be damned if they thought of either AOL or MS for online access, for reasons that often include reliability, principles, and pride.
So, AOL and MS are fighting over, frankly, the less savvy computer user. Yes, I know that these days, this defines the majority...but doesn't it seem a little sad that a big part of this fight is based on the fact that the typical user will double-click on whatever icon on the desktop offers Internet access? Dog? Bell? Pavlov?
I just find it a little disheartening that many of the recent stories in the IT world--AOL vs MS and the countless virus stories, to name a few--seem to revolve around the fact that computer users, as a whole...aren't that bright. Hey, I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal with this mini-rant...hell, it took me 20 minutes just to write this :)
Just my 1.5 cents.
I have to disagree. Microsoft sells the OS. They shouldn't be able to leverage that monopoly to gain an unfair competitive advantage in other markets. If they want to pay the OEMS more than AOL to buy that ad space out from under AOL's nose, that's one thing, but to use their market position to prevent AOL from being the only ones with an icon on the desktop seems like unfair competition.
What would people say if Ford demamnded a Ford ad be placed on the side of any Ford bus that has ads for anything else? I think it would be ridiculous. Ford sold the bus, and once someone else has paid for it, it is theirs to customize as they see fit. I understand that MS doesn't "sell" Windows (they license it), but I think that the analogy still holds some water.
-joe
There are ways to help competitors out, but telling MS that their own desktop is off limits is like telling McDonalds to sell their Big Macs and McNuggets... somewhere other than at a McDonalds.
MS are fond of using the "burger and fries" metaphor to defend their control of the UI, and of deciding what to call "part of the OS". It suits MS marketing well, but is disingenuous IMHO.
A burger is an impulse purchase: a one-shot consumable. Your burger does not serve as anything other than your next meal: it is not the gateway to your bank, your mail, other people's products, etc. It is instantly usable with all its competitors' products, since its "platform" is your mouth, not a PC. And perhaps most importantly, burgers are always sold directly from the manufacturer to the consumer through retail outlets: there is no reseller channel for McDonalds.
A car is a better metaphor for this. Buy a Ford car, and paint it any color you like. Stick badges all over it. Pull the badge off the grille. Put big bull horns on the front, and 'roo bars. Add fluffy seat covers. Just leave the internals alone, or Ford can justifiably refuse to service it for you. Similarly, MS has no business dictating the UI to a reseller, so long as they're not changing anything internally.
So, shifting my head around temporarily to Closed Source Business Mode, I can understand them objecting to something that changes or adds DLLs and EXEs to render Windows UI components differently, but they have no business objecting to altered icons or wallpaper.
Yeah, that way you'd only have to delete the folder instead of deleting multiple separate icons!
I have to agree with this. Microsoft does a lot of bad things, but they don't scare me nearly as much as AOL Time Warner. Microsoft may be harming some innovation, but AOL Time Warner's control over a broad range of media outlets is really scarry, and they've shown themselves to be no friend of consumers many times in the past. It may be ironic that Microsoft is the one forcing "competition" on AOL, but I still think it's a good thing.
If they want to pay the OEMS more than AOL to buy that ad space out from under AOL's nose, that's one thing, but to use their market position to prevent AOL from being the only ones with an icon on the desktop seems like unfair competition.
They tried that. It's one of the main things they got in trouble for. They were offering discounts on the price of Windows to OEMs that would exclusively offer IE as the web browser. That was considered anti-competitive. AOL is allowed to enter into exclusive agreements with OEMs to push AOL, but Microsoft, because of their Monopoly in the OS market cannot. Since they can't have an exclusive agreement, they decided to prohibit AOL from having one either. OEMs have the choice of both or none. Seems fair and equitable to me. Consumers get a choice. No one is being excluded. I can't say I feel even a little bit sorry for AOL. They aren't looking out for consumers, they're looking out for themselves through exclusive marketing practices. Though I don't think they have a monoplly, they have by far the largets share of the ISP market. They don't need an unfair advantage over Microsoft to compete in the ISP market. Allowing them to have exclusive marketing agreements with OEMs whilc MS can't would be unfair. Microsoft just leveled the playing field.
I guess you can argue that MS is using their Monopoly to distribute MSN, but I have a hard time figuring out what's really wrong with it. It isn't an exclusive deal. OEMs can place other ISP's icon's on the desktop as well, they just have to include MSN as well. If an OEM doesn't want to include any icons they have that choice as well. MSN also has a seperate cost involved, so you don't have to purchase MSN when you buy Windows. The products aren't tied in that sense.
I would be fine if MS paid the OEM's to 'have this and this requirement', but they're not. MSN is a completely seperate service, and deserves to be treated that why.
You make a good point, but how is MS supposed to do this. If they offer discounts on Windows for people to include MSN, then they are tying the products together. They aren't supposed to do that. They aren't allowed to play by the same rules that AOL is. That's the nature of antitrust law. If they want to be able to compete fairly with AOL in the ISP market, then this seems like a reasonable way to do it. As long as consumers aren't being harmed, why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? The only thing they've really done is prevent other ISPs from limiting consumer's choices. It seems strange that Microsoft would be doing things to insure consumers have a choice, but it comes down to if they can't be anticompetitive, then they won't let anyone else either. Sounds like a good thing to me.
MSN is AOL's main competitor. MSN is not allowed to have exclusive contracts with OEMs because of Microsoft's OS Monopoly. OEMs weren't agreeing to make AOL the "dominant" ISP in their distribution, they were agreeing to make them the only ISP in the distribution. Because AOL isn't a monopoly, this is perfectly legal. Microsoft is giveing OEMs the choice of placing no ISP icon's on the desktop. They are just leveling the playing field in the ISP market by requireing that no one else can have an exclusive OEM agreement, since they can't. I can see that the OEMs won't like this, because it limits their ability to sell advertising on the Windows desktop, but I don't see how consumers are being harmed by having a choice. If consumers aren't being harmed, then antitrust laws shouldn't prevent it. Sure, MS is forcing their will on OEMs. Since they're under the gun and have to compete fairly, they are forcing an even playing field. I don't understand how you can argue that an exclusive agreement promotes competition, while an non-exclusive agreement prohibits it.
