Microsoft Trial Wends Onward

Sinistar2k writes: "Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!', Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition (Windows Media or RealPlayer required) released today by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Also available are text depositions of Ballmer and Allchin." gouldtj adds: "Here is a timeline on the Microsoft trial. It is pretty complete, and it goes back to 1990. It is nice to see all of this in one place, I'd almost forgotten about the old stuff. It just reminds you how long this stuff can take." Finally, ackthpt writes: "The nine non-settling states have modified their requirements, rather than Microsoft having to sell various versions of Windows, they would have Microsoft Windows sold as a modular platform, where the user could opt for different vendors software for different uses. Just days ago the nine settling states were rattled by Microsoft's end-around, challenging state attorneys' general participation in anti-trust procedings." And if your own computing (or career) depends on a Microsoft operating system, Roblimo suggests that you stop using it, because Steve Ballmer says Microsoft may take it away.

Comments

Just looking for a good excuse to ban MS products

[dilvish_the_damned]

(offtopic)
When I first arrived at this job under two years ago, I was limited in the number of non MS servers I was allowed to provide. Just 1.5 years later, ditching windows wholesale is near a reality as it is 'too hard to support our driver and our hardware' (quote from management) for windows users.
A few years ago it was being argued on /. that geeks had no real control. I say we have decent control now that us ageing geeks have positions of influence. Do not lose hope, the only real fear should be what platform you will chose when everyone uses a Unix lookalike...

Ballmer on Software Design

[Serpentine]

From the Reuters article: "That's the way good software gets designed. So if you pull out a piece it won't run"

cf. "Last November, Allchin presided over the launch of Windows XP Embedded, which consists of about 10,000 components that can be assembled into custom products..."

Can't, won't or don't?

Re:Ballmer on Software Design

[sl3xd]

The documentation process alone would amount to something truly revolutionary coming from Microsoft.

It's not that Free & Open-Source Software haven't done API documentation; it's just that the size of Microsoft's entire API would be a rather complex and daunting task.

Consider This

[johnthorensen]

In comparing their respective timelines, it can be found that the amount of time taken to date to resolve the Microsoft anti-trust case is:

• Approximately as long as the American Revolution
• Approximately as long as the Russian Revolution
• 1 1/4 times as long as the time from the date the IC was invented to the date of the first handheld electronic calculator
• 1 1/2 times as long as it took the U.S. to put a man on the moon
• Nearly twice as long as WWII
• More than twice as long as the Civil War
• 36 times as long as Desert Storm/Desert Shield

And I don't even want to start thinking about the $$$'s involved... -JT

Re:No more windows?...

[Brian Kendig]

Ballmer may just have flubbed up.

There are two possible responses to the threat of Microsoft pulling Windows form the marketplace:

(1) "Oh my god! Windows is far too important, losing it would ruin the American economy!"

... which would be proof that Windows *is* too powerful, and that this extreme dependence on one operating system and one vendor who provides it must be broken -- for the same reason that America can't rely solely on one country for its oil, and the same reason that American farmers can't all grow the same identical strain of corn lest one virus wipe it all out.

(2) "Who cares? Linux can easily fill the void left by the loss of Windows."

... which is a thought Microsoft doesn't want to have cross *anyone's* mind. Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft pulled Windows and the fallout lasted for a few months and then it was over and people found alternatives and nobody cared any more?

So I really have no idea what Ballmer hopes to achieve by threatening to pull Windows from the market.

Re:At least read the relevant material

[Glonk]

Except of course that Ballmer is telling a big, fat lie: Microsoft has already produced a stripped-down version of Windows. It's called Windows XP Embedded.
Well, hey! That's cool. I didn't know Windows XP Embedded ran all programs that run under Windows XP. That's because they don't.

It's possible to strip out hundreds of thousands of lines of code from a product to produce a skin-n-bones approach. I don't think they ever argued that it wasn't. They argued that they shouldn't have to, and won't, castrate their product and remove components and have it so you can plug in this part to do this and that part to do that: it's a nightmare, and probably very unstable, and definitely inconsistent. Not what they want Windows to be.

Also, look at it this way: if you can't take a browser away from the OS without breaking it, then you've got a pretty shitty product in the first place. Now, even I can't believe that MS Windows is that shitty, so IMHO Steve Ballmer is trying to pull a fast one here. It is feasible - it might cost a whole lot of money, but it is definitely feasible. Or, if it isn't, it is unavoidable proof that MS Windows was never a well-designed OS in the first place...so, which one is it going to be?
It's possible to remove the browser. Everyone knows that. The problem is, how do you deal with all the programs that rely on the MS HTML rendering engine that's ASSUMED to be in every version of Windows by many programs?

Why are we getting so upset over the internet browser? Why not the file browser too? Windows Explorer took marketshare from things like Midnight Commander. ;)

Let's face it, Internet Browsers are essential components of modern PCs, and logically should be bundled with the OS. Nobody is stopping consumers from downloading Mozilla, Opera, KMelon, or any of those other browsers on their computer. It comes with a very basic, simple web browser that suffices for the vast majority of consumers. That's how it is.

As much as people love to hate Microsoft, I can't fault them for bundling IE. It's a logical decision. I realize it basically drove Netscape out of business...but the real question is, what business? The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with.

Re:At least read the relevant material

[Malcontent]

"The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with."

you know what? That's just what I feel about operating systems.