Declawing Windows: Impossible?

Windows IS modular by Ashcrow · 2002-03-31 02:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

It really is. You can remove core parts of the OS and the OS has no problem. I remember playing around with Windows ME and removing media player, MSN stuff, and other things I had replacements for or didn't need. All MS has to do is add these things to the Remove Windows Components.

Re:Windows IS modular by qurk · 2002-03-31 02:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Very true. I think the problem here is Microsoft not allowing OEM's and such to modify their operating system before they sell. I mean, look at the recent comments by some of the big pre-made computer companies, they get in financial trouble with Microsoft if they just want to distribute pc's with Linux. I hope that the Judge doesn't listen to this B.S. I know getting Microsoft to distribute Windows source code to the public is a pipe dream, but they could at least offer a skeleton version. The dozens of Linux distros is ample proof that even if a multi-billion dollar software company can't make a little diversity in it's operating system (what a crock) then someone will.
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 04:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

Actually, in the sence they are speaking of its not that modular. If you look at Embedded XP ( which is an attempt to make a modular version of windows ), only the most base services like, kernel, shell, win32 api, etc, have no dependencies on IE. If you attempt to add almost ANY other component, you will be sucked into adding IE AND Outlook express. Windows without IE and Outlook express is just the kernel and Win32 api, with a command shell only, which wouldnt be worth a crap to the mass consumer market, only to a very specialized group.
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 04:47 · Score: 0

The product was not designed to be modular

I find this statement rather like trying go past the negative, no it isn't or problematic yes it is. And that's what it probably is too. It only needs to be modular to a certain degree and it likely is that too. What would it matter if it left the system with unused stubs, like let's say the standard windows codec system, unless ofcourse they think that just leaving it there unused will make the system totally unusable.
Re:Windows IS modular by PHPee · 2002-03-31 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare

I don't see how removing bloated components is going to slow things down much more. 98lite is a program that allows you to remove the bloat of Windows, allowing for a streamlined version that you can customize.

By intertwining code to minimize overlap, he said, Microsoft makes a product that saves valuable disk space but becomes difficult to segregate.

I'd hate to see Windows without this 'disk space saving' coding techniques.
Re:Windows IS modular by Chas2K · 2002-03-31 05:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

We don't need the source code to be competetive with M$ programs if we were to write (I don't) programs to run in Winblows Anything. Just the -REAL- API. I don't have a copy of M$ since WinNT4.0 - can anyone say that when you load the kernel all these componenets get loaded at the same time or are they still seperate executables? That would be the proof.
Re:Windows IS modular by Kibo · 2002-03-31 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not really.

Things like cool bar are part of IE, but are also part of windows. If MS did what the states wanted it, whatever it would be, would not be windows. The users would have no way of knowing before hand if they had the right chuncks of the operating system to install supposedly windows software. The funny thing is, the market would kick this idea to death. Microsofts success is built on the idea that people want a common method to easily exchange information, and they care about the commonality and intuitive ease of use more than anything else, especially reliability. A hodge podge of frankenwindows would reduce that commonality, and everyone would flock to windows as we know and love to revile it on slashdot. Sure there might be a market for it places like cash registers, but that's a pretty small market that already has a lot of windows in it. Not to mention that all of this work the states ask microsoft to do will cost money, which will do nothing to push the cost of a windows license below 15 bucks, which is what 2000 goes for now, and ME etc used to go for. XP home is probably 15, pro maybe more.

What's really stupid is, they've already got their wish of a sort of bastard windows. Wine on linux would almost certainly work better than randomly removing windows componants.

Oh, and oem's do modify their versions of windows, in mostly cosmetic ways. (Adding things like support buttons to the "my computer" properties sheet. Almost every oem used to replace ms fax with something else etc.)

Windows is the common marketplace where people sell their software, microsoft makes it's coin of making it common, and charging admission. The states are proposing to make it a marketplace where no one can be sure they can use the software other people are selling, and no one can be sure they are making software all the people can, and want, to use.

But I don't think the states really want that anyway. My personal theory is that they see MS's $36B in cash and they see a quick way to make up their states budget shortfalls. The right or wrong of the matter doesn't really apply as they are lawyers and sophists by nature. They got a lot of money from the tabacco companies that most of the states didn't spend on "prevention" or set aside for health care costs. So search for another company with deep pockets, rinse lather repeat.

--
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 08:15 · Score: 0

Yup, I don't see how Microsoft can actually say all that crap. Especially about IE can't be removed. Sure Bill, we believe ya...

Bill seems to live in his own little fantasy world, one in which products such as 98lite don't exist.

As for media player, what the heck does it have to do with the core OS?? That's a bunch of crap too!

Same with MSN Messenger, it can and has been removed from XP. What? Just because Bill doesn't give users the option to remove it means that it can't be removed??

It should be fairly easy for the states to prove that Microsoft lies. Well that is unless the judge is a complete idiot..
Re:Windows IS modular by Com2Kid · 2002-03-31 08:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can nuke everything but the main kernal and the shnit loaded by the registery and have everything still work A-OK.

All that is really needed is the already modular DirectX and the support for various other APIs (and few products use them all and it would be easy enough to use other ones such as SDL when need be) and everything would work just fine. Of course some of those APIs DO present a problem, but no one in this right mind still uses the older then heck ones and a lot of the new ways of doing things suck so much (such as the HTML help files, bleh. Those suck horribly) that well, heck;

I have been saying for quite some time now that Microsoft needs to strip out some of the older shnitz from their OS, such as the program to detect for the Pentium Bug (bleh).

One thing that is REALLY missing from Windows is a NICE auto-shutdown utility. Sure third party utilities exist to do that, and Windows has the proper APIs to handle all of that, but no truly GOOD free program has come out to accomplish that task yet. A lot of programs have it tacked on as an extra and some programs exist to do timed shutdowns (though they tend to not be all that good, such as shutting down right away as the default action when invoked with no command line parameters) but having one that can say;

"Shutdown the computer after there has been no traffic on port XXX for the last TTT minutes"

would be rather nice. :)

--
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Re:Windows IS modular by CoolVibe · 2002-03-31 08:32 · Score: 1

One thing that is REALLY missing from Windows is a NICE auto-shutdown utility. Sure third party utilities exist to do that, and Windows has the proper APIs to handle all of that, but no truly GOOD free program has come out to accomplish that task yet.
So why don't you grab a compiler, Learn to code and make one yourself?
Re:Windows IS modular by CoolVibe · 2002-03-31 08:34 · Score: 2

98lite [98lite.net] is a program that allows you to remove the bloat of Windows, allowing for a streamlined version that you can customize.
Don't forget IEradicator, available from the same site. Can remove MSIE from Win2k pre-service pack 2 as well.
Re:Windows IS modular by Arker · 2002-03-31 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Windows without IE and Outlook express is just the kernel and Win32 api, with a command shell only, which wouldnt be worth a crap to the mass consumer market, only to a very specialized group.

Absolute nonsense. The kernel and the Win32 subsystem, along with a command shell, is all you need to run all the third party software you could want. Mozilla and/or Opera can replace IE, Pegasus or Eudora are big improvements over Outhouse, and Trillian is certainly a better solution than MS Messenger.

The ridiculous claims that windows won't work without these components are disproven on a daily basis by myself and other users who actually know how to make windows work. The only real problem is that MS is dead set against ever letting OEMs do what I do with my own system, and therefore steadily add more and more cruft and "integrated" code to try an obstruct windows' inherent modularity, and legally forbid OEMs from making such changes as well. They have yet to make it impossible at the code level, although they've certainly managed to make it more difficult than it should be.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Windows IS modular by darien · 2002-03-31 08:54 · Score: 1

The users would have no way of knowing before hand if they had the right chuncks of the operating system to install supposedly windows software.

I think IE is the only "chunk" that's needed by any significant number of programs: users of an unbundled Windows could simply install it, or just use programs that didn't require it. It's not an immediately elegant solution, but it's a lot better than where we are now; and it would encourage future programmers not to rely on IE, weakening further the case for bundling it in the future.

The states are proposing to make it a marketplace where no one can be sure they can use the software other people are selling, and no one can be sure they are making software all the people can, and want, to use.

Well, MS is certainly not above encouraging this perception so people are scared of an unbundled Windows in case some application or other doesn't work on it.

But if the courts can prevent MS from exploiting this kind of FUD (eg, by making the unbundled version the only one available, so MS has to support it or lose the whole market), I'm sure MS would make full use of its logo-certification programme to make sure Windows didn't get the reputation of being a lottery.

This is a bit by the way anyway. The relative merits of the idea aren't really the question here: the point is that MS is claiming that an unbundled Windows is impossible, which is clearly just a lie. Perhaps it's not immediately clear exactly where the line lies between OS and application, but I'm sure a judge would be willing to draw one; and I find it impossible to believe that Microsoft doesn't have the know-how and the resources to make it happen extremely quickly if it were in its interests to do so.
Re:Windows IS modular by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 09:06 · Score: 2

The ridiculous claims that windows won't work without these components are disproven on a daily basis by myself and other users who actually know how to make windows work.

When was the last time you ran:

Quicken.
Family Tree Maker.
Generations Liberty Edition
Generations Beginner's Edition
Generations Deluxe DVD

?

I'm sure I can add to the list. Heck, even WinAmp uses IE.

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Windows IS modular by Arker · 2002-03-31 09:25 · Score: 2

Haven't had any need for those programs. If I did, and found that they required components I have removed, I would have a choice of adding those components back in (easily done) or finding a competing product that is better designed.

One application I used before DID fail to work without MSIE - that was Yahoo Messenger, of all things. Fortunately there is Trillian, which I am much happier with anyway, and works just fine with no MSIE.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Windows IS modular by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 09:59 · Score: 1

Haven't had any need for those programs. If I did, and found that they required components I have removed, I would have a choice of adding those components back in (easily done) or finding a competing product that is better designed.

So, let's see... using a freely available HTML rendering and parsing engine in some software indicates that the software isn't well designed?

Well I never.

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 10:29 · Score: 1, Interesting

One thing that is REALLY missing from Windows is a NICE auto-shutdown utility.

I always use Shutdown.exe from the resource kit (along with AT.exe) for my unattended reboot needs -- in your case you would need to script that together with somehting that monitors the ports.

Now why all the useful resource kit stuff is not on the OS CD is another interesting question.
Re:Windows IS modular by Arker · 2002-03-31 10:33 · Score: 2

So, let's see... using a freely available HTML rendering and parsing engine in some software indicates that the software isn't well designed?

Using one that is proprietary, closed, and unportable certainly does indicate poor design to me, yes.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Windows IS modular by YellowElf · 2002-03-31 10:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

The reason for all this confusion has to be that our definitions are all fuzzy. Microsoft seems to love fuzzifying things to allow its doublespeak. Of course removing IE will mean Windows isn't Windows, but then removing Solitaire also would mean the same thing in the same sense, even though nothing breaks.

Windows has become (has always been?) more than an OS in the strictest sense: a set of interfaces accessible to code which allows other code--including itself--to control the various parts of the computer. For sanity's sake, an architecture of items such as user identity and authorization, component and subsystem abstraction, and consistent user interface are provided to promote a convenient and reliable operation.

Obviously there are parts of Windows that, when removed, cause no problems--such as Solitaire. Some are required for normal user interaction, such as the GUI, but really aren't strictly necessary. (Other OSes work just fine without a GUI, thank you, and are in some cases, desirable.)

Microsoft clouds the issue by pretending that these components can't be modularized, but they can. How else would something as "vital" as IE be downloadable and updatable, or something as "deep" as DirectX be installed with retail games? They also cloud the issue by claiming that they have to ship a broken Windows to comply, but that is patently false. No one is talking about breaking Windows, but replacing Microsoft's components with different, working ones. Instead of IE, you have Netscape; instead of Media Player, you have RealPlayer.

Of course Microsoft's real issue is that they know this componentization will lead to readily substitutable parts, even of the OS itself. Such commoditization destroys their precious, precious, selfish cash cow because all the interfaces are defined for each module. Then they would actually have to compete on the merits, a situation that they have studiously made extremely difficult for anyone else to do. The monopoly would be destroyed.

This also brings up a difficult, separate issue: who defines the interfaces? There's the initial Microsoft-defined ones, but after componentization occurs, what next? There is a benefit to a centralized control I think, but everyone wants to be in control here. Design by committee is notoriously difficult and slow--OpenGL 2.0, anyone?

Another issue is, are we really ready to regulate what Windows as a product may or may not contain, and how it should be designed? Microsoft would have to make some effort to clean up its interfaces and design, as well as create the specification documentation necessary to comply with this request. They could do it, but they would cry about the trillions of dollars they would be losing in the process, only to commoditize Windows and see the selling price drop over time. Gosh, competition! But who is best to regulate this? John Ashcroft? The Microsoft Oversight Committee? Good questions, but really Microsoft has brought all this consternation on itself as it pushes every moral boundary it can find in the name of legalism.

But the idea that modularizing Windows destroys the common interface that we all benefit from is preposterous. How does Netscape break the IE interface? How does RealPlayer counter common look-and-feel? And how does making these downloadable and updatable, in the same way that DirectX is, cause problems for the end user? It only requires a fully published API, which Microsoft steadfastly refuses. Who cares which one you have, as long as it meets the specifications? Oh, it's that merit thing again.

It doesn't seem to me that the states want Microsoft's money. I don't see any compensation requests in any proposals. The real issue is that Microsoft makes people angry, mostly by its questionable borderline and over-the-borderline behavior. Then they put on their "who, me?" face, and complain about how everyone is unfairly against them. I'm not sure whether it's reasonable to allow the DOJ or other parties to regulate Windows, but since Microsoft won't control it's monopoly in a non-predatory fashion, whom else do you suggest?

--
Insert witty saying or aphorism here.
Re:Windows IS modular by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 11:38 · Score: 2

Using one that is proprietary, closed, and unportable certainly does indicate poor design to me, yes.