After rethinking things, I would think that if MSN makes agreements with OEMs that are in no way tied to Windows licensing, then MS shouldn't get in trouble for antitrust issues. The trouble they go into was from tying the two products together, which in a way is what they are doing now. Unlike many of the products that MS has integrated into Windows, I can't see how requiring a MSN icon really helps consumers, and you've convinced me that it can harm them.
I still don't like the kind of exclusive marketing contract that Compaq and AOL are talking about. It seems anticompetitive to me, and I don't like the reasoning that it's ok as long as you're not a monopoly. Some monopolies are natural, and I don't feel the government should artificially try to restore competition my making the monopoly play by one set of rules, while their competitors play by another. But that really isn't the issue at hand. The issue is Microsoft tying the advertising of MSN to Windows XP, which should be prevented.
I'll bet in addition to the car label, there's one saying 'Ted Britt Ford', 'Koons Cars', or something like that. To get a car without those costs extra - but I certainly think the os consumer should have the same choice to pay extra to not have advertising bundled, though as with the car dealer labels very few will avail themselves of the opportunity.
If you buy a car on lot they charge you for taking off the advertising they put on it.
The dealer can't take the Toyota signs off the car. They're adding the 'Bobs Toyota' label is optional on their part, but they're stuck with the Toyota label.
Not a perfect analogy though, b/c the Toyota label is just an add for the maker of the car. The MSN logo is NOT an add for Microsoft, the maker of the OS, its an add for a different group, MSN the internet service provider. I know they're still the same company, but they're different groups the way Time Life Mysteries of the Unknown books are different from AOL's NOC. An icon saying 'Long Live Windows!', or a default Windows wallpaper would fit the analogy better. To match the MSN icon analogy, your Toyota car would have to have a label on it advertising Toyota brand Wheat Flakes or some such. And you'd understand then why Bobs Toyota would be upset about putting it on the cars they sell.
But if the customer bought the non-OEM version, they could call Microsoft for support and Microsoft would have to give them the support.
But here's another twist... MS doesn't support OEM software, the OEM does. That's why OEMs can get the software for less than retail. If the OEM has to support the OS, then they should have full control over what the user sees when they start the computer up.
100 bucks says the evil company wins.
That's basically it. MSN is allowed to get into the same agreements as AOL. But, Microsoft as a whole cannot use Windows as a leverage to push MSN. That's an illegal abuse of their monopoly
Clearly Microsoft either doesn't know how to get into agreements like this without illegally leveraging their monopoly or they don't care to. That makes them a weaker business because they don't know how to negotiate for both parties' mutual benefit without resorting to, "Do what we want or you can't sell you product with Windows." Breaking them up would force them to learn how to negotiate properly and would probably make them a better company in the long run.
This may seem a bit offtopic, but this reminds me of a boss I once had who didn't know how to get people to do what she wanted without threatening their jobs. It's important for a manager to be able to get their employees to do things not just because the manager is telling them to, but because it's to the mutual benefit of all parties involved. That's how the best work is done. For her, she couldn't do that. All she knew was, "Do as I say, or I'll fire you." No kidding. After she was promoted to my boss, she threatened to fire me every two days for things as silly as not helping her troubleshoot her computer. I and everyone else in her group quit (with others in the company threatening to quit if they were moved into her group) and she got demoted. But in Microsoft's case, they've got a monopoly and the other parties can't "quit" Microsoft. Can you imagine Compaq or Dell not selling Windows-based computers any more and staying in business for more than a month?
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Of course they are.
"Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of."
No. MS SOLD their OS to an OEM. But now they're saying that if AOL will pay that SAME OEM to install AOL Software, then the OEM must make MSN software easily available, at no cost to MS.
If I buy your car, and plan to install Pirelli tires, what gives you the right to say I must have big Firestone logo's on the hubcaps?
I would be fine if MS paid the OEM's to 'have this and this requirement', but they're not. MSN is a completely seperate service, and deserves to be treated that why. Dial-UP is NOT a requirement of the OS, and not a necessity for ANYONE.
Personally, I LIKED the extra GUI that vendors such as Packard Bell added to their systems. It made the end-user experience so much better. Yeah, they were resource hogs, but that's not a big deal anymore. MS's claim of people just 'sitting down at any PC and knowing how to use it', goes over with me about as well as Bill's attempt to get schools to teach Hex.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
The desktop is not an advertising medium and Microsoft does not own it. You should stick with burgers and can I have some fries with that.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Is this a case of Microsoft being free to change its licensing rules whenever it pleases, or did Compaq and AOL screw up by letting the cat out of the bag about what they intended before they had signed license terms that would have allowed them to do it?
Just curious.
But after they've sold their product to e.g. compaq or AOL. they should be able to do with it whatever they like.
Do you think that after someone acquires a piece of code covered by the GPL they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it? Including uses prohibited by the GPL?
Microsoft is obviously a monopolist. And the rules are different for monopolists because of their enormous market power. However, even monopolists have some rights over their own products. Personally, I think it is perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to require that if an ad for their competitor is placed on the desktop, their own ad has to be their as well. That is different then saying the competitor cannot advertise on the desktop at all.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
Yes, it's irresistible to use the big club if you happen to be the one wielding it. Reminds me of another arena.
Ask any ISP or CLEC that attempts to compete with the local phone company what it's like to feel the blows from such a club.
Telco: "Whump!"
Competitor:"Ouch! No fair! Did you see him abuse me with that deliberate screw-up in the C.O.?"
Public/Regulators:"Technology? What's that? How interesting, another competitor bites the dust."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
This fight could get real interesting as the XP public release comes down to the wire at approximately the same time that the remedy for the court ruling is being considered.
One conceivable outcome is for XP to be released without any default easy ISP connections, be it MSN or AOL:)
"Provided by the management for your protection."
So, yeah, if a store buys 20 cases of Coke, they own it - they can do whatever they want with it, including resell it. If they take that coke, and put grape flavor in it, and sell it as "store-branded grape-coke", then the consumer it is quite clear it's not an original coke product, and the consumer knows exactly what's he's buying.
