Slashdot Mirror
EU Expands Microsoft Inquiry
Space cowboy writes "The European Commission is expanding its investigation into whether Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive practices - now it's not just the browser bundling, but also bundling of audio-visual components (such as Windows Media Player). " There's also a Reuters report - what is worth noting, tho', is that the basis for this investigation is in the market for small servers - *not* the desktop market, from what I can see/read.
'
The EU's focus on Microsoft's entry into the small server maket seems like it will have the effect of causing the case to recieve solid corporate support within Europe, sich that the EU will have to pursue the issue to fruition, rather than in the US where focus on the case focusing on the desktop market has recieved more fragmented consumer support. Let this be a lesson to the DOJ. When going after big companies, always identify the customer base most likely to support you in a unified way, and try the case with that focus. Granted this doesn't say much for the justice system, but that's how the world works... sadly...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
The BBC article has a link to the EU Competition Commission. Their August 30th MS press release is here (English version). The default version is HTML, and there is no MS "Smart Quotes" damage to it. An MS Word impaired version is available, for some reason.
I personally cannot believe how Microsoft could do something like this! The bundling of audio-visual components?? An MP3 Player in an OS??? Would NEVER happen in Linux/Mac/BE/etc....
Oh wait... wouldn't that make it a de facto standard for an OS???
Will we end up with four mini Microsofts ?
Might have implications for Samba, especially the authentication twist using unused fields they stuck in (was it Win2000?).
.net in it's tracks - .net must be seen as monopoly if you can only use Microsoft's servers and clients.....
This sort of EU stuff might also stop
When I were your age, all round here were fields...
your understanding that with the inclusion of media player windows are NOT keeping real player off the desk top i believe to be mistaken.
when corporates do roll outs of XP - do you think they are going to bother rolling out real as well? why should they?
when my mother buys her new machine and gets XP OEM, do you think she knows what real player is? of course not! she clicks on things to play movies and they work. (yes its a nice integrated approach as someone else pointed out and you have to congratulate microsoft for catering for my mother!)
anyway...
do you think real really cares about real player? how many people actually have the real player plus - the one you BUY? they only care about their SERVERS and SERVICES. the software that compresses the movies, the software that streams the casts.
now if i'm a web media streaming company and i have to decide to go MS or REAL - who do you think i'm going to go with? the server that has a player on just about EVERY desktop, or the server that my listeners have to download the player? that's not a difficult decision!
don't get to the bootloader aniti-competition issue?
Today is Aug 30.
Two months is Oct 30.
XP ships Oct 27.
Just a tad late to help any injunction case against the company.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Let's see, here's the total of add-ons you get from Microsoft: 2 - IE and Media Player. Alright then, now lets look at a simple download of Netscape Communicator produced by AOL: The reason this download is somewhat big is because if you try to get it, you get not only Netscape, but WinAmp (another AOL product), RealPlayer, AOL Instant Messenger (what if I don't want to use AOL's shitty software?), and oh yeah, don't forget the AOL icons that go EVERYWHERE when you install any AOL product. Doesn't that piss anyone off in the least? I don't use Netscape at all as my browser because I think it sucks, and especially since AOL bought it out. I have to use Netscape calendar for work, and when I downloaded the Communicator with Calendar, I was able to tell it not to install Communicator, Winamp, and RealPlayer, but there was no check box for AOL Instant Messenger (which I can't use at work), and all of a sudden, bam, there it is on my computer! That and a nice fat "Sign up for AOL Today!" icon on my desktop. Why would I sign up for a crappy service like that? AOL should be the ones getting looked at for anti-competative nature if your going after these things like Media Player from Microsoft...
You wasted packets to get this lousy sig.
In short, Microsoft doesn't NEED to give a damn about the verdict. 10% of what they earn in Europe is probably less than the day-to-day changes in their share price value.
All in all, this is a show-trial (the EU wants to go "free/open" and this is a great excuse for a public flogging to justify it), but where Microsoft is probably more than happy to provide the show.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Maybe if Real Player wasn't an obtrusive, annoying piece of Spyware, it would be installed on more desktops.
I refuse to install it, for several reasons.