Portability becomes an issue only when one wants to port one's app to another platform.

If your initial analysis indicates that the cost of doing a port is far more than the possible profit from doing a port, then you may as well just write to the platform and cut the costs of the initial application design.

Good Design does not exist in a vacuum - there is a cost associated with bulletproofing, portability, etc etc which cannot be ignored in a commercial environment.

Ergo, if it's cheaper to design software such that it is tied to the 'proprietary, closed, unportable' HTML render engine, and would cost an estimated $20,000 less (in terms of development time, or possibly much more amortized over the duration of the product lifecycle) to do so, then it's probably worth it.

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 11:54 · Score: 0

go back to your gayness and stfu.....
Re:Windows IS modular by Com2Kid · 2002-03-31 11:55 · Score: 1

My point was that it is something that should be INCLUDED with the OS. It can be construed as being a mite bit of an embaressment to Windows users that they cannot even auto-shutdown a network without installing some extra application.

(there are of course ways to do this, but as I said, by DEFAULT it cannot be done on Windows, where as on *nix and a host of other Network Based OSs it is a very simple procedure)

--
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Re:Windows IS modular by deepfoo · 2002-03-31 12:28 · Score: 1

Come on. IE isn't even a standalone app. It's a wrapper for a bunch of other code bits. No one is proposing that those bits cease to exist. The goal of removing the "wrappers" is about the easiest thing to do in the world. It would solve the issue of having bits in place for those who want to use them and presumably others could build wrappers around the MS supplied bits or bring their own.

The next trick would be getting Microsoft to let people play fair with those bits. That is something they seemingly are only half-way prepared to do.

And the court anyway is likely to look at this as further evidence that they shouldn't have been "tying" in the first place so if MS sticks to this argument they are in for a real pee pee whack. Richly deserved and long overdue.
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 13:17 · Score: 0

AFAIK it's all available for download for free from microsoft.com
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 13:38 · Score: 0

let's see... you say the can't built in windows a url handler without bulk-shipping IE? They can't built in mime types, so that .mpgs and .avis are viewed by the user's prefered app? They can't strip the IE engine from the user front-end and simply include that one within windows? If they really can't, their programmers are worst than our secretary, which in fact seems to be the case! AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 15:11 · Score: 0

Congrats to you for "actually knowing how to make windows work"....but microsoft is not targeting us, they are targeting the mass market.

I have news for you...
A computer with the Kernel, Win32 subsytem, command shell, and regedit WILL NOT SELL in the mass market. If you want any kind of a management GUI then you have to add IE.

The freedom to remove IE and Outlook express DOES exist. Once you do that you will have a really *crippled* OS. If you dont think its crippled then you have no experience trying to strip down the OS using the XP embedded kit. It is truly amazing how many apps depend on IE AND Outlook Express. During my free time I spent a few days trying to strip the OS to the bones, and still run all the apps I needed, and still had to install IE to get the functionality I needed. So many apps link with the DLL's of IE and Outlook express ( either directly or indirectly ) its almost impossible to do without except in very rare conditions. Too rare to be commercially viable.
Re:Windows IS modular by Arker · 2002-03-31 15:15 · Score: 2

If your initial analysis indicates that the cost of doing a port is far more than the possible profit from doing a port, then you may as well just write to the platform and cut the costs of the initial application design.

As long as you don't mind that your code will die the next time the architecture shifts, sure. I prefer to use software that is built to weather mere architecture shifts, however.

Ergo, if it's cheaper to design software such that it is tied to the 'proprietary, closed, unportable' HTML render engine, and would cost an estimated $20,000 less (in terms of development time, or possibly much more amortized over the duration of the product lifecycle) to do so, then it's probably worth it.

And if an open, portable, perhaps even Free HTML render engine were also available, but the closed proprietary one were chosen instead?

I repeat, bad design. Particularly considering what a remarkably poor choice an HTML rendering engine is for doing the things it is usually used for.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 15:28 · Score: 0

That's why you're an anonymous coward.
Re:Windows IS modular by Arker · 2002-03-31 15:39 · Score: 2

A computer with the Kernel, Win32 subsytem, command shell, and regedit WILL NOT SELL in the mass market.

I don't believe I ever said they would. But one with all that, plus Mozilla and PerfectOffice? Half the customer base wouldn't notice the difference, and many that did would be pleased with the difference.

If you want any kind of a management GUI then you have to add IE.

A gui to manage what?

The freedom to remove IE and Outlook express DOES exist. Once you do that you will have a really *crippled* OS.

Umm, no, my system is far from crippled.

If you dont think its crippled then you have no experience trying to strip down the OS using the XP embedded kit.

Well there's your first mistake. Never try to use a microsoft OS until the first years worth of bug fixes are checked in.

Everything up through Windows2000, including 2k>sp2 or so, can be cleanly and automatically disinfected. It'll take a little time before XP is safe for use anyway. Early adopters of MS products get nothing but the prestige of having paid to beta test. It's still way too early to be using XP.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Windows IS modular by YellowElf · 2002-03-31 15:58 · Score: 1

Yes, but there is a difference between IE as code and IE as an interface to access the Internet. To the user, what matters is the interface.

For the most part, the interface is where products make their major differentiation. No one would have had a problem if Microsoft had provided merely an Internet access API; but they had to make it visible and call it part of the OS. The visible part really shouldn't be part of the OS, IMHO. Why not an activation point to initiate the browser interface of choice? "No, IE is part of the OS." Bullcrap. WININET is part of the OS, IE is a bag on the side of Windows.

I actually use Quicken without any of its Internet browsing/access; it could be removed for all I care. Microsoft can intertwine IE all they want and call it broken if all the features don't work, but it's a dubious choice.

--
Insert witty saying or aphorism here.
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 16:22 · Score: 0

A) Yahoo could easily change their code to load the Mozilla component if need be. But why? The software is designed for Windows as shipped, not after you deleted a few DLLs.

B) Yahoo does provide a portable version written in Java. (Hopefully they don't use any "proprietary" sun.* classes!) Apparently this isn't sufficent enough, so there's a native version available also.
Re:Windows IS modular by CmdrKrev · 2002-03-31 17:54 · Score: 1

Rather interesting tack you take at defending MS' position. Unfortunately, like the defense MS is currently putting up, it does have holes. This isn't to say MS can't defend itself, I am just saying it is doing a rather piss-poor job by using the English language against itself.

1) Just because you remove a component, doesn't mean you ruin the OS. Core functionality should be at the core of the system (gee, large leap o' logic).

2) Unless you can back up your 'states want money' statement, I don't believe it. I haven't seen requests/statements from the states asking for cash, but rather for action.

3) In probably the largest leap of logic I will make in this post, I will actually show how MS could have defended itself:

- First, I would drop all the gross abuse of the English language. All it is doing is making it look like MS is hiding something, even if it isn't.

- Second, I would be pressing on the fact that the industry NEEDS a standard, and that competition in this arena isn't always a good thing (even if I don't agree with that statement).

- Third, I would also try to convince the people involved that having one company produce the 'whole widget' can improve overall consistency in the user interaction, since one mindset created the UI in all the applications. (I don't agree with this one either)

See, it isn't difficult for MS to defend itself without having to go into the techno mumbo-jumbo field where they can easily be met with a few thousand programmers coughing 'Bullsh*t' in unison. To be perfectly honest, as a programmer myself, I find MS' defense weak and clouded in a bunch of 'we are magicians of the computer' mysticism which I find pitiful. The computer is a tool, and a rather simple one at that (from my viewpoint, others will disagree). It isn't like MS is the god of the box and is the only one that knows how it works. Get some of the other experts who have worked on other recent OSes like from the Be team, Apple's OS X team, IBM's old OS/2 team, even Linus would be a good expert to bring on this.

I guess what I am saying in a nutshell is that MS is not going to win by stating technological reasons, it can win by dealing with human reason.
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 18:07 · Score: 0

A gui to manager what?

Like the shortcuts in the Administrative Tools group wouldnt work without it. And most of the control panel wouldnt work either.

Umm, no, my system is far from crippled.

If you have a "start" menu, you have IE like it or not.

If you are running a system with the "explorer" shell ( explorer.exe is always running ), then you still have IE installed. You may not be using it and it may appear to be removed, but it is still there.
Re:Windows IS modular by Arker · 2002-03-31 20:12 · Score: 2

And most of the control panel wouldnt work either.

Actually it all works just fine, thanks.

If you have a "start" menu, you have IE like it or not.
If you are running a system with the "explorer" shell ( explorer.exe is always running ), then you still have IE installed. You may not be using it and it may appear to be removed, but it is still there.

Not at all true. You're talking far beyond your knowledge.

You aren't the first. You won't be the last. But don't assume that just because you know a little more about the OS than the average Joe that you know it all. You don't.

I'm running explorer.exe. An old one, that predates IE. There are plenty of other options for a shell that don't require MSIE, that's just the particular one I've chosen, and it shows your assertion to be completely and utterly wrong.

If you have a licensed copy of '95OSR2, you have a perfectly usable (actually much MORE usable than the later versions, IMOP) of explorer.exe that doesn't use MSIE in any way. Neither does litestep, or progman.exe or fileman.exe for that matter.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Windows IS modular by Darth+Hubris · 2002-04-01 08:27 · Score: 1

Check out http://www.98lite.net/. After the removal, you have a basic Win95 shell. Any IE bits left over are there to prevent Windows from screaming, but they are not used.

EVEN if MS is forced to separate them into the components we know they are, the reality IMO is this:

Here's MS Windows. Needs a browser. Looks like I have Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, and MS IE. Hmm. MS makes IE, same company that makes the OS.

The problem here is that MS is still making both products. The only way this would be a level playing field is if IE were made by a separate company. That may not be likely. Ideally, MS should be forced to fully reveal their file formats and the Win32 API.

MS is doing themselves a disservice with this inegrated crap. Do you know how you repair IE6 in WinXP? You reinstall the OS. But this is the consumer end, and MS could truly give a shit about consumers.

This is going to be a major selling issue for .Net server. Watch .Net closely...

--
The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out
Re:Windows IS modular by zup_willy · 2002-04-01 14:27 · Score: 1

OK, you got me.... I am referring to the Operating Systems you can currently purchase from microsoft. Also, please spare me any experiences you have with running Windows 3.1 or DOS 6.22 without IE im not interested in those either
Re:Windows IS modular by Anonymous Coward · 2002-04-01 18:23 · Score: 0

Hahahah you are really dense.

He didn't say he was running Windows 95, he said he uses explorer.exe from 95 cause he likes it better. It takes a couple of patches, but it's easy to do, a lot of people do it cause it makes the GUI much faster.
Re:Windows IS modular by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 20:02 · Score: 2

You confuse modalurity with interchangibility.
Windows is highly modular, but parts aren't interchangable.
If you want to replace IE, you can, but you've to make an exact clone of IE.

And MS doesn't say that this is impossible, it's quite easy to do, (although can cause a support nightmare from hell).
MS says that *removing* IE will break a lot of stuff.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:Windows IS modular by YellowElf · 2002-04-03 09:49 · Score: 1

I agree that they are separate issues; but with enough specification they are interchangeable. Who knows if Microsoft's own specifications are precise enough, or even well-designed enough, to allow interchangeability. I wouldn't be surprised if a design requirement was to obfuscate internal structures merely to prevent easy interchangeability.

Really I don't think anyone would have had a problem if WININET was built into Windows, but the IE interface was sold separately and allowed anyone else to build similar items that plugged in appropriately, like HTML controls. After all, MS has made great big noise about how COM allows modular interchangeable components. But the fact that they gave it away for free and said it was a necessary part of windows is pure bullcrap-and-vomit-mixed-together.

--
Insert witty saying or aphorism here.

Tried and failed already by nanoakron · 2002-03-31 02:06 · Score: 1

I thought M$ bullshit excuse of 'oh look, we took out IE and it just doesn't work as well' had already been tried and rejected in an earlier court case? How can they bring up this as a new defense when it's already failed?

-Nano.

Re:Tried and failed already by gl4ss · 2002-03-31 02:30 · Score: 0, Troll

I thought M$ bullshit excuse of 'oh look, we took out IE and it just doesn't work as well' had already been tried and rejected in an earlier court case? How can they bring up this as a new defense when it's already failed?
It doesn't work well with the ie in either :).

There's a method kids use to get stuff from their parents, if plan a fails, repeat plan a.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Tried and failed already by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 11:14 · Score: 0

"If you Lie often enough people will believe it."
quote from some high up nazi guy

have that version... by westcourt_monk · 2002-03-31 02:06 · Score: 5, Funny

a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare

That about sums up windows now. For it to be faster, user friendly, and easy to support one must strip out all the crap.

Of course having a zillion different flavours of Windoze might be a bad idea but forcing them to think modular is a good idea (I suspect they do anyway). Will anything really change?

--
I am going to hell and I am going to take all of you with me.

Re:have that version... by Brian+Kendig · 2002-03-31 04:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Will anything really change?

No.

The fundamental mistake people are making is that people are still listening to Microsoft's complaints about how oppressed it is.

There's a lesson that everyone should have learned by now: Microsoft tells lies. Often. They also ignore the law, since they've learned that making the government curb their behavior is much better than behaving well on their own -- especially since the government's been completely ineffective in slowing the Microsoft juggernaut so far. Beat up kids on the playground for their lunch money today and you might get punished next year, if at all... so why bother holding back?

Microsoft isn't going to release a stripped-down version of Windows, not in the sense that you think of a stripped-down version of Linux. Remember two years ago when Microsoft showed that removing the DLL's with IE code in them cripped Windows? This was because Microsoft went to a whole lot of trouble to take the IE code and scatter it all over the operating system, sticking subroutines in DLL's which had nothing to do with IE. The Windows code is made as difficult as it has to be to foil the government's attempts to separate out the parts which violate the 1995 consent decree. (Never mind for now that the videotape they used to show the Windows slowdown was revealed to be fabricated. Never mind for now that Professor Felton successfully removed IE from Windows early in the court case, then when he tried it again later he found that Microsoft had scattered the code throughout the operating system to thwart him.)