How does this hurt anybody? If anything, it's giving products more value because they are being used more ways. If I want plain coke, I can still buy it.
The way I look at it, if I'm an OEM, and I buy 100 licenses, then I should be able to install them and configure the system any way I like.
I know there are licensing agreements to the contrary, I'm using the word should, in a nice society where everybody plays with everybody else.
A better, real, example is the businees in the town where I grew up. They resold Jaguars. The engines were so unreliable, this business sold new Jaguars with replaced engines. Cost a lot more than buying a stock Jaguar, but I don't see how it hurt consumers, especially if they honored the warranty themselves.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
While it may not be pretty, it is about business, and the AOL icon was "taking over" because AOL was willing to pay the OEMs for it.
Frankly, this sounds like a pretty good deal if OEMs pass the savings on to the consumer to offset the price of the machine (however little it amounts to, per machine). I imagine they'd do it because competition is so tight.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
It's not a whole lot different then IE. Sure, people can go to another website, download the software, and run a different browser - but that IE icon is right there.
But this is worse - because a lot of people buying computers don't have an ISP yet. So they boot up and there's the MSN icon - what are you going to do, if you're a clueless newbie? Having AOL as a another choice is at least a good thing. Having more choices is better.
But since all the other ISPs need to pay and have the blessings of the OEM to have their icons on the desktop, shouldn't MS? If it weren't for the monopoly situation, and the tying, it might be a bit different, but MS is already supposed to not be tying products. The OS is a different beast than an ISP, and all ISPs should compete on a level playfield.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I didn't pay extra, and when they balked I told them it was a deal breaker. They didn't argue.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Delis do what they want, automobile dealers do what they want. In fact, just about everything sold is a conglomoration of parts from other companies that are put together in a certain way to create a certain product. Everyone can do it - except PC OEMs.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
But this is the sticking point - it's fine for ISPs to compete for the icon on the desktop, or share it, but not when one has to pay and one doesn't. I mean, it wouldn't be fair for Compaq to put an earthlink icon on the desktop for free (for no reason) but require AOL to pay, either.
The fact that it's MS, and they are using their monopoly to force that situation just makes it go from bad to worse.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You're right, but I wanted to specifically steer clear of that, because instead of arguing the point a lot of people would say "but coke already has cherry coke, so why should someone else be able to do it", and thus completely missing the point of the argument.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Sure there is - they can refuse to sell the deli ham at a discount price unless the deli agreed to not "tamper" with it. In other words, they could pull a Microsoft.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
First, you licensed the product - not bought it, and the answer to your question is: not if your agreement with Microsoft says you can't.
Which, IMO, ought to be null and void, unenforcable. It's simply anti-competetive and..uh..monopolistic.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
And this ISN'T just advertising, it IS a product modification. Windows as a whole is the product, that includes everything on the desktop, advertisement or not. By changing what programs are on the desktop they have modified the product.\ =\=\=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
I'ts a big f**king mystery why they haven't gone after Adobe or Macromedia yet. When they do, bye bye.
I mean, forcing a company to use your icon if they want to use any sounds rather like strong arm tactics to me. Can't Compaq object or something.
But seriously, yeah, as I understood it (and I've read a lot about the MS case, as I suspect a lot of other people here have) one of the main problems was that MS was bundling IE with Windows. You couldn't get Windows without IE, so why would anyone bother installing Netscape? This was an anti-competitive move by Microsoft.
I don't see how shoving MSN down people's throats is any different from this. Granted, they needed to respond to AOL, but I don't think this was a fair way to do so.
Unless they're clicking on links on a web page of course, and then they double click every single time (despite having been told not to by me repeatedly for the past 6 years).
Not like I need XP when I know that it's just a makeover update.
If I wanted to upgrade my TV, I'd go and buy a new one like anyone else --at my discretion. Problem is: TVs signals, unlike your favorite OS programs, are backwards compatible and will be until WELL after HDTV kicks in.
Now that I think it, it's a hell of a good job TVs have been engineered to do. I haven't seen any old Black & White TV set blow to pieces because I put on a channel with SAP... closed captions / smart chip or... *gasp*... COLOR broadcasts. Little of that was envisioned when that TV was "licensed" to the customer.
"Wireless : LAN
Yeah, you're right. To my father, it's not really Windows. He said "let's buy a computer" when we came to the states. He didn't even know to call it anything else, like "system box" or "turing machine."
;)
This will be off-topic but it is about what brands-names do to what starts out as generic services or products...
I suspect the middle age, computer illiterate population, see call it "just a computer." You don't know what feel it will have when you first buy it. Heck, people used to only get a black DOS screen and be happy with it and 4 colors in their programs --they were professionals or engineers, though. But nowadays, you don't really want "just the computer," many buy it because the *internet* works on "computers." My dad learned computers from the outside (the Internet) inwards, into the system and it's UI. But I learned it from DOS outwards. The thing is, parents ask for software that [runs], and by that, you know they want windows or mac operating systems because they are exposed knowledge about those programs through the predomination of those particular programs out there. The same for kids who want to "play computer games:" they don't know much about a computer, but you know they want windows (I hate having to fix game lock-ups because it shows how unintuitive the game concept is to a system made for serious tasks [playstations may lock up and you just tell them to reset 'em... not in windows since you still may have the system running and 20 ways to attempt to restart or quit back to the "system" the kids barely understand])
To wrap it up, though: When a kid wants a toy, it will likely be a "Barbie" or a "Pokemon." Nowadays, they are too controlled by monopolies and don't even know it. Same happens to us with software choices that don't work on all turing machines even when all code theoretically runs on all turing machines once it has run in one, thanks to emulation.
So AOL is simply "AOL." MSN is really "MS-Internet Division" and wants to take over the internet in your machine since they own free publicity that the trademark "Microsoft" gives their internet software division. Oh, wait, I thought MS was divided into smaller companies. Why not just abolish all internet software but MSN since they *must* control/guard their system experience
"Wireless : LAN
From the article: "They can either ship computers with a desktop free of any icons, or they can add as many icons as they want, but only if they also include an icon for Microsoft's MSN Internet access."