1. It's intrusive - you have to enter your email address, postal code, etc.
2. It slows your system down with all the crap it loads (ie StartCenter)
3. It crashes constantly. And when StartCenter is enabled, it causes the system to crash constantly. I don't know how many times I've had people in the office complain about their computers crashing all the time, which I remedied by removing StartCenter.
Instead of whining about MS' bundling practices, perhaps Real should work on improving their product, and removing some of the Spyware components from it.
After all, I don't use Windows Media Player for MP3s. Winamp does that quite nicely.
So George W. Bush is the greatest president in the world?
Not quite sure where you got that one. Yeah, he happens to be the President of the greatest government in the world, but I would never - never - peg him as the greatest President in the world. He didn't even fairly win the office, and he's done shit with it. $600 tax cut for everybody? Big Fucking Deal: please pay down the debt!
So no, Bush is not the greatest President in the world.
AJS
Has anyone put the bootloader situation forward as an example of Microsoft abusing its monopoly situation? This is the situation where Microsoft can DEMAND that OEM's put Windows and only Windows on PC's. Microsoft explicitly forbids them from dual-booting... allegedly. This point has been raised recently with regards to the BeOS case. The problem is that there is little evidence because the licenses between Microsoft and the OEM's are secret. This is the real scandal, not the browser, media player issue.
return 0; }
The greatest government in the world - the US government
What???? Are you kidding? You have Bush as a president and you are claiming to have the greatest government? Thankfully in Europe most of our heads of state don't have below average IQ's.
Also, you'll find that in many countries in Europe people have a reasonable amount of trust in their governments i.e. that they are not corrupt and will do the right thing. That doesn't seem to be the case in the USA, where a great many people distrust their government.
The type of political lobbying by large corporations that goes on in the US would be considered large scale corruption in Europe.
Further, the greatest fine they can impose is 10% of the revenue from Europe.
Actually, I think they can potentially impose a fine of 10% of global revenue, so it would be a really big deal for Microsoft. Not that it would ever happen.
What exit?
But seriously, if you don't like it, do somehting about it! Those are local laws, so go to a town council meeting! Run for local office! Don't just whine to Slashdot; local government is one of the few places that a single person can actually make a difference in this country today. Get your ass out there and change something!
AJS
There are two main diffrences.
One - In the linux world you can opt-out and not install each component specifically. You don't see them merging it with the kernel. Damn, in Linux you're not even required to run a desktop.
Second - The "bundled" apps in linux distros are usually the best of their kind, and you usually have the choice between several options. You are not forced to use what the M$ wants you to use. You can select each component to your best liking.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
I think you'd have an argument if AOL were in the position that Microsoft is. That is to say, if AOL were a required part of practically every x86 PC sold in the world. As it is, however, you have to choose to download Netscape and AOL; they're not foisted upon you like IE and WMP and MSN Messenger will be in, for example, Windows XP.
Remember that the company that has the monopoly may be required to play by different rules than the companies against which they may compete. Since the US justice system has ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly and that they've engaged in monopoly maintenance, they may be required to act differently than AOL/TWC/Netscape or Sun or anyone else that challenges Microsoft.
Incidentally, I installed Netscape 6 on a Windows 2000 box and was able to uninstall (e.g.) Net2Phone, which is some piece of crap I don't need. I'm not sure whether I had the option to not install it in the first place (which, admittedly, would be bad) but I was able to uninstall it using the Add/Remove Programs control panel program. In Windows 9x, you don't have a choice about uninstalling IE at all. (Unless you use the non-Microsoft program Win98Lite or whatever it's called.)
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
"The greatest government in the world - the US government." and
"Simply put, BillG and the Evil Empire have too many politicians in their pockets to make any investigation successful."
These statements surely cannot be spoken in the same breath.
Why is this moderated -1 ???