In the Linux world, a stripped-down version of the operating system is easy to support, since it's much less complicated than integrating lots of modules and applications. But in the Windows world, Microsoft is going to make absolutely certain that a stripped-down version of Windows will not work well. They'll follow the letter of any judgement handed down to them, but they'll ignore the spirit and exploit any loopholes: they'll introduce as many bugs as they can in order to make sure that people won't want to use it, and when the government challenges them on this, they'll cry 'oppressed!' and another seven-year cycle of courtroom appearances will begin. Who knows, maybe they'll even consider the TCP/IP stack to be part of Internet Explorer, so their stripped-down Windows won't have networking support?

The real solution is to require Microsoft to bundle only bare-bones applications with Windows, and sell their high-end applications on store shelves. They bundle Microsoft Write and sell Microsoft Word at a premium; they can do this with IE and Media Player. This would go a long way towards restoring competition.

But Microsoft has learned that the government is completely ineffective against them. They've also learned that by misrepresenting the case to the American public ('freedom to innovate,' indeed), they can garner a whole lot of support and put a lot of pressure on state and federal government to settle the case against them. They're going to continue doing this while at the same time they continue underselling anyone in markets they want to own.

In a few years someone's going to have a great idea for the Next Big Thing, some simple yet powerful advance which will revolutionize computing as we know it. That person is going to follow the American dream and go into business for himself capitalizing on his idea. Then Microsoft is going to copy his ideas and bundle them into Windows, and the guy is going to go out of business, and this will spawn another seven years of the DOJ trying to curb Microsoft's power and Microsoft viciously defending its right to give its customers great things for free.

It happened with Netscape. It's going to happen again.
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 05:42 · Score: 0

Then Microsoft is going to copy his ideas and bundle them into Windows, and the guy is going to go out of business

Is it really any wonder why we have all these silly patents?
Re:have that version... by 0x0d0a · 2002-03-31 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Modularity in Windows would fix about ten million issues. It would be the best thing that happened to consumers (Windows ones, that is). Does the start bar suck? Use one that someone else has written. Same for explorer, the command line shell, any anything else you like.

Modularity always helps consumers, barring other factors. Integration and bundling helps one entity -- Microsoft.

I don't disagree that MS could make a modular version of Windows that would suck, but if done properly, they'd actually have something that UNIX would have a tough time competing with for most users because it'd be so good.

One thing that would be really cool is a goverment review board that would prevent any for-a-fee new versions of Windows from shipping until it passes review. No pass, no ship. Oh, MS would blow zillions on PR, but they'd be free to release service patches, so it'd hardly hurt anyone much. Plus, if the thing got rejected a few times, engineers would have time to actually test and debug those early copies of Windows that everyone always wants to avoid.

--
May we never see th
Re:have that version... by ClarkEvans · 2002-03-31 06:29 · Score: 2

There's a lesson that everyone should have learned by now: Microsoft tells lies.

Hopefully while we rounding up all of the ENRON thieves we can toss in a few of the Microsoft execs who are also guilty of perjury.

freedom to innovate indeed

I have the domain "freedomtoinnovate.net" where should it be parked? Right now it's at EFF... a better site describing Microsoft wrongs would be better... no?
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:51 · Score: 0

I work in Enterprise (big company) tech support for Microsoft.

I'm not sure you really know what you're talking about because most of our products (no bullshit) interoperate with the core Windows components, including _gasp_ Internet Explorer. IE gives us HTML, XML, and I'm not sure what else. (Because I'm not a developer.)

See, we think it's counterproductive to write an HTML engine for one product (IE), then write a completely different one which probably won't be 100% compatible for another product (Windows XP's help files, OE, Outlook, Front Page, hell Visual Studio .NET, etc.) What I hear you requesting is that we write separate and not 100% compatible HTML/XML/etc. engines for each of those, duplicating our developers' efforts and therefore delaying the development process, just so that you can remove IE. Wow, what a great idea!! Yes, let's have every dev group at Microsoft learn how to write all the internal stuff that IE does instead of their own products because by god that'll make their products way better! (NOT!!!!!) From a tech support stand point, which I'm better qualified than you to speak of since it's what I do for a living, I'd much rather have ONE dev group to file bugs to, and to make fix things relating to what IE does than 30 or 40 of them. But hey, since I'm an employee and stockholder I must be lying, right? Yeah that's it, it really would be better to have all the extra code out there, all that extra time taken, all those extra bugs. YEEHAW.
Re:have that version... by tshak · 2002-03-31 07:08 · Score: 1, Troll

For it to be faster, user friendly, and easy to support one must strip out all the crap.

But IE isn't the crap. IE is faster and slicker then any OSS browser for Windows, and the second fastest commercial browser (second to Opera). IE isn't perfect, by any means, but it's rediculous to force them to remove it from their OS. Finally, Apple packages Quicktime, iMovie, iTunes, Appleworks (a full office suite), and more with their OS. I think that it is the OS makers right to include value added software, and the consumer benefits from it. I can go and buy a new iMac, plug it in, and have a full home video editing studio without having to do a thing (all on UNIX neverthless)! Now, because MS has a monoploy on the desktop, our solution is to force them to make a less-valued OS with less features and bundled software? How is this better for the consumer. Remember, the whole point of business regulation is to fight for the consumer, not fight against the corporation. Everyone I know who has bought a new Mac absolutely loves all of the bundled software. True, this forces competitors out of the market, but so what? Should Real sue Apple for including Quicktime? No, Real should sue itself (lol) for not selling off their technology years ago, realizing that there was no way that they could compete with the likes of MS and Apple.

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:35 · Score: 0

You cite Netscape as an example of a Next Big Thing that was crushed by Microsoft.

News flash: Netscape was a browser of which there were many available.

You make it sound like rendering HTML properly is something difficult to do and that Netscape's ability to achieve that apex of creativity should have guaranteed their longevity as a company.

Please cite another example to support your thesis.
Re:have that version... by hkhanna · 2002-03-31 07:36 · Score: 1

(Never mind for now that the videotape they used to show the Windows slowdown was revealed to be fabricated. Never mind for now that Professor Felton successfully removed IE from Windows early in the court case, then when he tried it again later he found that Microsoft had scattered the code throughout the operating system to thwart him.)

Why the _FUCK_ are they not hit with obstruction of justice? Can someone please answer that?

--

Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Re:have that version... by CoolVibe · 2002-03-31 07:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

IE is faster and slicker then any OSS browser for Windows, and the second fastest commercial browser (second to Opera)
How convenient that MS loads internet explorer on startup. Of course it's faster! When you 'explore' your drives, you already have the bulk of MSIE running.
Finally, Apple packages Quicktime, iMovie, iTunes, Appleworks (a full office suite), and more with their OS
Check your facts, they are optional components. Easy to deinstall, or you can opt to NOT install them. Try removing MSIE from your WinXP or Win2k SP2+ system. You'll have a hard time.
I think that it is the OS makers right to include value added software, and the consumer benefits from it. I can go and buy a new iMac, plug it in, and have a full home video editing studio without having to do a thing (all on UNIX neverthless)!
The difference is choice. If you don't want something on your Mac, you just throw it away, and you'll never be bothered by it again. Or, if you like the default software, you can just leave it like it is. The difference is that it isn't forced down your throat.
Now, because MS has a monoploy on the desktop, our solution is to force them to make a less-valued OS with less features and bundled software? How is this better for the consumer.
No, nobody is telling them to oblitterate MSIE, Media Player and all that other crap. They just have to make it optional for the user to install or not. Right now, everyone that uses windows for the first time on a new box get confronted with MSIE. And MSIE is probably the only browser they'll ever know because that's that one that got installed with their new system. Thought experiment: What would have happened if MS bought Netscape and integrated Netscape in the OS? Then Netscape would be the dominant browser now.
The problem that most people have with Microsoft is how they throw their weight around with the Windows OS, pushing competitors out of the nest before they can get the chance to be real competitors. It's practices like these that send us off our collective trolleys. The quality of MSIE is irrelevant
Right, back to driver coding...
Re:have that version... by mpe · 2002-03-31 08:14 · Score: 2

See, we think it's counterproductive to write an HTML engine for one product (IE), then write a completely different one which probably won't be 100% compatible for another product (Windows XP's help files, OE, Outlook, Front Page, hell Visual Studio .NET, etc.)

You only want to use the same rendering engine if you make sure that applications such as email "sanitise" what they have rendered.
Re:have that version... by Mr.+Shiny+And+New · 2002-03-31 08:21 · Score: 1

The difference between Apple bundling everything with the Mac and MS bundling with the OS is that Apple is the only Mac vendor, where as MS is not a vendor. So it's more like if Compaq bundled everything with the computer. Compaq would do that to make their platform look better than any other OEM's platform. MS puts tons of stuff into the OS not to make the OS look better... after all, the OS has a monopoly, so people pretty much HAVE to buy it. No, they put that stuff in the OS so that other companies can't make the same stuff. Putting Windows Media Player into Windows doesn't make Windows a better choice than Linux. It just makes it harder for Real to compete.

Nothing stops OEMs from taking the 'lite' version of windows and loading it down with tons of stuff... they always did that anyway.
Re:have that version... by Com2Kid · 2002-03-31 08:25 · Score: 2

Or have HTML rendered in the same way that a lot of other files are handled, though an xLIB type of a system. "x" being whatever your file format is.

Most of those interactive help files use a very minimal subset of HTML but manage to take for-friggin-ever to load themselves. Likely because they are using a highly bloated HTML rendering engine, oh joy. By using a nice efficent HTML rendering engine not only could the user experance be improved, but you the developer would no longer be stuck using a product that Microsoft could change at any moment. With the xLIB system, you choose the library version that gets included with your program.

--
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 08:32 · Score: 0

If you _were_ a developer you would know that you could (would) still have only one team working on the HTML/XML engine, it's just that it would be compiled in statically to each product mentioned above.
Either that or hell, include the engine with Windows, but does that mean you _have_ to include IE too? No. Engines and applications are different things. This is called having a modular system, and yes, Windows works like this too, hence the .dll.
I don't believe you're lying because you're a stockholder, just completely unqualified to be discussing delevopment. Please talk to some of your programmers before making comments like this.
Re:have that version... by SecretAsianMan · 2002-03-31 08:57 · Score: 2

Ladies and gentlemen, IHBT. But nonetheless:
it's counterproductive to write an HTML engine for one product (IE), then write a completely different one ... for another product.

Does the use of a text box require Notepad?

You are correct in thinking that it is counterproductive to implement an HTML engine in each product. You are not correct in the assumption that IE equals an HTML engine. The ability to display HTML pages is not specific to a web browser but is an independent concept, useful in a wide variety of applications. You yourself gave evidence of this fact in your post by naming a few Microsoft applications that make use of an HTML engine.

The implementation of common concepts is the purpose of shared libraries. When a developer needs such an implementation, he links the shared library into his project, eliminating the redundancy of reimplementation. Microsoft does indeed provide its HTML engine in a shared library that other developers can use. The problem is that its use requires -- very artificially -- IE to be installed.

IE is simply a program which takes the HTML engine and builds an web browser out of it; in much the same way, Notepad takes the text box and builds a text editor out of it. Would it not be ludicrous for Microsoft to deny usage of the text box to those who choose not to install Notepad? Yet this is what we would see if Microsoft were trying to crush its foes in some 'text editor war'.

Remember that almost every GUI program out there uses the ubiquitous text box.

There is nothing wrong with Microsoft's inclusion of an HTML engine library into Windows. HTML page displays are appearing in an increasing number of applications, and it makes sense to implement it once and distribute it widely. What is wrong is the artificial restrictions Microsoft places upon the library's use, the use of monopoly power to force the installation of IE.

--
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Re:have that version... by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 09:10 · Score: 2

If you _were_ a developer you would know that you could (would) still have only one team working on the HTML/XML engine, it's just that it would be compiled in statically to each product mentioned above.
Either that or hell, include the engine with Windows, but does that mean you _have_ to include IE too? No. Engines and applications are different things. This is called having a modular system, and yes, Windows works like this too, hence the .dll.

So you're saying that Microsoft should be forced to Remove Internet Explorer?

That is, you mean the 64KB Internet Explorer executable file?

Well, heck, why didn't you say so?

Microsoft offered to do this during the trial. Jackson turned around and said he wanted the WHOLE thing with ALL of its dependencies pulled out of the OS.

That includes all of the DLLs it imported.

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:have that version... by Not+The+Real+Me · 2002-03-31 09:26 · Score: 1

Judges and lawyers are not techno saavy.

They understand writs, briefs, prior decisions, etc., but technology ain't one of them.
Re:have that version... by JanusFury · 2002-03-31 09:28 · Score: 0

Sheesh. You're acting like Bill Gates is Adolf Hitler and Microsoft is the beginning of a new world order.

Microsoft isn't the only company that does fucked-up things. Human nature is to fuck up and be mean to your fellow human.

--
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Re:have that version... by Brian+Kendig · 2002-03-31 10:08 · Score: 2

You misunderstand me.

The United States economy is built on capitalism. The point of capitalism is 'survival of the fittest.'

Netscape didn't have the first web browser -- they had the second. The first was NCSA Mosaic. Many web browsers came after Netscape, including several derivatives based on the Mosaic code (such as Spyglass and Internet Explorer), and custom browsers by Apple (Cyberdog) and Oracle, among others.

But Netscape thrived because they were able to build strategic relationships with large companies, advertise their product and market it to a wide user base on many different platforms, and add features and fix bugs on a timely basis. Because it was a better browser, it sold well; and because it sold well, more resources could be put into making it a better browser. (Yes, it was free to individuals, but large corporations paid a lot of money for Netscape site licenses and support commitments.)