Now I really like that -- everything must now be done from the "Start" menu; no more silly icons to deal with.
Picture all the new user-manuls; fron now on they will read: "From the 'Start' menu select 'Run' and type 'CMD'; a black-strange-window will open up, than you can..."
This is great, CLI is BACK!
---------------
Sig
abbr.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
If you are going to resell McDonalds products, I think they should be able to say that you have to keep it exactly as they sold it to you. It is there product. By changing it you are effecting how people view them. Should grocery stores be allowed to paint Coke cans green?
The problem with this is that people expect a certain quality from Coke, McDonalds, Microsoft (here come the flames), or whoever. This consumer trust has to be built around customer satisfaction. If the grocery store, or hamburger reseller, or OEM decides to start changing the product, the original manufacturer can no longer guarentee the quality they inteded. So these practices would not only hurt the maker of the product, but also the consumer!
People tend to forget that Microsoft owns the operating system, and therefore should be able to do what they want with it! This is a free market economy (supposedly), and if people don't like Microsoft products, they won't buy them. Maybe AOL should quit complaining to 'Big Brother' and go write their own operating system.
The expression is "I could NOT care less." Think about it.
Imagine an incumbent politician telling every TV they can't run paid political ads for his opponent unless they provide him with equal airtime for free. That he happened to own the stations in questions wouldn't even slow the FTC's haste to prosecute.
They can't be expected to pay licencing or advertising costs to promote their own (other) products
Everybody else has to. Why should Microsoft get them for free?
And Microsoft calls AOL anti-competitive?!
they can't be expected to miss out on the most lucrative advertising medium, the Windows desktop, just because they happen to own it.
Of course they can. At least, that's what the court of appeals upheld. As an adjudicated monopolist, MS is no longer permitted to use its own desktop in ways that anti-competitively promote its own products -- especially products such as MSN, which even Microsoft can't "innovate" into the OS -- to the detriment of competitors.
If MS wants MSN's icon on the desktop, let it compete for space. Bid -- don't bully -- AOL out of the race. Now that's capitalism.
-1 for being first? I miss the old /. ;)
Anyway, I didn't mean for that to be flamebait. However, I think in this situation, MS should make a change to the licensing. AOL is trying to pull exactly what MS got in trouble for, and they've been trying to do it for a long time too (who remembers them trying to buy ad space on BIOS screens??).
I'm not all for MS, but I'd trust them over AOL/TW any day.
The issue that AOL and OEM's face is that Microsoft gets to put their icon on the desktop for free. AOL has to pay for placement.
In ten years, we'll be using something we haven't even thought of.
Ten years ago we were all running DOS. Look now. No one even remembers DOS (even though it's still there.)
MS, Linux, MacOS, BeOS,... they're all going to get slaughtered. By what, I don't know. If I did, I'd be buying stock.
Not at all. What this is like is McDonalds trying to tell me that if I decide to resell their product that I must keep it exactly as they sold it to me. Also, a point that is missed here is that MS has a monopoly. As a monopoly, they must play by different rules than other companies like McDonalds who does not have a monopoly.
main(i){(10-putchar(((25208>>3*(i+=3))&7)+(i ?i-4?100:65:10)))?main(i-4):i;}
Chris Beckenbach
Doing this would activate a script that would, by default, remove all of the stupid stuff in XP (desktop icons, IE, etc.) and replace it with programs that the OEM judges to be better. Of course, there would be an "advanced" tab which would give you the options to keep all that crap.
This way, MS could stick any icons on the default desktop that they like. MS never contested the right of users to remove those icons, and so what's the difference if this removing is done by a user-friendly, OEM-supplied app? I'm not saying that MS will be happy, and they'll probably claim that the app "breaks" XP, but the OEMs need to stand firm and say "no, it doesn't." MS will probably say that uninstalling stuff which they never meant to have uninstalled voids the warranty that comes with XP, but this will affect no one, because the OEMs, not MS, are responsible for supporting the software installed on new computers.
This is a better solution because it's easy to implement (there are already great "windows customizing apps" that can safely do all sorts of wonders like removing the media player and system restore from ME), it's easy for the user (just two or three clicks and a reboot), and it requires no compromises with MS. Should the OEM choose, they can replace everything bundeled by MS: the media player, the CD-burning software, the stupid photo-printing ads, etc.
This would be much easier than forcing users to clean-install XP, a non-solution anyway, since the clean install would set up the desktop exactly the way MS wants.
YES! But the script should be activated with a program that gives you some options about how much of the crap you would like removed.
And once you have that .exe running, why not give it the capacity to (optionally) remove all the evil from XP? (I mean: IE, media player, those nasty photo-printing ads, etc.) Then, it could check the net for a new version of Netscape or RealPlayer or non-MS CD-burning software...
Once you have your own .exe activated, there is no ceiling to the good that you could do.
There is no way Microsoft can object, because they don't deny the users the right to delete icons and customize their installation. There is no difference in principle if this removal is done by a user-friendly application.
This way, MS could stick any icons on the default desktop that they like. MS never contested the right of users to remove those icons, and so what's the difference if this removing is done by a user-friendly, OEM-supplied app? I'm not saying that MS will be happy, and they'll probably claim that the app "breaks" XP, but the OEMs need to stand firm and say "no, it doesn't." MS will probably say that uninstalling stuff which they never meant to have uninstalled voids the warranty that comes with XP, but this will affect no one, because the OEMs, not MS, are responsible for supporting the software installed on new computers.
This is a better solution because it's easy to implement (there are already great "windows customizing apps" that can safely do all sorts of wonders like removing the media player and system restore from ME), it's easy for the user (just two or three clicks and a reboot), and it requires no compromises with MS. Should the OEM choose, they can replace everything bundeled by MS: the media player, the CD-burning software, the stupid photo-printing ads, etc.
This would be much easier than forcing users to clean-install XP, a non-solution anyway, since the clean install would set up the desktop exactly the way MS wants.
In any case, it makes sense that those free AOL cds you get in the mall should auto-run this program. Hey, this is a war, so MS enemies should stand up and fight!