.NOT
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but unfortunately I must respectfully disagree: The reason that most people have a problem with Microsoft bundling is that MS is using their monopoly in the desktop space to conquer every other niche of the software industry. Want to take over the home finance market? Spend billions developing a software product which you claim is "free" and then include it for "free" in the upgraded operating system which costs a $149 upgrade fee despite being only marginally different than the previous version (apart from the "free" home finance software). Now turn the screws by setting various completely unnecessary flags in distributed software to only work on said software (thereby FORCING your $149 "free" software on the market). Perhaps make some "Glindos XY Certified!" software monikers that all the hot software distributors want (slashing their own throats in the long run) that basically entails that their software checks if flag=Glindos XY and refuses to run otherwise.
That's the whole problem with all of the "free" software that MS is unleashing upon the world: Absolutely NONE of it is free (except for pirates), and this is proven out by the $10+ billion in profits MS is pulling in. The issue most people have is that MS is taking their position in the OS space and moving out to take over media, browsers, ISPs, etc.
Disclaimer : I am actually a Microsoft apologist. I have sent thousands of messages over the years claiming that Microsoft was being unfairly persecuted, and that it was in the consumers best interest, etc. Unfortunately that is no longer true. Billions of dollars were spent by consumers of the land on "Windows Me" which itself was truly a downgrade of Windows 98SE, so that Microsoft could recoup the cost of all of the "free" products that it has bequeathed upon the land.
AOL is on every PC.
.. "just in case you need it".
You rent a movie from Blockbuster you get AOL CD's.
You goto the movies and you see AOL/TimeWarner and hear You got mail subliminal messages.
You turn on the nighly news and tons of AOL thrown at you.
I have yet to see MSNBC push MS that much, microsoft doesn't ruin the movies i rent with a bunch of adverts or anything.
Microsoft doesn't put crap in every magazine i read.
AOL by far causes me more HARM and the environment MORE HARM then 10,000 microsoft's put together.
And yes, you buy a PC from Dell, IBM or anyone for that matter and it COMES WITH AOL.. you like it or not. When you uninstall it as well it just removes the icons and leaves the programs
On the other hand YOU can make a choice and buy a PC with Linux on it now can't you? Microsoft doesn't stop that.. But people sue microsoft so they can bloat the OS with there crap.
what a world we live in!
It isn't hard to prove that MS leverages their proprietary knowledge of the OS to make special hooks for their applications and break others applications.
.NET, which again can be used to leverage their planned services into a monopoly. Those interfaces must also be externally emulatable.
The appelate court said that "MS's tying was inherant in their business practices, but not in their products" -- which is B.S.: their applications owe their monopoly to the ability to leverage their ubiquitous proprietary OS in their applications favor.
The solution is an Open Source standard API, like WINE, that can be used to deterministacally measure their applications compliance with their API.
Of course, WINE is just a start. All MS API's must be emulated, with MS's help in making the emulation correct. Furthermore, it must be extended to any place where MS has created a "platform" to leverage applications.
For example, they leveraged their OS to destroy browser competition and put IE on top. Now, IE is itself a platform for
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Also, you'll find that in many countries in Europe people have a reasonable amount of trust in their governments i.e. that they are not corrupt and will do the right thing.
he he he, that's so cute!
Never trust a monopoly. Especially nota monopoly of force...
Ironic it is illegal for microsoft to give something away for free, but it is fundamental to linux's servival.
buahaha
Last time i asked Redhat about Real Audio they said they don't support proprietary software. (ie, they don't test there distro to see if non source based sofwtare works at all.. considered to be proprietary.. most amusing statement i've heard and the reason MANY companies won't use it)
So why is it wrong for microsoft to do the same? After all the windows media format is public knowledge with excellent SDK, server tools and media tools available.
You make good points, and I agree with all of them.
Now how should this problem be addressed. The way people use computers has evolved to the point where a computer should come with a media player, and that media player should handle things like streaming audio and video. People buying a computer should be able to assume that that feature will be included, and people writing software and developing web based applications should be able to assume that user's computers will be able to perform those opperations. If would be nice if the industry could have standardized on one media format, but that didn't happen. For streaming video there are three that I can think of, Real, Quicktime, Windows.
Should Microsoft be forced to include other media players? If so, whose? Do they have to accept all of them, since any who are left out are at a distinct disadvantage? At what point do you end up with confusing clutter that does consumers more harm than good?