Now, enter Microsoft. Microsoft didn't have to make a better product. They only had to do three things:

(1) Give their product away for free with every copy of Windows. This guaranteed that every Windows user had IE, and this was fine for most people; many wouldn't bother to download any competing product over a modem.

(2) Pour their Windows revenues into IE development and marketing. IE never had to make any money at all. It could have sucked so badly that no one would buy it -- it did, and they didn't -- but still it had a huge budget. Fighting this is like trying to play Quake against someone with an 'infinite health' cheat code: even if the guy can't aim, there's no possible way you're ever going to beat him, and eventually he's going to wear you down and kill you off.

(3) 'Cut off Netscape's air supply' (as said by a Microsoft exec in testimony). By severely penalizing Netscape's customers who depended on Microsoft more, Microsoft could force them to abandon Netscape and use IE, even though it was vastly inferior until version 3 or so.

This is how Netscape was crushed by Microsoft. Netscape didn't do everything right -- in fact, they made their share of wrong decisions -- but they were truly doomed from the very start. Even if Netscape had a crystal ball and knew the future and did everything perfectly right, they'd still have been buried by Microsoft.

With Microsoft using tactics such as I've described above, there is absolutely no way to successfully compete against them.

Period.
Re:have that version... by Brian+Kendig · 2002-03-31 10:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Any DLL's which are part of Windows should be usable by any Windows applications I write.

If Internet Explorer is nothing than a 64K file which uses all the underlying Windows technology, then I should be allowed to make my own 64K application which is just as effective at surfing the web. Maybe I'll call it Brian's Browser. Since the bookmarks editor it uses is built into Windows, as is the web page 'subscription' service and the Auction Manager, it'll have basically the same feature set as IE and look/work very much the same, too.

I can then add on a few more features (maybe tabbed browsing or something) and sell it for $5 per copy, and make a little money off it, because Windows is so nice as to provide all the advanced web browsing funcionality as part of the base operating system.

Or, more to the point: Compaq should be able to bundle 'The Compaq Web Browser' with every PC it sells. The application would be only 64K large; it would use all the same built-in Windows code that IE uses for all its advanced functionality, except that the Compaq browser would have the Compaq logo at the top and default to a set of bookmarks which led to Compaq web pages. And the icon for this would be preinstalled on the Windows desktop, instead of the IE icon.

This would be fine with me. How nice of Microsoft to put all the time and effort into developing a state-of-the-art web browser, then making it part of Windows so that third-party applications can mix-and-match its technology at will!
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 10:39 · Score: 0

Yes, when the government doesn't bother to enforce them.
Re:have that version... by tshak · 2002-03-31 10:58 · Score: 2

I agree that Windows doesn't allow the end user the same flexibility as OS X. However, your points are moot since the default install of OS X includes everything, and every new Mac with OS X preinstalled already has the programs on there. I don't think the user is going to be taking them off, so the end result is the same. The reason this makes your point moot is within the context of "forcing users to use their software" and "hurt competition". The bottom line is, I use Opera and Winamp on Windows with no problems - I _do_ have the options. Again, I agree that OS X gives the user more control over these things then Windows, but from a legal standpoint I don't see why Windows has to change in this regard (even though I'd like them to).

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:have that version... by overturf · 2002-03-31 11:01 · Score: 1

The real solution is to require Microsoft to bundle only bare-bones applications with Windows, and sell their high-end applications on store shelves.

Please remind me again what is the direct consumer benefit in nickel-and-dime'ing us for the "high-end modules" we currently take for granted?

Remember: The competing software vendors (the only group who might actually benefit from this change) are only "consumers" in the sense that they likely do their development in a licensed Windows environment. :)
Re:have that version... by Alsee · 2002-03-31 11:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

the whole point of business regulation is to fight for the consumer, not fight against the corporation.

Right. If you look at it in terms of motivation it becomes clear why Apple is fine and Microsoft is not.

Apple's motivation to to get new customers. They add in things that the consumers want, and do not include things that they don't want. Quicktime, iMovie, iTunes, Appleworks are included for the customer's benefit. They are easy to remove. I have never heard of any issues of nasty mis-features in them.

Microsoft has no motivation to get new customers. Being a monopoly, they already have virtally all of them. Their motivation is to earn more proffits off of their existing customers. They included Internet Explorer so they could make money being the "gateway to the internet". They included Media Player so they could could make money by controlling your DRM. They abuse their OS monopoly to force these things onto consumers. They try to make them impossible to remove, they make them incompatible to kill competition, they include nasty mis-features like spying on you and tagging you with an ID number for Microsoft's benefit - at the consumer's expense. They commited extortion to prevent computer manufacturers from providing competing Operating Systems, Web Browsers, or Audio/Video viewers.

Microsoft broke the law. Repeatedly. They were convicted. They continued to break the law. Repeatedly. They were convicted. Again.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:have that version... by e40 · 2002-03-31 11:28 · Score: 1

See, we think it's counterproductive to write an HTML engine for one product (IE), then write a completely different one which probably won't be 100% compatible for another product (Windows XP's help files, OE, Outlook, Front Page, hell Visual Studio .NET, etc.)

Dude, it's called a library. In Windows, libraries are implemented as DLLs. If you were a developer, as you say, you'd know this.
Re:have that version... by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 11:41 · Score: 2

Any DLL's which are part of Windows should be usable by any Windows applications I write.

If Internet Explorer is nothing than a 64K file which uses all the underlying Windows technology, then I should be allowed to make my own 64K application which is just as effective at surfing the web. Maybe I'll call it Brian's Browser. Since the bookmarks editor it uses is built into Windows, as is the web page 'subscription' service and the Auction Manager, it'll have basically the same feature set as IE and look/work very much the same, too.

I can then add on a few more features (maybe tabbed browsing or something) and sell it for $5 per copy, and make a little money off it, because Windows is so nice as to provide all the advanced web browsing funcionality as part of the base operating system.

Or, more to the point: Compaq should be able to bundle 'The Compaq Web Browser' with every PC it sells. The application would be only 64K large; it would use all the same built-in Windows code that IE uses for all its advanced functionality, except that the Compaq browser would have the Compaq logo at the top and default to a set of bookmarks which led to Compaq web pages. And the icon for this would be preinstalled on the Windows desktop, instead of the IE icon.

This would be fine with me. How nice of Microsoft to put all the time and effort into developing a state-of-the-art web browser, then making it part of Windows so that third-party applications can mix-and-match its technology at will!

That is exactly the case right now.

It's why AOL uses/used IE as their browser technology - because they can just wrap it in any way they like.

Your example of the "Compaq Web Browser" is actually kind of odd -- the IE Installation Kit tools let you do exactly that kind of customization to the browser - and have done so since at least Internet Explorer 3.0. @Home and Earthlink use it to customize their install packages. There's even a ZDNet version you can download if you so desire.

Also, see NeoPlanet - a custom skin around the IE render engine, which has been available on sale since at least 1996.

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 12:05 · Score: 0

We know MS is guilty on many counts, but punishment is such an old fashioned concept...
Re:have that version... by Theom · 2002-03-31 12:13 · Score: 1

I am quite sure that no one uses Lenix, I haven't even heard of it. What is it like? Windows? MacOS? Linux?

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:have that version... by Queer+Boy · 2002-03-31 12:21 · Score: 1

This is how Netscape was crushed by Microsoft. Netscape didn't do everything right -- in fact, they made their share of wrong decisions -- but they were truly doomed from the very start. Even if Netscape had a crystal ball and knew the future and did everything perfectly right, they'd still have been buried by Microsoft.
With Microsoft using tactics such as I've described above, there is absolutely no way to successfully compete against them.

Actually, Netscape was more interested in a pissing contest between Barksdale and Gates. Navigator (and consequently Communicator) should have been available on everything that was not Windows. Netscape should have made Navigator the best browser for Macintosh, Amiga, BeOS, Linux, Unix, Sega Saturn, any semi-modern (at the time) system with an internet connection. Did they? No. Instead they were caught up in trying to show up Microsoft. It wasn't about making a good browser, it was about adding things no one wanted just because the other guy didn't have it. Microsoft even beat Netscape at the standards game, Internet Explorer for Macintosh meets more HTML standards than even Amaya (and IE for Windows is a not too distant second).
As it stands, Mozilla still isn't in the mindset of making it the best browser for alternative platforms, it is still Windows-centric, trying to add things IE for Windows has, or adding tabbed browsing, instead of focusing on getting Gecko to render pages to W3C specifications. As it stands, AOL and Intuit are the only two companies that have ever "beaten" Microsoft, and that's just because Microsoft ignored those markets long enough that those products have become a standard (despite AOL's flaws, it is still a good "internet with training wheels" for new computer users).
If you're going to develop a product with the intent on beating Microsoft, you're wasting your time. They don't play fair, they never will. You have to have the attitude that you are creating a great product that stands on its own.

--
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
Re:have that version... by Queer+Boy · 2002-03-31 12:40 · Score: 1

Finally, Apple packages Quicktime, iMovie, iTunes, Appleworks (a full office suite), and more with their OS.

Uh, AppleWorks is not bundled with the OS, and never has been. It comes with consumer hardware, and has never been bundled with Pro hardware, but then Pangea's Bugdom, and Nanosaur are bundled with consumer hardware also. Apple has also always let third party companies put their installers on the Mac OS CD. Like AOL, despite Earthlink being Apple's preferred ISP, and Communicator, despite IE being the default browser, and Adobe Acrobat, even though Preview will open PDF's.
Apple and Real even agreed that it was most beneficial to users and competition to let the user decide which media files would open with their respective applications, and would not change the preferences before clearly stating to the user what would happen, and that their applications would alert the user if an application changed their preferred application for media-type playback.
Apple has even opened up the QuickTime file format with MPEG 4 (the format is open, some compressors are not).
It wouldn't matter if Apple created hidden API's, used them for their applications to make sure their apps had an advantage over the competition, or purposefully broke competitors apps with every point release, Apple is not a monopoly, Microsoft is.

--
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
Re:have that version... by Brian+Kendig · 2002-03-31 12:59 · Score: 2

Navigator (and consequently Communicator) should have been available on everything that was not Windows. Netscape should have made Navigator the best browser for Macintosh, Amiga, BeOS, Linux, Unix, Sega Saturn, any semi-modern (at the time) system with an internet connection.

Are you serious?

Here, let's put you in the role of CEO. Because Microsoft is copying your flagship product and giving it away for free, you've got just enough manpower and money left to make Netscape for Windows half as good as it needs to be in twice the length of time you actually have.

Tell me how you're going to compete with Microsoft while you make a good product on a half-dozen operating systems which don't even make up ten percent of the market.
Re:have that version... by Brian+Kendig · 2002-03-31 13:07 · Score: 2

Easy.

Microsoft is making you pay through the nose for these high-end features. You think they're free, but MS is recouping the cost by keeping the price of Windows artificially high and gouging users on the cost of support (often for problems that are Microsoft's fault to begin with). The cost of every PC component has fallen dramatically over the past decade, except the price of Windows.

Analogy: All the rides at Disneyland are free... but that doesn't make it a cheap park, once you realize just how much the entrance fee is.

Microsoft can keep the cost of Windows high because there's no serious competition out there for the desktop market. Introduce some serious operating system competition, and that'll bring the price of Windows down. Break out IE into a separate product, and it can compete with other web browsers on price and features and stability, and the fittest product will win.
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 13:46 · Score: 0

OH yes bloating windows code even more sure will help by staticly linking every version of it. I for one know what dlls give and take. Did you know that once a dll is loaded into memory it is only loaded once, and reference counted thereafter? However if you staticly link that code it will be loaded every time for that program. That may be ok on your 4gig machine but what about my parents machien with 64 meg? What dll's give us staticly linking can taketh away. Dlls also give us DLL hell. But if properly managed DLL hell can be usefull. Of which MS is extreeeeeemly well informed about. They are setting in projects that in order to get that little sticker you have to play the dll hell game THEIR way. Is it better? Dont know yet we will see...

WHO really cares if IE is in freeking windows. If it sucks we would not use it? ICQ is not installed by default in XP Messenger is. Which do I use?... I for one am glad MS won the browser war. I used many versions of Netscape and that software would segfault on the drop of a hat, on just about ever OS (ms and non ms) I used it on. I gave up on it many years ago (around ver 3). Am I missing something now? Maybe. But I got over it. I also learned something many years ago. If you use MS software with MS software it works good enough. Maybe not GREAT but good enough.
Re:have that version... by overturf · 2002-03-31 13:53 · Score: 1

Analogy: All the rides at Disneyland are free...

Problem is, your analogy fails you. Disneyland would *NOT* lower their prices if they started charging extra for the rides. This is America.

Even if you throw a few Paramount parks into the equation to "compete" on price, normal folks expect to pay a certain price for the things we use. This is, remember, one of the big conceptual stumbling blocks hurting OSS; perceived worth of software is largely dependent on how much it costs.

It's also worth noting that with the exception of more-and-better free software, software on-the-whole has remained fairly price-steady over the years. It's not just Microsoft charging consistent prices. I'd guess this is because the costs of developing new software have not significantly decreased, while the costs of developing new hardware have...
Re:have that version... by Kaiwen · 2002-03-31 13:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Netscape should have made Navigator the best browser for Macintosh
Lest you forget, Apple considered making Netscape the default browser. MS threatened to pull the next version of MacOffice if that happened. Not surprisingly, it didn't happen.
Amiga, BeOS ... Unix, Sega Saturn
Which, all together had a combined marketshare of -- what, 0.5%? Now there's a piece of pie worth chasing.
Linux
Umm, dude. Netscape does make a version for Linux.
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 14:05 · Score: 0

We WANTED IE in there. there are HUGE companies out there that not only wanted it in there they demanded it be in there. The trade rags of about 95-97 begged/demanded/insisted they put it in.