They don't call it Windows. They call it a computer. It'd be different if they were getting Windows from Microsoft, changing it around -- putting the AOL logo on the desktop, and then selling it as a retail box of Windows.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
There are certain tactics that a monopoly cannot use, but that a non-monopoly can. Check out this Google search. Note that the word "Microsoft" is not part of the search, when you start getting back results. :)
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
On gold-lined silk pillows, while throngs of bare-naked nymphs...well, what would you do with that much money?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Just when I think that M$ is getting a healty respect for the government, and are actually going to pretend to play by the rules, they pull a stunt like this.
IANAL... But I play one on
There's a slight difference: Microsoft has never sold a single copy of any version of any software package they produce. They license.
Made by Intel with the interface made my Microsoft. Dubbed Microsoft Mind Control 1.0 Qua
"By the way, if you install the Full or OEM editions of Windows 95, 98, or ME, the MSN icon is on the desktop itself, so that's old news for Microsoft to put the MSN setup icon on the main desktop of Windows XP."
:-)
Yeah I remember the MSN service for Windows95... At that time MSFT was still thinking that the Internet will never be what it's like today, that MSN will be the online services and the net a curiosity that would fading away... Damn, I can't imagine how the world would be today if they were right
Disclaimer: "I am the sole owner of this comment I will open its source soon."
--- Bouh !!! ---
Thank you.
Office XP runs on any version of Windows, except 3.1, probably.
This comment has been submitted already, 276832 hours , 36 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Posting 1 paragraph of the GPL says that my post is lame. So, the moderation is happening BEFORE I even post it ?!
Back to my comment, I would like to see them tweak the entire license over to the GPL. One day it will happen, they don't have much of a choice.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Microsoft has yet to adjust to this.
Also, there is a blurring of the lines of what constitutes an operating system. It seems here that Microsoft has defined the operating system as a Marketing system for Microsoft products, vs a system that allows the computer to run other applications. Microsoft has the idea that the appearance of certain icons is essentail or harmful to the marketing functions of the operating system. When those icons are irrelevent to to the actual core non-marketing functions of the system.
This is the most irritating part of Microsoft.
Microsoft, of course, finds it rude and unsettling when someone else engages in the practices that Microsoft has engaged in for years and years.
Lawsuit prospects continue.n I would love to see microsoft forced to allow everyone do what they want on the desktop, just to tweak there noses. but it would be a bit of a pain for tech support geeks, all those "non standard" menu systems.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Well, yeah. That's exactly right. Pretty much any right to resell or bundle any product or service includes a clause that reads something like "...Licensee is not permitted to modify the Product, in part or in whole, without exclusive and specific license from Licensor, and only to the extent explicitly stated in the license." That's called brand protection. It keeps Licensee from warping the Product and causing degradation of the brand. (And yeah, it also keeps AOL from having the same share of the Desktop.)
I mean, it's Microsoft's operating system. They can't be expected to pay licencing or advertising costs to promote their own (other) products, and they can't be expected to miss out on the most lucrative advertising medium, the Windows desktop, just because they happen to own it. There are ways to help competitors out, but telling MS that their own desktop is off limits is like telling McDonalds to sell their Big Macs and McNuggets... somewhere other than at a McDonalds.
I guess you never seen a grocery store deli. They "gasp" open the sliced ham packages and bologna packages, make sandwitches out of them, then saran wrap them and resell them! Ye Gods the horror! Food tampering! Food tampering! Not. As long as the customer is made aware that some change has taken place, there is nothing the original food mfg can do about it.
This case is unique, in that it it the only dispute I've heard of in the computer industry where I actually want *both* parties to loose.
"It appears that Microsoft is backing off their much ballyhooed itty bitty teeny weeny sliver of flexibility and heading back to the rigid stance that has been slapped down by the second-highest court in the land," said AOL Time Warner vice president John Buckley.
Gotta love that quote though. People don't use the word 'ballyhooed' anything like enough.
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Let me get this straight, you guys don't want any government intervention but as soon as it comes to MS, all of a sudden you encourage government intervention. Is MS that much scaring you?
Now MS have to get permission before placing an icon on their own Windows OS Desktop?
If I interpret that as 'can't seem to stop running into them' ... then -- well, it's pretty easy to associate the mailto (or http for that matter) protocol to any program you choose -- including Opera and Netscape. These programs' install routines do it for you by default, too.
Anyway, there's nothing that stops you from installing all kinds of stuff yourself. What MS counts on, however, is the millions of lusers out there who would never dream of tweaking their computer in any way.
____________________________
2*b || !(2*b) is a tautology
Do yourself and your parents a favor and change the folder options to single-click open. Then just tell them that their computer is the same as a webpage. You can even set it to highlight folders and files like hyperlinks. Then you just have to worry about them double clicking and opening stuff twice ;)
Er, no sir - you either put Quaxxon gasoline in it every time you fill up, or if you DO fill up somewhere else, you're required to make sure you ALSO run down the street and put in a half a tank of Quaxxon.
And if you refuse, you have two choices. Go out and buy yourself one of those *sniff* OTHER machines, you know, the really efficient ones what can run for days, or go brew your own gas, but that's probably illegal and really really scary.
But if you do brew your own, we're going to get several plug-ugly executives to stick their tongues out at you once a quarter. So there.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I'm probably going to be ostracised (spelling?)from /. for saying this but that seems like a fair compromise. When it comes down to it Windows is Microsoft's OS and they should be able to do what they want with it. The only reason that it's such a problem when MS fsck's with Windoze is that there are companies trying to compete with MS Products on MS ground.
I can whoop a shark on land but don't expect me to swim with it.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
Stupid dick that I was I went and clicked on the link without checking it first!
Luckily only one word of that link was goatse and the rest is actually a spell checker link and I missed the goatse link by about four pixels.
As for the word, I didn't look it up cause I was pretty sure I had spelt it right and seeing as it was one word, and probably correct, I couldn't be bothered opening a new window to check my spelling...as it was I did spell it right. Phew.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
I don't know where they got the idea- but no one could have come up with something so evil on their own.
Clearly, any attempt to control the desktop icons on a commodity-style operating system would constitute an illegal act, a crime against the state.