In my opinion Windows should ship with exactly one media player. Not zero, and not more than one. If you want to have a more competitive market, then make Microsoft use an open format for their media player. That way other companies can compete on playback features, but consumers are still guarenteed to have a tool to play the media content.
Yes, I realize that this leaves Real in a very bad spot. The playback of streaming media is an obvious need for modern computing. They have gone down the path of providing this through a propriatary format, which they aren't willing to license to other manufactures in a way that would make it an industry standard. They put themselves in the place they are in. The governments of this world shouldn't step in and protect their business model. If their business model can't adapt to the market, then they go out of business. This isn't Microsoft manipulating the market to destory Real. This is the market heading in a logical direction, and Real can't adjust to it because they put themselves in this spot. Good bye Real, you enabled us to watch video when that market was in it's infantcy, it's a shame you didn't come up with a sustainable businees model.
Judge Jackson did get rather annoyed with MS, because they delayed, stalled, lied, faked evidence, lied, lied, lied, pretended to be victimized, didnt think that law applied to them, lied, lied, faked evidence, lied and lied again.
That is the reason he had a hard time keeping his temper in check.
Of course, he's right, anything Gates or any other MS employee says is inherently without credibility. They seem fundamentally incapable of uttering a complete sentance without lying, and probably merit a long time of serious therapy and medication.
The problem with WMP isn't multimedia playback, but the forced inclusion of Microsoft's own media licensing scheme. Thanks to WMP, they will be able to control what media you may download and when and if you are "allowed" to play it.
Yes, Real is trying to do exactly the same thing with their software. Just wanted to remind everyone that it's not just software for media playback, but also for media licensing control.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
AOL is hardly a player in the European ISP market, so why should the EU bother prosecuting them?
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Apple has been shipping QuickTime with Mac OS for years now. Why is Microsoft not allowed to distribte its multimedia play-back software while Apple can? What about Windows MovieMaker versus iMovie, also included with MacOS? This train of thought makes no sense. I'm all for breaking up Microsoft, but we still have to be fair in these issues, even if Microsoft aren't playing that way. Why is this unfair?
The browser wars were another story. Browsers compete for compatability with one set of standards: those set forth by the W3C. One web, yet many clients trying to gain a one-up over the other. Integrating your browser product into your operating system dominates the userbase of that OS by eliminating their need to look into other browser software for the same purpose.
Now, let's look at the roles of Windows Media Player versus other media clients. WMP, Real*, and QuickTime each have their own formats with their own niches of acceptance. Some content distributers use ASX, others use Real's format, and still others use QuickTime. Chances are, if you want to see all that's out there (and you're a Windows users), you need to have all three of these clients. Therefore, competition is still open; the prize for dominating is still up for grabs. So what if Microsoft includes WMP with Windows. There's many content producers that swear by QuickTime (Lucas for example).
So my point after all that long-windedness is that MS should not be attacked in areas where they are really not doing anything wrong or particularly detrimental.
Why bother.
I hate all the needless anti-MS sentiment here. No, I don't like Microsoft. They are 'bad', but the reasons they are 'bad' are changing. WindowsXP, while big and bloated, has actually demonstrated decent performance on the machines I've seen it running on, and that's only RC1. It's no replacement for Linux, but it's not too shabby. Sorry to see you get flamed for expressing an accurate, but unpopular viewpoint.
Maybe when the world of Linux zealots realize that you can't douse Microsoft like they're just a lit match, they'll learn to work towards co-integration and more progressive advances into the Windows front. Telling Windows users how much they suck isn't going to get them to install Linux on their machines - it's only going to prove lack of tolerance on the part of Linux users/developers.
Why bother.
Let me remind you that the EU Council of Ministers has recently approved a Copyright Directive that is at least as evil as the DMCA, and that it is very close to approving software patents.
On the other hand, it's true that the EU will be subsidizing free software projects. So I suppose there are contradictory signals. But certainly there hasn't been any high-level decision that Free Software is the way to go.
I have the same set-up and I don't have the problem. Something else is going on.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
Actually you can uninstall windows media player, but that is like ripping aRts out of KDE or soundserver out of gnome, it just wouldn't work right.