MS also saw a way to dump some hard to use text tech (the .hlp file) and a few other things and make it use html. bundling IE is not much of a leap, the iexplor.exe is not even bigger than 100k. They stuck all these things throughout the system to make it usuable by all of their products.

We as an industry demanded it of MS to do exactly what they did. Put the browser in the OS. But you all are saying its not really part of the os. Well I ask is the 'chdir' command really part of the linux os (pick your flavor)? Is it absolutly needed? No there are other ways to navigate the file structure. So why is it there? Its just taking up space! Oh my gawd we should get rid of it. How dare they give me chdir. I am very sure many shell scripts would simply stop working if that command suddely disappeared. My point is do not confuse what is put along with the OS to make the OS more usable to what the OS really needs. MS sees IEXPLORER.EXE as adding a value to the OS. A way to give the customers that demanded a browser be put in.
Re:have that version... by Kaiwen · 2002-03-31 14:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

from a legal standpoint I don't see why Windows has to change in this regard
Because Windows is an adjudicated monopoly. Legally, there is a different set of rules for MS now.
Re:have that version... by lazarius · 2002-03-31 14:27 · Score: 1

We as an industry demanded it of MS to do exactly what they did. Put the browser in the OS. But you all are saying its not really part of the os. Well I ask is the 'chdir' command really part of the linux os (pick your flavor)? Is it absolutly needed? No there are other ways to navigate the file structure. So why is it there? Its just taking up space! Oh my gawd we should get rid of it. How dare they give me chdir. I am very sure many shell scripts would simply stop working if that command suddely disappeared. My point is do not confuse what is put along with the OS to make the OS more usable to what the OS really needs. MS sees IEXPLORER.EXE as adding a value to the OS. A way to give the customers that demanded a browser be put in.

The difference is that they claim that IEXPLORER.EXE is not removable from the system - it is. Just as chdir (cd?) is .. the OS really is just the kernel and everything else is added on (Linux is the Kernel ... everything else makes it usable). I admit that it is silly to get them to remove the various DLLs that contain the HTML renderer (shouldn't it be just html.dll?) but you break way more than the apps that use HTML if you did, unlike if you remove chdir - only the ones that use it.

In short... there is no Linux comparison to MS not being able to remove the HTML renderer component. It should be a separate component that could be installable (& probably default too), just like Nautilus & Konquerer are for GNOME and KDE, but the computer doesn't stop working if you take those out - just the respective desktops.

MIKE

--
Beware the JabberOrk.
Re:have that version... by himi · 2002-03-31 15:12 · Score: 2

The idea behind statically linking the HTML engine is that then the library doesn't have to be distributed, nor does the app rely on having the library available. If you're trying to avoid extra dependencies, this is perfectly reasonable.

As for who cares if IE is in windows . . . How about, say, Netscape, who lost their commercial market because MS started dumping IE?

himi

--

My very own DeCSS mirror.
Re:have that version... by tshak · 2002-03-31 15:16 · Score: 1

Legally, there is a different set of rules for MS now.

True, and as long as those rules are aimed at bettering the product for the consumer, and not aimed at hurting MS, I'm all for it. Personally, I'm more for the OS X approach, where things are less integrated. I just think there's much bigger legal fish to fry (like OEM strongarming, for example).

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:have that version... by tshak · 2002-03-31 15:29 · Score: 2

Your post is +5 Insightful but it is void of any fact and full of pure speculation. MS does want new customers - badly. I personally know a lot of MS employees (actually, I'll be on campus next week). Apple has a HUGE percentage of the "new computer user" marketshare - and that's still a big market. People think XP was just to copy OS X, but in reality, the motivation was to make computing more attractive to those without a computer. Apple is gaining marketshare, and so is Linux.

They commited extortion to prevent computer manufacturers from providing competing Operating Systems, Web Browsers, or Audio/Video viewers.

Okay, this actually does have some fact to it, so I take some of my first statement back. As far as OS's go, MS's OEM issues are anticompetive. However, the rest of this statement is hogwash. As I've preached time and time again, Communicator 4 sucked, IE 4 didn't. Plain and simple. And guess what, I still have choice. My choice is to use IE, and sometimes Opera because if it's great speed. Apple includes Quicktime and iMovie, MS includes Media Player. Again, value added to the customer. Should MS remove their defragger so that Norton has a better chance selling Speed Disk? Ludicrous. Again, I'm not saying that MS didn't break the law, but I think as a business, and even as a monopoly, they should be able to add value to their OS as long as the price does not get abused (meaning they essentially charge you for the "free" add ons).

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 16:00 · Score: 0

Where can I find the documentation for how to write my own front-end to the IE code in Windows?
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 16:24 · Score: 0

Perhaps:

a) Felton didn't really "remove" it, only "hide" IE
b) The video was poorly edited, but the results it displayed were proven to be valid to the court by being repeated.
c) You never question the information you are fed, unless it suits your preconcieved notions.
Re:have that version... by Alsee · 2002-03-31 16:26 · Score: 2

Putting help files in HTML format is fine. But that has NOTHING to do with Internet Explorer. Unless Microsoft intentionally sabotages the HTML, it would work perfectly fine with another browser.

The only reason IE is an "integrated" part of the operating system it because Microsoft went out of their way to make IE hard to remove and to make any competing program incompatible.

And they want to use this as in their favor in a criminal monopoly case.

iexplor.exe is not even bigger than 100k.
Chuckle. Telnet.exe is 110k, and IE is about a hundred times more complicated. The reason IEXPLORE.EXE is 68k is that they scattered the rest of it all over the place to make it hard to remove.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:have that version... by Danse · 2002-03-31 17:15 · Score: 2

Microsoft isn't the only company that does fucked-up things. Human nature is to fuck up and be mean to your fellow human.

And when you take it to a certain point, the government steps in and smacks your ass down. Unless, of course, you've contributed enough money to keep them on your side.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:have that version... by dannannan · 2002-03-31 17:21 · Score: 1

Microsoft has no motivation to get new customers. Being a monopoly, they already have virtally all of them. Their motivation is to earn more proffits off of their existing customers.
Microsoft is always looking for new customers. Since Microsoft sells a shrink-wrapped product and charges a one time fee, as opposed to charging for an ongoing service, one of Microsoft's biggest competitors is Microsoft. Every Windows 98 user is a potential Windows XP customer.
Microsoft knows that browsing the web and viewing media are basic functionalities that the majority of users expect from their computer. Better integration of features like IE and Media Player into Windows are some of the key selling points of recent versions of Windows. Take a Windows 98 user who often listens to music and watches video clips on their computer, tell them that Windows XP is "better" since the Media Player is more integrated, and you've got your foot in the door for a sale.
I tend to agree with the principle behind Occam's Razor, which is that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.
D
Re:have that version... by Danse · 2002-03-31 17:22 · Score: 2

True, and as long as those rules are aimed at bettering the product for the consumer, and not aimed at hurting MS, I'm all for it.

The goal of the remedies phase is to pave the way for the restoration of competition to the relevant market(s). If this involves "harming" Microsoft, then so be it. It has already been established by the court, and confirmed by the appeals court that Microsoft gained financially through illegal tactics. If you steal money, they don't let you keep it. Same principle applies here. It's expected that the remedy should be something that Microsoft will find quite unappealing. But it will probably be necessary in order to level the playing field so that others will have a chance at gaining marketshare again.

That said, I think the states are being complete idiots about this. They should focus on opening up the APIs, protocols, and file formats. They should be ensuring that Microsoft is not allowed to use its monopoly to coerce OEMs and others into offering Microsoft's products exclusively or to offer incentives (or disincentives) to them to not promote competitor's products. Right now the states are making fools of themselves and turning this case into a joke. We're all gonna lose (well, all except Microsoft) if they don't pull their heads out of their asses real quick and do the smart thing. Somehow I'm not too optimistic about our chances.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:have that version... by Alsee · 2002-03-31 18:46 · Score: 2

full of pure speculation.

If you want to call my descriptions of their motivations speculation, that's ok. It was just a good way to simplify things.

If Microsoft was giving away IE just "to add value to their OS", then why have they been forcing it on OEM's? Making it hard to remove? Sabotaging other browsers? Making expensive alliances to get compainies like AOL to use nothing but IE? Why care about market share at all if it's a give-away value add? Microsoft wants to earn revenue by controlling the "Internet Gateway".

Same goes for Media Player. If it's a freebie for value-add, why make it incompatible? Why make it hard to remove? Why force it on OEM's? They had to work to create incompatible formats. The reason is that they are trying to push "Secure Audio Path (SAP)" and other DRM crap. Nothing will work with SAP without Microsoft's approval and cryptographic signature. Microsoft wants to earn revenue by controlling the "Media Gateway".

MS does want new customers - badly.

Sure they'd like to go from 92% to 100%, but it is a matter of simple math. They can try to earn $100 per person from 8% (selling someone new a copy of Windows), or they can try to earn $10 per person creating a new revenue stream from the 92% who already use Windows. They have more profit potential from existing users than new customers. (Or better yet pressure customers to upgrade for another $100, even if they don't really want to.)

They also need to maintain molopoly saturation in order to impose new revenue streams. There is zero chance consumers will choose crap like Secure Audio Path without it being imposed by (A) a monopoly or (B) it being imposed by congress.

Capitalism is a good and successful system because competition kills off any practice that is not in the customer's best interest. Microsoft's actions have been in Microsoft's best intrest, but not in the customer's best interest. Harming people for your own benefit is a pretty good definition of evil.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:have that version... by Alsee · 2002-03-31 18:56 · Score: 1

Take a look at this post. My reply to someone else happens to address your point perfectly.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:have that version... by AME · 2002-03-31 19:03 · Score: 1

Anonymous Coward: Microsoft astroturfing Slashdot login.

--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Re:have that version... by Queer+Boy · 2002-03-31 19:17 · Score: 1

Amiga, BeOS ... Unix, Sega Saturn
Which, all together had a combined marketshare of -- what, 0.5%? Now there's a piece of pie worth chasing.

Alternative operating systems are rarely (if ever) calculated in market share. Analysts calculate market share by how many computers are shipped (not sold) with a certain OS, and how many copies of an OS are actually sold.
Looking at it now, it certainly seems appealing to have sold your product to people that would have bought it instead of begging people to take it for free. Netscape is over and gone, I guess they were chasing the wrong pie. You certainly don't get bought out and put on the back burner because you are the most profitable (AOL bought Netscape for its enterprise software, not the browser).
Linux
Umm, dude. Netscape does make a version for Linux.

Maybe you should re-read my post, I said, "at the time". Meaning when Netscape still existed as a company, and not an orphaned division of AOL/TWX.

--
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 20:03 · Score: 0

"But Netscape thrived because they were able to build strategic relationships with large companies"

Wasn't that in fact the model they tried to pursue and failed.
Re:have that version... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 20:05 · Score: 0

Ah Yes, labeling someone an astroturfer or a troll trumps all arguments regardless of their merits.
Re:have that version... by spectecjr · 2002-04-01 04:54 · Score: 2

Where can I find the documentation for how to write my own front-end to the IE code in Windows?

http://msdn.microsoft.com. Look in the Internet Technologies / Internet SDK section for shdocvw.dll

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:have that version... by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 16:02 · Score: 2

Have it occured to you to look at the *size* of those help files? Often enough, it's the time that takes to load the file that takes most of the time, not the processing time.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:have that version... by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 16:05 · Score: 2

In that case, please define what *is* IE?
Are you talking about the Desktop Icon?
Or perhaps the executable? c:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE it less than 90Kb on 6.0
Or would deleting the directory c:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\ satisfy you?
All of those are perfectly possible, but they wouldn't get rid of IE as most people sees it.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:have that version... by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 16:29 · Score: 2

A> What you describe is *exactly* what is going on, in case you didn't know.
You want proof? Take a look at this browser: http://www.netcaptor.com/
Basically, IE with tabbed browsing.
Here is an MDI IE, as well as numerous privacy features:
http://www.smarteque.com/
Here is another one, with a different look and offering channeled browsing:
http://www.neoplanet.com/

All of the above cost money, if it's of any interest to you.
To note, it's not exactly a 64KB exe, there are some IE Browser spesific stuff, but it's very small none-the-less.

The use of the IE control is free of charge, BTW, so all of the above don't pay royality for MS.

B> If Compaq wants to offer a browser just like IE, but with different icon, logo, bookmarks & homepage, it doesn't need to write a single line of code.
Internet Exploerer Administration Kit
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ieak/default .asp

The kit, and the resulting package, are completely free to use.

So they got you there.

And, just to note, that was the case since roughyl IE 3, or so.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:have that version... by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 17:04 · Score: 2

> Does the start bar suck?

http://www.stardock.com/products/objectbar/
htt p://www.winstep.net/default.asp?cat=nextstart
htt p://momsoft.pair.com/momshl32.htm

> Same for explorer

http://www.neoplanet.com/
http://www.smarteque. com/
http://www.netcaptor.com/

> The command line shell

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/chaudhis/pompous/ ho mepage/facelift/
http://www.vandyke.com/products/ vshell/
http://www.bayden.com/SlickRun/
ftp://ft p.blarg.net/users/amol/tcsh
http://www.tardis.ed. ac.uk/~skx/win/bash-203.zip

Anything else you desire?
Windows is *extemely* modular.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:have that version... by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 17:44 · Score: 2

MS offered to pulled IEXplorer & the icon, the judge wanted all of it put out of the system.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:have that version... by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 17:58 · Score: 2

I forgot to mention, the HTML component can be removed, the problem is that a *lot* of programs are using it.
Including many MS programs.
You can have a Windows which is just the kernel & shell, that isn't very hard to do, the problem is that there are less than 1000 programs for NT proper.
And all of them are usually administration stuff.
Nothing that can be of any use.

Not a single Win32 program would run on it.