I agree with Microsoft that AOL should stop plying their dirty tricks tactics and play fair.
Microsoft has to play by the rules, why should AOL be any different?
As we all know, the only thing that prevents users from formatting their drives and installing the OS is a little bit of knowledge. Personally, I don't know any experienced computer users who don't reformat their drives after getting a new computer.
We also know that many users would be happier with a different OS than the one that comes on their computers.
Finally, we're all well-aware of Microsoft's new Product Activation requirement, which ensures that WinXP will not continue running without activation.
The solution? Allow consumers to buy their choice of OS at the time of installation, instead of bundling it into the price of the new machine.
Require OEMs to ship computers with a set of CDs (or a bootable DVD) specially designed to install the user's choice of OS automatically. (The computer could still come preinstalled with XP, but the user would purchase XP at the time of activation, and only if they actually required a new license.) Various OS companies would pay a small fee to the OEM in order to have their OS included in the CD set. This small fee would cover the OEM's additional expenses, and ensure that only viable consumer OSs (like RedHat and BeOS) would be included. If the consumer chose an "alternative" OS, the OEM would have the option of outsourcing their support to the OS's distributor (and most probably would). Regardless, the OS vendors would recoup their "inclusion fee" if a reasonable number of users (>5%, probably) chose their OS.
It helps consumers because they get more choice. It helps Linux because it increases the user base. It even helps Microsoft, because they would no longer be a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination, and would be free to continue extending the Windows feature set and selling space on the desktop.
"Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists."
I work tech support for a certain OEM that people seem to enjoy berating. You wanna know why we don't just ship the PC without the O/S?
Cap'n Bucky doesn't have the slightest clue how to configure power management under windoze, and now you want him to INSTALL it?!?!?!?
Pure genius. Really, it is. If a user knows how to install an o/s, usually that's the first thing they do. Format the HDD and install Win98SE, W2K, or better yet Linux.
Just don't bitch at me when your 4-year old copy of Oracle doesn't work in Windows ME, like my favourite call from yesterday.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
I strongly belief that more then 40% of all Windows licences are never in use but just lay around...
Maybe that'll help make up for all the pirated copies running around....
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
- Insert RedHat CD (substitute your favorite distro)
- Make sure BIOS is set to boot from CD
- Forget about any MSN/AOL icons
More seriously though, this is one of the reasons I stay away from OEM machines. Whether I intend to run Windows, Linux, or *BSD, I'll buy (or download) the OS and install it myself.Now, getting back to the point, the average user who would even consider using MSN or AOL isn't sophisticated enough to delete icons. They don't format hard drives or configure operating systems, and these are the very people those icons are targetted toward. Replacing an MSN icon with an AOL icon can easily mean the loss of an MSN customer. Don't forget we're talking Compaq PCs here, too... same target users...
Now, as for whether MS should be allowed to do this, I am a little bit torn... Someone used the grocery store analogy earlier, but there are many cases where this applies.
In general, if you resell someone else's product, you can't modify it unless you have an agreement with the original company. Generally will only find this on non-proprietary products. You won't find Intel chips resold under another name.
I don't think I'd want someone reselling my OS after removing my ISPs ads, and replacing them with ads for a competing ISP. Whether it's legal or wrong or whatever, I'm sure I'd do the same in their position... I won't say I agree with MS, but in this one particular issue, I can at least understand their concern.
- Jman
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Ah, try VMWare if you get the chance... and you ever need to run something in Windows when your primary box is Linux. Its a fantastic program.
...' -- or should that be don't log in and play as root after a few beers? :)
I actually downloaded it a few days ago, and can't quite get it working on my notebook. I'm already set up dual-boot, and tried to boot my existing Win2k installation under vmware, but vmware crashes before I get to the "Choose Hardware Profile" (I followed the FAQ, including setting up a second hardware profile under Windows)...
I can boot my other Linux partition though, and there are some power management issues (especially on a notebook) in the FAQ that I haven't gotten around to messing with yet...
I'll probably muck with it later, right now I'm fighting with RPM (never upgrade 'rpm' itself using 'rpm --nodeps
For now, dual boot (with Win2k's Hybernate) works decent enough...
- Jman
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Ah, try VMWare if you get the chance... and you ever need to run something in Windows when your primary box is Linux. Its a fantastic program.
My IBM Z-pro came with WinNT - not a problem since I was rebuilding the box into a linux workstation anyhow. As things grew, we ended up with a PHB that "had" to have his MS Project files used by the development team. Whatever, we complied, ordered copies of Project, copies of VMWare, and figured we were set. We got a license and CD with the box, so no need to puchase another copy, right? IBM, like so many others these days set up the bloody recovery disk to check the hardware, which is exactly what VMWare emulates...
Just so you know, those full version CD's of Office 97, Win98SE, or NT might be worth sticking in a safe spot - lord knows it will be hard to find a full version of any micros~1 product in another couple years, and it will cost you much more the second time you buy them... My copy of OfficeXP will be registered to VMWare hardware when I phone it in.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
It use to be that simple.... Today, you purchase WinME with a new Dell/Compaq/most larger folks it comes with a neutered version of DOS. You can not build (without some hacking an emergency disk) a bootable floopy -> bootable (almost) blank HDD.
These days, most OEM's give you a recovery CD rather than a complete build of the OS anyhow. A fair bit of hacking let you install Win98SE in the past, not sure if you can still do that with ME. I thought about ordering one of those $400 Gateway servers a few weeks back. Talked to the sales rep, and they would not sell me a copy of Win2K pro - only Server - since they did not have an image for that MB/BIOS combo. Grrr.
These "recovery" CD's make it real hard to get software you have licensed for a machine into a VMWare instance.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Great summary.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
MS reduced the price on Windows by $30 when they made this decision. So they are basically paying for it by giving the OEMs a discount.
(If you believe that, I understand that Bill G. has some swampland he's willing to sell at low-low prices.)
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
So to continue this fun "burger" analogy, imagine there is a company that has a monopoly on ketchup (say MicroCondiments). You run a burger joint, and your business is selling burgers. Another company comes to you and wants to pay you to use their mustard so they can make their product visible to the public. You get money and free mustard, they get exposure, your customers have an additional option for configuring their burger. Everyone wins.