Think of media player as the sound server for Windows. What is wrong that it has an interface as well for playing files?
Winamp, Quicktime, Real Audio/Video and a buttload of others work great under Win2k, and XP.
You can remove the icons, much like you can for linux. BUt removing the functionality means removing support for that media type.
Now why would you want to remove it to begin with? If you implement a theme in 192bit mp3 audio, high res video and whatnot, the sound will rely on the media player libraries and api's to play.
Hell, media Player + the divx codec is sweet.
Dude, the microsoft tax dissapeared like 2 years ago. What planet are you on these days?
:)
http://www.pricewatch.com is full of 100's of thousands of vendors that will sell you a pc with linux, without linux with nt without nt or with whatever the hell you want.
You don't pay no microsoft tax unless your gullable enough to do so. If you buy from Dell, Compaq, IBM, gateway or any wintel vendor then what do you expect?
Buy hardware from Penguincomputing if you want linux.
BTW, AOL is more then c:\aol 6.0. You also have to goto the control panel, click add remove, click on system software, click on internet and uncheck the aol from there as well as goto c:\windows and delete aol installer in there and then you have to regedit the system because the aol installer leaveas all the info in there as well.
but were getting off topic. Just like i can say nothanks to an AOL cd at block buster you can say nothanks to Microsoft at the computer store.
I hardly see microsoft adds unless i buy a computer magazine. Hell, i get Maxim and freaking AOL disk is in there, i get a playboy and AOL is in there, i goto the movies and AOL has advertising everywhere. You watch closing credits and AOL is featured (since timewarner merged).
You watch tv and tons of aol commercials.
ANd yes, with a us population of residential mailboxes that AOL spams i'd say they're pretty much screwing up this planet with impossible to decompose & waiste full cd's and hard packaging.
i bought a monitor and it came with aol, i bought a motherboard and it came with aol, i bought tickets to a dave mathews concert and on the back was freaking you know what.. aol.
AOL owns a vast internet presence, AOL is the largest media presence on the net and with time warner, AOL owns the majority of the news networks (ala cnn.. ala time warner).
your forced to see aol everywhere..
Microsoft simply write/publish and operating system that is easy to use and is in demand everywhere.
i don't go to the crapper at dave & busters to see aol adverts on the pottie tvs.
but enough.. aol sucks.. microsoft sucks, linux sucks.. everyone should have used os2
Whenever I see this argument, I always wonder where you draw the line...
A modern OS bundles hundreds of things that used to be extra cost add-ons. MS does it. Apple does it. So does every Unix workstation maker. Do we strip every add-on out of W2K and leave something like a bare kernel?
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
> Why is Microsoft not allowed to distribte its multimedia
> play-back software while Apple can?
Microsoft's got a monopoly but Apple doesn't. Simple. Microsoft's also been found to illegally abuse their monopoly to gain entrance into other markets.
So the reason why they can't push their media player is the same reason why someone who gets convicted of drunk driving can't drive a car.
Don't like it? Tough.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I have a similar gripe. I've used winamp to play mp3 on my machines at work for I-don't-know-how-long. When our machines were replaced with W2K-pro, I started having problems with winamp playback hitching all the time. A solution I was given to this was to boost winamp's processing priority in the app's preferences. This worked like a charm, no more halts in playback.
Unfortunately, this started causing problems with the other apps (you know, the ones I'm supposed to be using for actual work?) either slowing down horribly or crashing. So guess what? Right, I stopped using winamp and switched to WMP because it was already there. It playsback mp3 flawlessly and doesn't cause any problems for my other apps.
Now, is this because Microsoft does something evil to keep winamp from performing acceptibly, or is it because of some fault in winamp and it's use of the system's resources (or both)?
Probably neither. Winamp has always worked just fine on the Windows machines I've used. No doubt MS has made changes with W2K that is causing winamp to hiccup, but I doubt it would be impossible for winamp to be 'fixed' to work better.
Does this mean I have no choice in a media player for Win2K? No, but I'm too busy(lazy) right now to go download musicmatch or sonique or one of the other free players to see if they work anybetter. WMP is good enough and it is already there. If that is anti-competitive (not defending MS, mind you) then I guess MS is guilty of being anti-competitive by providing an app that works on their OS.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
> Microsoft isn't squeezing out competition by including the media player in its software.