If you add Win32 subsystem, then you get much better support, but you still get a lot of missing stuff.
A *lot* of programs assume that the other components will be there. From the shell (All the SH* API) to IE (to Wininet.h function).

How do you upload a file programtically to FTP site on Linux?
Is there a standard way? What happen if you remove it? How many stuff would break?

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Microsoft would rather die. by bogado · 2002-03-31 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is how it destroys other companies that are menacing them, why do you think they would abandon such power?

Even if this would become true, I would think that something fish would be hidden in this "striped down" version.

--
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

^[:wq

Re:Microsoft would rather die. by jelle · 2002-03-31 11:16 · Score: 2

"I would think that something fish would be hidden in this "striped down" version."

That sounds, scary, they could just _fabricate_ a stripped down version that's slower and crashes a lot. And then say 'told you so'.

Umm, but maybe they don't need to do anything special to achieve a slow unstable OS anyway.

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.

Isn't that what they said the first time around by tzanger · 2002-03-31 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know, with IE; they said it couldn't be removed and it was proven trivial.

I understand (and appreciate) the use of HTML for windows help; however there isn't anything you can't do in the help by using [JA]Script and CSS, and aside from ActiveX, that isn't anything that any other browser couldn't provide. And as far as WMP is concerned I don't see the issue; MP3/WAV/whatever can be played by lots of things. Window Media files may need WMP, but that's not monopolistic.

Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Surely whether it's hard or not it's M$'s problem and for them to sort out.

"Obeying the law is pretty tricky" is would hardly stand up in any other situation.
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by macpeep · 2002-03-31 02:47 · Score: 2

"I understand (and appreciate) the use of HTML for windows help; however there isn't anything you can't do in the help by using [JA]Script and CSS, and aside from ActiveX, that isn't anything that any other browser couldn't provide"

Yes, there is. Being able to embed the browser component into applications, just like it's any another widget. You can do that with Mozilla now, but not with Netscape 4.x.
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by arkanes · 2002-03-31 03:18 · Score: 2

Thats an activeX control, not part of the OS. The problem is that the DLLs that are linked to that control ALSO contain important OS functionality, like the file manager. There is no reason whatsoever that these functions should share the same DLLs.
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by Rayder · 2002-03-31 04:10 · Score: 1

Maybe it's not monopolistic NOW!, but wait just a few years, they will do the same with WMP that already have done with IE. You will see messages like "WMP 9.x is needed to play those mp3, avi, etc...".
WMP is the foundation for a future monopoly (or at least a strong holder) in the content and entertainment industries. The X-Box is just another way to hold the same market.
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by keefebert · 2002-03-31 04:32 · Score: 1

I don't really think wmp can become a standard such as IE is. The bottom line is that there are 3 major competitors, 2 of which make better software (Wuicktime and Real Player). Plus, mp3s are so basic that an essential mp3 will be able to play on any mp3 player, just like a basic HTML page can be viewed in any browser. If Netscape was good (which I strongly believe it is not) and Opera was better marketed, then IE would not be as much of a Force as it is now. It was the poor performance of other companies that put IE where it is, despite the idea that it was Microsft bullying everyone out.
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by dimator · 2002-03-31 09:24 · Score: 2

I remember reading a news story about this, a long while ago. It reported of an engineer at MS sending multiple emails to his supervisors and peers, asking why this mixing of code was going on. Why should file management code be in the same shared library as, say, HTML processing?

Pretty sad when political motives replace good engineering practices.

--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by dimator · 2002-03-31 09:41 · Score: 1

I've never met anyone that didn't think Real Player was a bloated POS. It has grown in size steadily for years, it's slow, and it's got so many buttons and tabs now, you can't tell what's what.

--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by overturf · 2002-03-31 11:04 · Score: 1

2 of which make better software (Wuicktime and Real Player)

You have got to be kidding me... Have you ever actually *USED* Real Player??
Re:Isn't that what they said the first time around by keefebert · 2002-03-31 15:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, was kinda rushed when I typed that. Real Player does suck (notice the typo), and I forgot I said they made better software. What I meant was that they were an alternative that many people use. Sorry about the confusion.

Declawing? by CmdrStkFjta · 2002-03-31 02:07 · Score: 0

Neuter them also so as not to create any offspring.

--

*SRU

Please stop this /. by gamorck · 2002-03-31 02:07 · Score: 0, Interesting

Guys,

We understand that you do not like Microsoft or any of their products. You do not have to keep filling the daily "Anti Microsoft Story" quota to prove this to us.

Stop embrassasing yourselves and start reporting on ideas and events that would actually be considered news by the most of us. We all know Windows in modular and Microsoft is full of it (just look at embedded Windows XP) - but it would be a support nightmare.

Thanks,

J

--
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.

Re:Please stop this /. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:11 · Score: 0

>Stop embrassasing yourselves and start reporting on ideas and events
>that would actually be considered news by the most of us. We all know
>Windows in modular and Microsoft is full of it (just look at embedded
>Windows XP) - but it would be a support nightmare.
>
>
Was the basic design of Windows for WorkGroups 3.11 a support nightmare? No it wasn't. And it's basically what being talked about here. Packard Bell and others had some very nice modular systems based around WGFW 3.11. They came with their own Graphical "Shells" and you could actually remove things you didn't want from the system.
Re:Please stop this /. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:55 · Score: 1, Informative
Anyone who does not find the microsoft stories interesting has the power at any moment to do the following:
- Go to your User Info page and go to the "Home Page" preferences tab.
- Scroll to "exclude stories from the homepage", and check the box labelled "microsoft".
- Click the "Save" button.
See? Now wasn't that *easy*? Slashdot has these features built in for a reason.
Microsoft is the world's most powerful software company, the things they do affect everyone in the industry directly or indriectly, and some of us wish to know what the latest developments in attempts to declaw them are, even if this means occationally having to scroll past microsoft-related articles that do not interest us. Deal.

Design? by russianspy · 2002-03-31 02:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm just graduating from Computing Science. I guess I do not know a lot about the "REAL WORLD".
Isn't it a mark of a good design when a system is modular? I mean, if one component needs to be replaced/rewritter you just rewrite that one component and be done with it. I can't even think that a project the size of Windows, IE, Media Plaer combined as a spaghetti code could even run.
Is it just me, or does it seem tha Microsoft is PROUD of the fact that they do not have a design?

Re:Design? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:15 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Well maybe things are a little more complex than that. Dont take everything at face value. Thats your first lesson for joining the "REAL WORLD".
Re:Design? by jmb-d · 2002-03-31 02:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Isn't it a mark of a good design when a system is modular?

From a code design standpoint, yes.

From a business standpoint, assuming that your business model depends upon absolute control of the whole shebang, no.

--
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
Re:Design? by fatgraham · 2002-03-31 02:53 · Score: 1

"Isn't it a mark of a good design when a system is modular?"

when its only modular with your own products perhaps
Re:Design? by WildBeast · 2002-03-31 02:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

hmmm, Linus doesn't think that designing software is the way to go : "the people who think you "design" software are seriously simplifying the issue, and don't actually realize how they themselves work. "

http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/01 12 .0/0004.html
Re:Design? by jejones · 2002-03-31 02:59 · Score: 2

You're right. Saying Windows was not designed in a modular fashion is saying that Windows was not competently designed.
What I don't understand is the Rob Enderle quote--surely one of the points of modularity is to avoid replicated code.
Re:Design? by p3d0 · 2002-03-31 03:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, modular software is better. However, good luck finding any in the Real World. People think modularity has to be this heaviweight headache like COM or CORBA, or perhaps Java.

I think it is not widely understood that modularity can be fine-grained and pervasive while still being efficient, especially if it is done in such a way that module boundaries can be optimized away (eg. through inlining) at compile time.

(Incidentally, speaking of inlining, gcc is actually a pretty good compiler to use if you want to take this approach. It has great inlining facilities, which makes up for its lackluster optimization capabilities. I had a system I wrote using fine-grained modularity that relied very heavily on inlining for performance. When I moved from gcc to icc (Intel's own C compiler) it became about ten times slower, even after some fairly careful tweaking of icc's command line options. The difference was that icc simply refused to inline most of my function calls for a variety of reasons.)

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:Design? by JamesOfTheDesert · 2002-03-31 03:32 · Score: 3, Informative

I mean, if one component needs to be replaced/rewritter you just rewrite that one component and be done with it.
That is how Windows works. The argument from MSFT is not that components can't be *replaced*, but that they can't *removed*. In theory, you could find the DLL responsible for HTML rendering, rewrite it, and replace it. You would need to duplicate the API and maintain binary compatability (which COM lets you do), but it's certainly possible. (It's the basis of DLL Hell.) But you can't just yank out DLLs which provide comon functions to multiple applications.

--

Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Re:Design? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:41 · Score: 0

It depends on your outlook I suppose. If you're a company that wants to dominate -all- the computer markets, your best bet is to combine most of the products you need to compete with into -one- product; and, better yet, make it so that one component of that product requires the other, so without (supposed, not actual existing) trouble, you cannot split those competing products apart from one another.
Re:Design? by J.+J.+Ramsey · 2002-03-31 03:48 · Score: 2

"the people who think you "design" software are seriously simplifying the issue, and don't actually realize how they themselves work."

True, but people often work by breaking down a problem into pieces that they can understand and hold in their head. Unix itself, while as much a product of evolution as intentional design, is very modular: it's all in seperate pieces, loosely integrated. The shell is a separate module, the underlying low-level foundation for the GUI, namely X, is a module, and window managers and toolkits are modules on top of that.
Re:Design? by IDIIAMOTS · 2002-03-31 04:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not defending Microsoft and I'll admit that while I use their products I have quite a few gripes about the general state of Windows.

However, much like you I too have just recently made a transition from idialistic world of CS to the real world of software industry. I'd like to present a different take on situation if you'll bear with me, one offered without wearing the pink-engineering-my-product-must-be-perfection-ise lf glasses.

Over the years Microsoft has built up Windows into a commodity product (no glib remarks about marketing, please). The truth is, when the user buys a computer, I'm talking about an end-user purchasing a desktop system and not a server, they are purchasing an experience. The ability to write letters, check e-mail, listen to music, make home videos. How the machine helps them achieve these tasks is irrelevant. Right now, Windows plus some office suite (Works or Office) cover 90% of everything majority of users wish to do on their machine.

Now let's take a look at the OEMs. They ship machines with 90% of MS software, and while the OEM is responsible for the support of the system, they know that by having an all-Microsoft cast on the system they are assured interoperability. The OEM, thus, is not in the business of working the kinks out of their particular "distribution" of "computer usage experience". While the users may think of buying a "Dell" or "Gateway", who do they bash when their machines become finicky? Why Microsoft of course. There's a single point of blame in the industry.

If Windows on the desktop were to become modular, someone will have to pick up the resonsibility for ensuring consistent user experience and compatibility of middleware. Since modularizing Windows would mainly benefit vendors and through them users, it seems obvious that it is the OEM that should be assigned with such responsibility. Would Dell and Gateway really accept a new paragraph in their job description with profit margin being as thin as they are now? Call me a cynic, but I think in the end Microsoft will be stuck with this job. Moreover, the stigma of "I bought a Dell but it's Microsoft I blame" will hardly go away immediately once modularized Windows with 3-rd party middleware systems start shipping.

So in the end Microsoft ends up with extra chores, which IMHO are not their concern, even as a punishment, dilution of their brand image by products that are out of their influence (and they truly are, as any attempt to bring misbehaving 3-rd party vendor would surely be interpreted as anti-trust violation). No surprise they are opposed to this particular remedy, monopoly non-withstanding.
Re:Design? by tshak · 2002-03-31 04:17 · Score: 2

You are right from a CS standpoint. What a lot of people (especially anti-MS people) don't get is the fact that MS is talking from more of a market-driven standpoint. A lot of MS's technologies actually rely on the IE engine. They have no reason to remove or rewrite all of these features in their OS (not to mention all of the 3rd party programs that rely on it as well). Actually, the core engine of IE _IS_ actually very modular. With a few lines of code I can slap the engine into any of my apps. Programs that claim to "remove" IE from your system actually remove small parts of IE, not the core engine.

In theory, they could easily remove IE "the browser", while leaving the browser engine for programs and features that rely on it. But then I have to ask, why? IE was way more popular then Netscape way before this whole integration crap came about (NSCommunicator sucked anyway). Opera wasn't around to really compete, and Mozilla wasn't that active either. Plus, Opera, a great browser, is currently gaining marketshare in what's supposedly an anti-competitive marketplace. I think the only thing that's been anti-competitive in the browser market is sub-par browsers trying to compete with IE. Within the last year this has really changed, and IE has been slowly loosing it's share (esp. in Europe).

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:Design? by Cenam · 2002-03-31 04:52 · Score: 0

modular code is like communism, it's good in theory but a nightmare in practice.

--

The Truth: There is no string:)
Re:Design? by zaffir · 2002-03-31 04:59 · Score: 1

The main components of Windows are modular. Meaning, you can upgrade IE, WMP, and MSN Messenger just fine. But take them out and MS claims that the OS becomes neutered. I don't believe it.

--
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
Re:Design? by Erratio · 2002-03-31 05:04 · Score: 1

I can't even think that a project the size of Windows, IE, Media Plaer combined as a spaghetti code could even run.

Or maybe it would just have problems like crashing every day or something :-P.

The concept of them not being able to remove some of the programs is BS. Even if the entire OS is built around the libraries for those programs it doesn't mean the actual programs have to remain. They're just trying to play off their own power and people's ignorance but there's too much attention on them for them to get away with it, so in the long run they're just playing off their own arrogance.