The problem is that that MicroCondiments also sells mustard, so they now tell you that if you put any mustard on a burger with their ketchup, you also have to make their mustard available. After all, they have to make sure nobody "tarnishes" the taste of their ketchup. Sure, you can still sell burgers without ketchup, but your going to go out of business real fast.
So now the original deal isn't as valuable to the original mustard manufacturer, so he's not willing to pay you as much (if anything) for a non-exclusive deal. He loses, you lose, and your customers don't know the difference.
On another note, anyone else getting hungry?
Yes, I was sarcastic. But let's face it: as long as we *do not* have the choice to say no to windows, MS will stay a monopoly. We (the public) voted them to be this monopoly, I strongly belief that more then 40% of all Windows licences are never in use but just lay around... The real problem is that we have here a very dangerous piece of software (just look at the virus and worm count) and we are addicted to it. This is a very bad position to be in. Are we able to loose microsoft? Not really. We are addicted and can no longer say No, and now everything goes to hell because if this weakness. We really need to support open standards and open formats. Who cares about the tool? Use the tool (OS, application, whatever) you want to use and store all the data in some open standards.
What I cannot create, I do not understand
I wasn't serious. Geee! But do you have the choice to reject the windows? Would you install FreeBSD for me? For a small fee, or would it then somehow be more expensive then the windows option? I don't know many computer destributers that do offer anything else but the with windows option In most cases I will not have a choice but to buy a windows licence I'll never use.
What I cannot create, I do not understand
Yes, I agree the install procedure should be a no-brainer... Why isn't it?
What I cannot create, I do not understand
Why don't they (OEM) sell the pc without any OS, and then let people install it them selfs? That would really level the playing field for everyone. People would not have to buy a Windows licence which they don't use, MS has no real legal problems anymore because the illegal deals with the OEMs are not there any more, and AOL can offer you a free cd with every PC (just like they do today with magazines). Wouldn't that make everybody happy?
What I cannot create, I do not understand
First, I'd like to point out the most people here seem to be arguing FOR an AOL icon on desktops (or at least allowing them to do so). Even through the general hatred of MS here, you should realize that AOL isn't exactly a great ISP.
Anyways, to the point of reselling and changing McDonald's burgers -- McD's will NOT let you change a burger and sell it again under their name because if you reduce the quality of their burger, their name is tarnished. Don't make the argument that you should be able to change windows all you want and resell it. You can't and shouldn't be able to change it. It is an MS product, and if some computer manufacturer deletes random DLLs and sells consumers that version, MS will take the blame for having a crappy OS. Granted, desktop icons won't mess up the computer, but it is the same general idea.
Finally, to the point that MSN needs to be plugged as much as any other ISP on the desktop, this is not true. MSN needs one icon -- you could fill the rest of the desktop space with AOL icons.
All or none.
I guess someone will claim they are exercising thier "monopoly" by making that requirement.
Its the fairest way to end-run the AOL (we haven't been put in court, so we can do all the things that are bad until then) deal.
Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of.
As for MS featuring their products over AOL's IM and the AOL service, uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...
Subsitute AOL/MS and Windows/IM "We at NNNN are trying to comply with the Federal Requlators regarding making changes to YYYYY but it will take a few years as it is very difficult"
(still I like this new solution - it just begs the question - can everyone get on the desktop now so we can end this silliness)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They should not be required to support a product where the OEM has changed the installed software or the presentation.
Second, how long before these same "protectors of the public" tell Ms that they cannot install a MSN icon through a store bought upgrade version of Windows? Shouldn't we stop them there too?
How long before this same government, in a statement to protect consumers at all levels, determines that all desktops, (apple and linux too) must be open to everyone, meaning if it can run there the OEM must put it there, or the creator of the software must do so?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Personally, I can't understand why AOL let this slip out before the release of XP - they knew Microsoft would pull this crap.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
"Uau! They don't really give a fig about the Goverment suit. Next you know they will change their mind again and reclaim the desktop as Microsoft-only, and the hell with all."
Yep. It doesn't speak well of them either way... Either they made the change naievely thinking everyone would march in jackboot lines with MSN, or else they never intended to allow anyone (but them) to profit from the desktop.
IMO, them restricting what the OEM does to the desktop seems to me to be a violation of the "first sale" doctrine. But it's just another example of why it benefits both customer and OEM to use a free OS (free as in speech). There is no "iron fist" around your business telling you what you can and cannot do to the PC you are selling.
"I sure wish I could use the same attitude in my dealings with the Goverment."
Don't you wish? Microsoft seems to have "fuck you" money. They have enough to say "fuck you" to anything the feds say or do. Microsoft, as IBM put it, is arrogant. It remains to be seen as to whether the government or the consumer will make them pay for their overbearing arrogance.
Personally, I think XP is going to be the first major setback for M$, as I don't see ANYONE lining up in droves to buy what is essentially a very minor upgrade to Windows 2000, that removes features and freedom from Windows 2000. As a matter of fact, the MORE XP sells, the more enemits MS will make of customers when they run up against the artificial "`Doze has decided not to let you upgrade this" wall.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Actually, for no good reason (other than that M$ wanted to force upgrades), Office XP will NOT run on `95, only 98, ME, 2000/NT, and XP.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
The point here isn't that Microsoft controls the desktop or hates AOL. It's Microsoft's refusal to give up the practice of product tying. Just like Microsoft insisted that IE be on the desktop of Win98, Microsoft knows that, if they allow competitors unfettered access to the desktop, Microsoft will potentially be losing cash.
By eliminating all the icons from the desktop, then Microsoft is assured that no extra products can compete with their own, since those gosh-darn handy-dandy Wizards will politely direct us to the nearest Microsoft service anytime we have the chance. You think that adding MSN along with AOL on the desktop is fair? It's one hell of a price to pay, in my book. I don't much care for AOL, but if Microsoft claims that MSN is truly a separate entity from Windows and the Microsoft behind it, then there's no reason Microsoft shouldn't have to pay to have their own focus put up there. They make OPERATING SYSTEMS, not Internet Portals.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Apparently the author would like to hijack the spelling of the word. :) Gist.