> If anything it is just attempting to keep up the times with the MAC people.
> Yes, Mac sucks, but it is renouned for its a/v interface.
This is listed as insightful? I'd call it flamebait.
Microsoft has a monopoly, and they've been found guilty of illegally abusing it. In the case they were found to have squeezed Apple regarding QuickTime where they were trying to illegally partition the market.
How many microsoft people do we have infiltrating slashdot these days? They must have the whole marketing department on here.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
...listening to these high-falutin arrogant Europeans whining about Microsoft.
I mean, gimme a break!
It is through the hard work and genuine innovation of entrepreneurs like Bill Gates that the United States today enjoys one of the best governments that money can buy. How can anyone stand for crybaby statements like:
"We find the bundling of MS Government with Windows XP to be an unfair cultural invasion and infringement of our traditional and hallowed values."
I'm glad that at least MS Business Mindset was not encumbered by all these petty concerns.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Yo? Are you blind? He has.
As has been diligently pointed out elsewhere, their most telling illegal action has been requiring their OEMs to sign a secret agreement, one part of which says, in essence, that if the OEM wants to be included in Microsoft's 95% desktop market share, they don't offer alternative operating systems on Windows-equipped machines. This prevents the OEM from offering dual-boot systems, or systems with Linux installed and offering Win4Lin-backed Windows sessions. Your average user hasn't the competence to install an OS by themselves, end of market story.
Microsoft have done much illegal stuff, including some things that if done by an individual would be considered very shameful (like their latest astroturfing expedition) and know it's illegal, and occasionally even admit that they know it's illegal, and do still more illegal stuff to get out of paying the price for earlier crimes.
And while they're raping, murdering and hamstringing other companies and talking away your choices, their public relations firms paint a picture of them as innocent, try-hard `innovators' who are forced to protect their investments in a cut-throat market.
If it weren't for Microsoft, the market wouldn't be so cut-throat. They really are a flock of wolves dressed in carefully-presented lamb's fleece, bright and helpful individuals in their team notwithstanding. And you've been thoroughly sucked in by them.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
>So where is that proof ?
I remember one patch to Windows, sometime between '89 and '94, that caused all applications compiled with Borland's C compiler to crash. Every app vendor using Borland's C had to rush out updates to their customers. Borland was the most popular browser before that time; MSC took over soon after. I remember telling my boss: "you must use a MS compiler atop an MS OS".
I remember MSVC being able to debug windowed apps in a VM... which made it the best compiler (in my view) for windowed apps (no more locking up your system trying to debug). Trouble is, there were no published interfaces for making a VM... only MS compilers could do it.
I remember when IE came out and allowed you to make a web page your Windows background (and periodically update) -- Netscape couldn't do that -- it wasn't a published API.
Etc... I can't believe you were there and missed the tactics.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
XP borrows several features from Mandrake Linux, particularly in their installer. It's nice to see them exercising innovation, it's just a pity that it isn't Microsoft's innovation being exercised.
For those features, you don't have to wait. Mandrake's 8.1beta1 (Raklet) is at least as stable as XP, contains a lot more by way of useful applications, and doesn't tie you in to anything.
Oh, yes, and it's a free download.
BTW, if you live in the EU, write (as in pen and paper, their online comment system is closed) to the Competition Commission and ask why you can't buy a machine that dual-boots between Mandrake 8.1 and Windows XP. There is no <upside-down> HTML tag, so here's the answer: because Microsoft's secret OEM licencing forbids it. Oh, yes, we support innovation. But only the right brand of innovation.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Speaking of justice systems and how the world works, EU Competition Commission have closed their electronic `mail' system. If you live in the EU, please send a pen-and-paper letter to them asking why you can't buy a new computer at retail which dual-boots between a Microsoft operating system and another operating system such as Linux or BeOS.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Hey, try out OSX server and say that. I admit, it's probably not quite up to snuff with 2k, but I woulnd't rule it out. I had really good uptimes with the old version.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."