--
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think
Re:Design? by PrimeEnd · 2002-03-31 05:06 · Score: 1

Modularity is a mark of good design if your programming objective is robustness and easy maintenance. If your objective is preserving a monopoly it is a poor design.
There is no technical reason that the Apple UI could not be used with Windows. It is not possible because neither Apple nor Microsoft want it to be possible.
Re:Design? by letxa2000 · 2002-03-31 05:33 · Score: 2

Do you actually code? My experience has been exactly the opposite. Anything but modular code is a maintenance nightmare.
Re:Design? by TheConfusedOne · 2002-03-31 05:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, let's take a loot at the OEM's.

Microsoft has reduced them to mere box pushers. Over the years, MS has removed every option that the OEM's have had to customize their offerings. When OEM's tried to go their own way MS threatened to remove their licenses for "dilluting the Windows trademark". Compaq wanted to offer Netscape. IBM wanted to offer SmartSuite and OS/2 dual boots. Other companies created their own custom GUI overlays. MS deliberately and systematically shut them all down.

So, Microsoft removed customization, they welded IE into Windows in an attempt to make it irremovable. Maybe they even succeeded.

The problem is that all of these actions were done solely to maintain or increase their monopoly. These actions weren't undertaken to make a better product. Since these actions have been deemed illegal and anticompetitive, then too bad if it's difficult to undo them.

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Re:Design? by 0x0d0a · 2002-03-31 05:54 · Score: 1

I have to agree. The "it would be difficult" argument doesn't hold any water. MS knew what they were doing when they were doing it, and knew that they might get into this position, and are gambling on the fact that the difficulty they've created is enough to buy them the right to demodularize everything.

They went into this with both eyes open, and they're going to have to pay for it.

--
May we never see th
Re:Design? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:15 · Score: 0, Interesting

Yes, let's take a loot at the OEM's.
Microsoft has reduced them to mere box pushers.

Well to be fair, Microsoft offered them a deal to become mere box pushers in return for 0 control over the OS, and the OEMs gladly took them up on their deal. (Well, they actually chose long-term slavery to Microsoft over short-term slavery to IBM.) For an industry that prides themselves on making "Clones", what do you expect?

Some of these guys have second source requirements in their contracts with Intel, and those arrangements have allowed AMD to thrive and create a competitive CPU market. Yet for the other major component, the OS, they were more than happy to put a single source provider in charge.

So, I'm having trouble feeling sorry for them. Their strategy of taking commodity parts and sticking a commodity OS (Windows) on top and then providing "value" with some logo bitmaps and shareware is pure drek that any consumer could see through. They mutter here and there, but they are still wetting their pants and signing every contract whenever the next great Windows XMe 2003 is about to ship.
Re:Design? by Some+Dumbass... · 2002-03-31 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now let's take a look at the OEMs. They ship machines with 90% of MS software, and while the OEM is responsible for the support of the system, they know that by having an all-Microsoft cast on the system they are assured interoperability. The OEM, thus, is not in the business of working the kinks out of their particular "distribution" of "computer usage experience". While the users may think of buying a "Dell" or "Gateway", who do they bash when their machines become finicky? Why Microsoft of course. There's a single point of blame in the industry.

"Distribution". Linux has distributions. There's a core set of code, and lots of companies and organizations (RedHat, SUSE, Debian, etc.) have sprung up to turn that code into a good user experience (aka a "Distribution").

Perhaps if MS offered a stripped-down Windows, something similar would happen. "Pure" Windows might be hard to use (or not), but with Company X's "Windows Enhancement Pack", things would get a lot easier. OEMs buy enhancement packs from Company X, and all is well.

Before you point out that this could lead to incompatibities among distos (as with Linux now), note that there's still a single company controlling the core Windows code. They could enforce standardization in several ways. For example, instead of a single mandatory web browser, they could have a "web browser integration" API (like KDE does, I think?) 3rd party browsers would have to either be compliant to this API or, well, be non-compliant and suffer the consequences, such as functionality not working, being labelled "non-compliant" by the press, and so on.
Re:Design? by mpe · 2002-03-31 07:30 · Score: 2

Saying Windows was not designed in a modular fashion is saying that Windows was not competently designed.

The thing about Windows is that lack of modularity appears to be deliberate in some cases...
Re:Design? by crudeboy · 2002-03-31 07:44 · Score: 1

Modular design is nice but monolithic design has it's uses too. It all depends on what you ultimate goal is.
Re:Design? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 10:10 · Score: 0

Well, you could argue that Unix was "designed" according to software engineering principles, but there were plenty of market forces arising out of it's particular licensing situation that affected the final outcome. For example the X11/Toolkit schism was very deliberate so that vendors could use a commodity protocol layer (X11) while adding value with a proprietary user interface (CDE and predecessors). However, being 'overly' modular in that way forced the vendors to hammer out standards in such a way not required of a single vendor OS. Windows required IE in the same way that Unix requires a shell - however the behavior of that shell has been speced down to the last detail, something which will never be true of IE.
Re:Design? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 10:15 · Score: 0

"But then I have to ask, why?"

Why not ask "Why not?" -- If some vendor wants to ship a bizarro version of Windows to meet some market segment, good for them. Why shouldn't Microsoft sell it to them instead of threating to cut off all their Windows licencing?

The overall market forces strongly encourage standardized versions of Windows. MS is just acting outrageous to keep the little oem bitches in their place.
Re:Design? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2002-03-31 11:20 · Score: 2

Isn't it a mark of a good design when a system is modular?
[...]

From a business standpoint, assuming that your business model depends upon absolute control of the whole shebang, no.

What complete and utter crap. You cannot possibly have any real control of any large project without a systematic and modular organisation. If you tell me that a company the size of Microsoft has survived around two decades and shipped a number of projects on the scale of Windows and Office, and then tell me that they do not use such systematic organisation, then you are a liar.

(Actually, people who've been inside Microsoft and then commented to the outside world note that, for all the criticism they receive, their code and business processes are actually pretty well designed and implemented. They're still here after all this time for a reason, and it's not entirely a great marketting department and expensive lawyers.)

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Design? by Tony · 2002-03-31 11:41 · Score: 2

Yes! You are absolutely correct. And, while we're at it, let's have only one construction company (Tony's Houses) build houses, so the "user experience" of home-owning will be consistent. Further, let's make it so the home can only accomodate Tony's Houses refrigerators, ovens, and furniture.

The driveway should only accomodate Tony's Vehicles, too, since I would *hate* to think some third-party vehicle might "crash" into the house.

The OS should have *nothing* to do with applications. The OS should provide a common framework, and make it easy for applications to interoperate; it should not require the OS maker also make the applications. This is the hallmark of a terrible design, and a poor OS. Your claims are nothing but apologist rhetoric to rationalize Microsoft's monopolistic practices.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Re:Design? by Cuthalion · 2002-03-31 11:56 · Score: 1

It's not the actual 900K (iexplore.exe) or 500K (wmplayer.exe) exes that anyone cares about. The majority of what is Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player resides in reusable components. These exes are basically just user interfaces for instantiating, controlling, and configuring those components. When people are talking about removing Internet Explorer they're not talking about removing iexplore.exe. Doing that is about equivalent to setting your default browser to Netscape, which you already can do.

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Re:Design? by Erratio · 2002-03-31 12:45 · Score: 1

I'd think that if they removed the presence of the components enough so as not to be noticable or interfere with competing products that it would satisfy some of the issues. Possibly to the point of creating DLL's and so forth which contain only the resources required to allow other things to run. The presence of these programs in the background may be an annoyance and probably not the best way to do these things, but their immediately noticable integration into the operating system, and user's direct interface with them is what's furthering Microsoft's monopoly. If you were the average computer user why would you use Netscape if IE was already sitting there?

--
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think
Re:Design? by Dave_bsr · 2002-03-31 13:56 · Score: 1

Hey tony, when you gonna start building? I need a new "experience," my old house just up and collapsed yesterday, I think the integrated car exploded and that took down the whole building.

Good post man, good post.

--

Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Re:Design? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 14:29 · Score: 0

So what. Most of the OEM's put pure crap with the os. When HD's were smaller they would come 1/4th full of this crapola. Most people I helped with these machines had no clue/care that it came with netscape web browser or IE. All they saw was the 'internet doesnt work', or its 'slow'. People didnt care what the experince was. They bought the computer so they could have one. So they could 'learn computers'. And if anything went wrong who did they call first? Either the people who sold them the computer or MS. MS saw their help center cost going up. Like any good busness shut down something that was COSTING them money. The OEM's GLADLY did it for a break on cost, plus they remove the cost of having to support that stuff as well. If you think DELL or Gateway pay 200 bucks for XP your dreaming. They probably pay more like 15-30 bucks a copy... MS has always been willing to customize things, but at a price. And if the OEM's are unwilling to pony up a few bucks to have the OS customized then I have no tears to shed for them...
Re:Design? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 14:31 · Score: 0

can I have Tony neigbors to go with that. I dont like mine.
Re:Design? by TheConfusedOne · 2002-03-31 15:43 · Score: 2

Two major flaws with your argument:
1) Microsoft does NOT provide tech support for OEM versions of Windows. That is the responsiblity of the OEM
2) If OEM's were so gosh-darn "glad" to accept MS's terms then why did MS have to directly threaten OEM's to get their way? Look at the trial transcripts. Look at how MS treated IBM and Compaq. Yeah, those OEM's "gladly" knuckled under.

There's an interesting point in your post though, you say people "had no clue/care that it came with netscape web browser of IE". So, the consumer didn't care and could thus view either product as substitutable. This is exactly what Microsoft feared and exactly why they illegally used anti-competitive contracts to foreclose Netscape and drive them out of the market as far as they could.

Back when MS forced the OEM's to use a "standard Window's desktop" many OEM's complained that it would drive up their support costs. They felt that by adding their own customized components they could create a computer that was friendlier to use. Since the OEM's have to bear the cost of the support why aren't they allowed to make changes that they think will lower their costs?

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.

M$ bashing 101 by minusthink · 2002-03-31 02:10 · Score: 2, Redundant

"Microsoft defends the solution by remarking Windows was not designed to be a modular system, and the current operating system is highly dependant on core technologies like IE and Windows Media Player. Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare."

While keeping the coretechnologies in would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare.

=\

Sorry.

--
"when life gets complicated, I like to take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner" - Hobbes.

Re:M$ bashing 101 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 17:55 · Score: 0

I like how this is modded redundant when it's the 6th post.

once again the moderators amaze me.

Not modular? by Bloody+Bastard · 2002-03-31 02:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I doubt Windows is not modular (at least a little bit). They are using the microkernel concept since WinNT (a very small kernel and "servers" for the more advanced features) and dynamic libraries for most of the code (I think).

Maybe they can arguee they cannot strip some stuff because of dependencies. I am not a Windows expert, but it seems they won't go too far away with those claims.

But it is always nice to hear from M$ they don't know how to build a operating system =)

Re:Not modular? by crawling_chaos · 2002-03-31 02:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, they've at least partially abandoned the microkernel since NT 4.0. They couldn't get video performance to where they wanted it without having the video drivers bypass the HAL.
While this may make sense for a workstation and/or Playstation, it is idiotic for a server. It seems to me that they have enough profit to maintain a server version of the OS where a bad video call won't bring the entire freaking server down. Not to mention, why does my DB server need a web browser?!?!
And, no, I don't run X on any of *nix servers, although it is usually installed.

--
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Re:Not modular? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 05:22 · Score: 0

> I doubt Windows is not modular (at least a little bit). They are using the microkernel concept since WinNT (a very small kernel and "servers" for the more advanced features) and dynamic libraries for most of the code (I think).

Imagine that Microsoft were to take functionality that normally (by reasonable modular design) would be in separate DLLs, and spread that functionality out amongst many, many DLLs such that you can't simply remove one or two DLLs and the functionality is removed.

This would be a poor techincal design, but a GREAT business-driven design. MS knows full well how to build an OS to meet *whatever* design goals they have; what so many people here seem to ignore is that those business reasons are often much more important than the technical ones. People get confounded by MS OS designs because they keep thinking like technicians/engineers, not like business/marketing folks looking to maximize their market share and profits and using their products to that end.
Re:Not modular? by mpe · 2002-03-31 07:50 · Score: 2

It seems to me that they have enough profit to maintain a server version of the OS where a bad video call won't bring the entire freaking server down. Not to mention, why does my DB server need a web browser?!?!

Or even a sound card...
Plenty of servers don't even realistically need a high resolution video display either.
Re:Not modular? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 10:24 · Score: 0

Not to mention, why does my DB server need a web browser?!?!

DHTML flying logos on the setup screen!

Will this really work? by Schlopper · 2002-03-31 02:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Forcing Microsoft to produce a stripped-down version of the OS will not really benefit anyone, especially not the end-user. Having a choice of browsers and IM clients is one thing, forcing a company to strip down completely their OS is the wrong way of doing it.

It sounds to me that these states want to punish Microsoft for its practices (and I'm all for that), but they have no clue how to go about it.

Everyone says they want what's best for the end-user, yet I fail to see how a crippled OS will promote competition and benefit the end-user.

Re:Will this really work? by Neon_Mango · 2002-03-31 02:51 · Score: 1

I could have moded this, but I'd rather comment.

How will NOT making IE the default handler for URLS and HTML cripple the OS? How will NOT including MSN Messenger in the OS cripple it?

Microsoft is selling me an operating system, I have a fast connection and I can pull down the 2 - 3 MB install of MSN instant messenger if I want. If they want to integrate new features into their operating system maybe they should start with decent security features.
Maybe switching encryption algorithms for the Remote Desktop Protocal (Win2k and WinXP Termianl Services), from RC4 to AES or Blowfish. Or maybe they should stop wasting time with IM integration and build a mildly decent firewall into Windows 2000 Server. But hey, that would be hard and probably doesn't meet some end goal involving eating another market.
Re:Will this really work? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:16 · Score: 0

I don't think any of these changes would cripple the OS. But you're on to something. It won't help out the 'end user' or promote competition one bit.

Yes, that's right. You can download Netscape if you want. You can download ICQ, or AIM. You can download lots of alternatives, or even buy them in stores!