How much is money worth?
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Then try to buy health, luck, familiy, youth, happiness, love, success, insight, etc.
:o)
Do you remember what money is? It's an abstract measurement for your abiliity to exchange goods and services with the community you live in, but this ability is not center of live.
You can't buy success, okay you can get money by beeing successfull, but there is nothing more boring and poor than beeing born rich.
However I doub't you'll ever read my answer by now, since the strory some days old, so nice greetings
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Why is it all over every newspaper I read right now, and all over the radio it's going on about this Code Red worm that's going to destroy the internet yet theres absolutely nothing about it on /.? I guess it's nothig to worry about huh?
"Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
Allchin seemed peeved about this move. "Hiding features from consumers -- I don't think that's a good thing,"
Especially when it's a Microsoft product. What a hypocrite! How can this guy sleep at night?
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
I can see their point - after all - it is their operating system. If they wanted to make the default wallpaper good old mr goatse, they could (if they didn't mind the sales impact). But has anyone noticed how there are alot of posts similar to this one (minus the goatse reference - that is an added bonus), maybe it is because we are being 'forced' to determine the lesser of two 'evils'?
-- ssergE
I build my computer from scratch. Total control of what software(and hardware) that goes and doesn't go into my computer with none of the bullshit.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I sure wish I could use the same attitude in my dealings with the Goverment.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Isn't this the same sort of illegal action that Microsoft has gotten in trouble for already? Well I guess you could say trouble, they have been found guilty but have suffered no consequences as of yet. I really hate Microsoft but you have to give it to them, they have guts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ now you know
Even though I'm sure nobody is looking at this thread any longer, I wanted to address this. I actually don't believe that $200 is unreasonable for the underlying software that all other applications need. And it's actually lower than that for OEM's who have big volume deals. Obviously, free is better -- especially in the server market where the OS cost is much higher than $200. But I'm willing to pay that price, especially if I get reasonable support from the supplier.
$500 for a word processor is just plain stupid -- for the consumer, especially as there are a number of alternatives. Yes, interoperability is a factor, but most interoperability takes place between members of the same corporation. If management is dumb enough to pay $500 per seat, then that is their problem. If it were my company, I'd probably just make everybody use Star Office or something. Microsoft Word has some cool features, but most of them aren't ever used. While others may disagree, I don't believe Microsoft's monopoly in this area is truly earned. Maybe their FUD campaigns have been partly responsible, but there really are still choices left here.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Yes, because they quite clearly are. They are using their operating system, which ships on almost all new desktop machines, as leverage to coax users into their internet service. They are also saying that OEM's cannot do likewise for competing services unless they provide equal coaxing for Microsoft's service. There are two nasty things that come out of monopolies. The first is exhorbitant prices -- which comes about once there are literarly no other choices for consumers. The second is the use of existing monopolies in one area of the market to destroy competition in another area. Both are illegal. Microsoft is not guilty of the first one (yet), but most definitely needs to bear guilt for the second.
Its the fairest way to end-run the AOL (we haven't been put in court, so we can do all the things that are bad until then) deal. Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of.
No, it's not. AOL doesn't sell operating systems. Don't get me wrong, AOL isn't sweet smelling and squeaky clean either. Obviously, they have their own potential monopoly situations with their total control over a large hunk of the media market. But in this segment of the market, AOL (and other potential providers) are being hurt by Microsoft's monopoly in the operating systems market. If major vendors like Compaq were selling desktop machines with a sizable slice of the operating system pie going to other OS flavors, Microsoft's move would merely be considered shrewd business. But with the current situation, it is abuse of a monopoly situation.
As for MS featuring their products over AOL's IM and the AOL service, uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...
Certainly, AOL is flaming mad over this. But more importantly, vendors like Compaq should be angry. They aren't living in a glass house (at least not *this* glass house). If consumers knew enough about what's really going on, many of them would be angry too.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
i have figured this out.
the perfect solution is:
-leave any icons on there, MSN, AOL, AIM, whatever.
-make them all links to different linux sites, so that MSN becomes RedHat (SuSE for European MS users), AIM becomes a link to Jabber, etc.
who's going to complain?
"microsoft technical support, how can i help you?"
"hi, this version of windows took forever to download, but it never crashes and i haven't had a virus delete anything yet! by the way, why has the start button changed to a big K in a cog?"
--
Slashdot: When News Breaks, We Give You The Pieces
FreeBSD for the impatient.
To continue with the popular "burger and fries" comparison, this is analogous to when Coke pays Burger King to be their "exclusive" drink choice and Pepsi pays Taco Bell to do the same. So what Microsoft is telling these folks is "You can't make exclusive advertising arrangements with ISP's if you buy our operating system."
/. should sponsor "abduct and indoctrinate" weekends in isolated mountain cabins with Linux boxen?
This is the same kind of anti-competitive stuff Microsoft has always done. These tactics got them where they are, and they are never going to stop without intervention.
The question for me is, how much right do the computer manufacturers have to make changes to the "operating system" and still call it "Microsoft Windows". Can they delete IE and install some other browser? What if they have a TCP/IP stack or print spooler they feel performs better or is more reliable? Where is the line between operating system compnents and non-critical add-ons to be drawn?
It seems clear that MSN is in no way essential for the operating system, but can we count on the judges, juries, et al to understand the difference when Bill's legal types stand in front of them and cry foul? It seems like we aren't having much luck explaining technical things to the non-techical people who legislate and litigate. Maybe
If the icon must reside on the desktop if other icons are to be displayed, it should be.. for the first few seconds until a script removes it at the first run of the os. Presto!
-By attempting the impossible we can achieve the absurd..
From that header line you probably think I'm about to give you the whole "What do you expect from Microsoft. Antitrust and blah blah blah" but I'm not. Microsoft is a business. A business becomes successful by getting people to buy their products. What kind of business tries to get you to use other people's products. Whether you feel Microsoft's products are inferior or not is irrelevant. Use something else. You can't tell me that there aren't other options out there. There are plenty of viable alternatives.