The fact is, people use Microsoft products because they believe they're good. In some cases, they're right. I've yet to see anything equal MS Office. In other cases, they're wrong. I'd hate to trust something mission critical to an MS operating system.

Of course, this is where the zealots scream that the 'end user' doesn't know how to download software, etc. That's really funny, because there's quite a few people who use some very popular programs that don't come bundled with 98/2k/XP/what have you.
Re:Will this really work? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:27 · Score: 0

"How will NOT making IE the default handler for URLS and HTML cripple the OS?"

One needs a standard base from which to make assumptions. Whether it's help files containing html or a file manager that uses the browser components. Also the initial question is a red herring seeing as the states want to strip out said software not reduce it's status to default.

"How will NOT including MSN Messenger in the OS cripple it?"

Messanging through MSN Instant Messaging was one of the key benefits cited in the ads I saw for Windows XP. It depicted people flying to the tune of Madonna's song Ray of Light. One clicks a friendly little button and off the message goes.

"Microsoft is selling me an operating system, I have a fast connection and I can pull down the 2 - 3 MB install of MSN instant messenger if I want."

You are in the minority of Windows users. They do offer the option as you must be aware from using Windows Update.

"If they want to integrate new features into their operating system maybe they should start with decent security features."

That will probably be the next step. Witness the basic firewall shipped in XP and driver signing as far back as 2000.

"Maybe switching encryption algorithms for the Remote Desktop Protocal (Win2k and WinXP Termianl Services), from RC4 to AES or Blowfish. Or maybe they should stop wasting time with IM integration and build a mildly decent firewall into Windows 2000 Server."

So lets get this straight you want them to bundle some apps but not others. This is because you who is likely not a mainstream Windows user have needs that MS has not yet scratched.

"But hey, that would be hard and probably doesn't meet some end goal involving eating another market."

Or catering to their present core market.

I'm quite thankful that you gave me the oppertunity to respond to your opinions and feelings on the issue instead of just modding the guy who started this thread down as a troll or some such.
Re:Will this really work? by Visionized · 2002-03-31 04:01 · Score: 1

Hmmmm.... Last time I checked, Suse and Mandrake had more than 10 times the crap that comes with Windows. Suse and Mandrake are *selling* me an operating system. I really don't see your point. Or rather I should say that your point is very hypicritical. Why is it OK for these Minux distros to do this but not MS?

I think the issue is wether or not MS allows other software to be put in the default installation, which they don't. And the biggie being that you can remove it all. Actually that is an over statement. The only thing you CAN'T remove is IE, pretty much everything else is removeable.

Many people also do not realize that you can change the Shell of Windows if you do not like it. Nothing forces you to use "explorer.exe". Check out sites like:

1. DarkStep Site

2. LiteStep

3. Windows Shell Replacements

You see, you do NOT have to use the stuff that MS ships, you can easily replace it if you so choose, just like a Suse or Mandrake distro.

Cal

--

/* Dammit Jim!!!! I'm a Doctor not a miracle worker! */
Re:Will this really work? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 04:59 · Score: 0

hmmmm... Last time I CHECKED Suse and Mandrake don't own any of those software packages that they are distributing. The OS is open source and can be repackaged into a new distribution by anyone. Who can in turn subtract or add any packages they want.

Microsoft on the other hand owns all of the software they are shipping with Windows. The OEM cannot add or subtract features because it is a proprietary system.

I would have no problems if Microsoft made their ADDITIONAL software available to OEMs apart from Windows. So that the OEMs could mix and match Microsoft and non Microsoft software at their choosing NOT Microsoft's.
Re:Will this really work? by skt · 2002-03-31 05:15 · Score: 2

Office isn't included in Windows, and so it's not even an issue here.

It's the applications like IE and WMP and that unzipping thing (in newer versions of Windows) that are under consideration here. I have to disagree with you that people think that these are "better", and that is why they use them. I believe that people use them because they are conveniently included with the computer that they buy. For applications like outlook express and IE, their use is also encouraged by ISPs.. maybe for the same reason.

example: When @home was around and visited your house for a cable modem install, one of the things they do is configure a web browser and a mail program. The browser is IE (actually a really ugly modification), and the mail program is Outlook Express. They might show you how to view webpages and send email with these programs if you didn't know, and that is what most customers would use. It's not that these two programs are better, it's just what "works" and is convenient.
Re:Will this really work? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 05:26 · Score: 0

> Forcing Microsoft to produce a stripped-down version of the OS will not really benefit anyone, especially not the end-user. Having a choice of browsers and IM clients is one thing, forcing a company to strip down completely their OS is the wrong way of doing it.

You've missed the point; the idea is not to sell that stripped-down OS to the final end user, but to allow the OEMs to decide for themselves what middleware products to add on to that minimal OS to make a final, sellable system. Maybe those middleware are Microsoft's, maybe not, maybe some OEMs offer both and the consumer uses whichever they want.

The idea is that the OEM gets to choose what software is installed on its PC products, not Microsoft. MS only makes one part of the end product, yet has an extraordinary say over that end product's contents. The states wish to change that, and I agree COMPLETELY.
Re:Will this really work? by lazarius · 2002-03-31 06:00 · Score: 1

Why is it OK for these Minux distros to do this but not MS?

Because Mdk, RedHat, SuSE etc. include options, choice, and so on. Probably every Linux installer has the "What packages do you want to install?" then lists thousands, each app having one or two alternate choices, usually with the same setup etc. so you could switch if you want to. (Ex: PINE, MUTT, KMail etc. all on RH7.2.92 -beauty distro - which all go to ~/Mail for the mail files and store them in the same way).

The point was that MS includes all the program types (Email, Web etc.) but has no real choice ... I suppose you could click the "custom install" button, but I don't know if that's still there ... unless you want to dwnload.

MIKE

--
Beware the JabberOrk.
Re:Will this really work? by 0x0d0a · 2002-03-31 06:37 · Score: 1

Forcing MS to produce a stripped down version of the OS might not help anyone *in the short run*. Forcing modularity most definitely will help everyone but MS (and maybe even MS in the long run, if their dev costs go down).

--
May we never see th
Re:Will this really work? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:47 · Score: 0

"It sounds to me that these states want to punish Microsoft for its practices (and I'm all for that), but they have no clue how to go about it."

from the CNN article...
Microsoft insists a modular Windows would be a technical nightmare: Removing parts of the operating system could cripple the rest of it.

"From an engineering standpoint, No. 1, we cannot remove software code for multiple functionalities without degrading other functionalities of the operating system," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "You just can't yank Internet Explorer out."

The proposal would require "a complete redesign" that would cost millions of hours to build and test, Desler said.

----
Yes, punishment for crimes commited and correction of the crimes/criminals
*is* indeed in order here.
Microsoft was convicted for breaking anti-trust laws by co-mingling IE and
other application code with the OS code. If M$ has to spend a lot of money
to correct those illegal acts then they should.

To allow M$ to now turn around and use the co-mingling as a defense against
corrective measures is a sham and the fact that forcing them to correct their
violations might hurt them is irrelevant.

-moogy

This is news??? by aardwolf64 · 2002-03-31 02:12 · Score: 1

This is news???? How many people here didn't know that this was Microsoft's stance on this? It's like someone found a slashdot post from 6 years ago (Win95), and just pasted it here verbatim...

Re:This is news??? by DarkKnightRadick · 2002-03-31 02:46 · Score: 1

True, true. I can't believe MS is actually using that defense. The stripped down version of Windoze is Win95 (or even Win3.1). They already have it, they just need to update the kernal and keep the interface from one of those two versions of their OS.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:This is news??? by nuggetman · 2002-03-31 03:09 · Score: 1

UserFriendly addressed this already...

--
...and that's all there is to it.
Re:This is news??? by aardwolf64 · 2002-03-31 08:38 · Score: 1

Actually, about 3 months ago I put Win95 (sr2) on my Pentium 3 laptop (512mb RAM). It ran like a DREAM! I hated moving to XP (I had to for driver support, but I'm thinking about switching back and just ignoring the lack of drivers...)

This is complete BS by Khalid · 2002-03-31 02:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wine by just emulating the win32 API, can now, (thanks to Codeweavers) run MS Office 2000, IE, QT, Photoshop and many major windows running software ! so has the Wine guys managed to do what MS with its Billion $ not managed to achieve ?

Re:This is complete BS by theCoder · 2002-03-31 03:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not only is it complete BS, it's a downright lie! The entire point of COM was to make the system modular so that components could be replaced with different implementations. If someone really worked at it, they could probably get IE to use the Mozilla rendering engine by writing a COM wrapper that implemented the right interfaces (I forget their names at the moment). I'm not saying it would be easy, but definietly possible. All of COM is like that, and hence all of Windows (since Windows relies so heavily on COM).

Their other two points are more valid, though. The system would be less user-friendly (since MS and most of the world defines user-friendly as how close the interface is to MS software) and it would be a real PITA to support. How many things can go wrong with Windows when most all of the stuff is comes from MS? Now start adding in third party stuff into the system creating all sorts of new configuration permutations. Definitely more work to figure out what's wrong.

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Re:This is complete BS by An+Onerous+Coward · 2002-03-31 04:15 · Score: 1

The WINE folks would probably prefer "reimplementing" to "emulating." And while creating WINE has been anything but a trivial task, I would hazard a guess and say that it's probably easier to reimplement an existing API than to design it from scratch. Unless WINE implies something about the modularity of the Windows code that I'm missing, I don't believe this is a valid reason to criticize Microsoft.

--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Re:This is complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:15 · Score: 0

given the amount of thought (say, towards clear interfaces and forward compatibility) MS put it their interfaces, I'd contend it's pairobably easier to write the API than reimplement it (because it's so crufty etc.)

Oh yea, it's not modular at all by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:13 · Score: 0

No way is Windows modular. There's no such thing as Mozilla to replace IE, Litestep to replace Explorer, and Realplayer to replace Media Player. Outlook can't be replaced by Eudora either.

Oh, i gotta go. I need to make sure VirtualDub can't replace Windows Movie Maker for creating home movies.

Sometimes Microsoft makes me ill with their illogical claims.

Re:Oh yea, it's not modular at all by Visionized · 2002-03-31 04:12 · Score: 1

Not sure what pipe you have been smoking but...

BR>
LiteStep

Cal

--

/* Dammit Jim!!!! I'm a Doctor not a miracle worker! */

So they are saying is "punishment hurts"? by stripes · 2002-03-31 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, I know I pushed an old lady down the steps, but if you send me to jail I won't be able to drink beer, hang at the local bar, and work on my hot rod!

What kind of defense is that?

Re:So they are saying is "punishment hurts"? by TandyMasterControl · 2002-03-31 03:23 · Score: 5, Funny

Ah yes, the you-can't-punish-me-it-might-hurt defense.

I hope the judge is equally familiar with the ancient Anglo-Saxon legal concept of "tough shit" and its corollary, "shoulddathoughtofthat".

(So do Microsoft get three strikes before they incur the ultimate & everlasting sentence and where do we start counting? Stacker? Bristol? Dr-DOS?)

--
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
Re:So they are saying is "punishment hurts"? by bilbobuggins · 2002-03-31 09:12 · Score: 1

yes, I've never quite understood the defense here.
"you're honor, windows was designed to have a primary purpose of reinforcing our monopoly through large scale spaghetti-izing of the code, therefore any attempt to fix this means it won't be as good at perpetuating our monopoly as before."
next they're going to tell me pieces of IE are in the kernel itself. oh wait...
Re:So they are saying is "punishment hurts"? by masterkool · 2002-03-31 12:26 · Score: 0

No, they are just making crap up now. Oh, if windows does not have Min media player, the entire OS will suck. IT ALLREADY DOES. What kind of crap is that anyhow, media player is not a crutial app. Imagine if human life was like this "I'm sorry sir, we cannot remove your shoe or you will die?" Not to be a troll or anything but this is crap!

--
I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"

I am confused... by soulhuntre · 2002-03-31 02:16 · Score: 1, Flamebait

You already CAN install an alternate browser.

You already CAN use an alternate IM system.

You already CAN use another media player.

So what, exactly, is all the bitching about? Or is it just random pointless anti-MS bitching?

--
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!

Re:I am confused... by Prior+Restraint · 2002-03-31 02:43 · Score: 0, Troll

You are, indeed, confused. Perhaps you should read the article. The goal is not to allow users to "install" or "use" alternate this or that. The goal is to replace this or that.

And how, pray tell, does discussing the merits of this proposal qualify as "bitching"?
Re:I am confused... by hkmwbz · 2002-03-31 02:45 · Score: 1

"You already CAN install an alternate browser.
You already CAN use an alternate IM system.
You already CAN use another media player."
But the default ones will still be there, and will be the default for the operating system. To get something else, you have to download and install it yourself.
"So what, exactly, is all the bitching about? Or is it just random pointless anti-MS bitching?"
It is another item on Slashdot about Microsoft being sued for abusing their monopoly situation, the actual article being run by CNN. It is also rather interesting that Microsoft are trying to pull an "it's impossible to do that" stunt again.
So what, exactly, is the problem with Slashdot continuing to post news about this interesting case, which is something which in the end will affect probably all PC users?

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:I am confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

True, you can use an alternate browser or media player. The problem is that when you bought a copy of Windows, are paying for IE, WMP, and any other crap MS decides to throw in there.

A stripped down version of Windows would cost substantially less than a full version - and you could use those savings to buy additional 3rd party software or contribute to open source or just to buy beer.

That's the real abuse of it's monopoly position. If they have an underdog product, they just bundle it with the OS and raise the price. Now you've just forced all of the consumers to buy your IE. How likely are they to go out and buy another one?

You think they wouldn't do that with MS Office if some real competition arrived?
Re:I am confused... by mjh · 2002-03-31 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative

The article specifically addresses this:
In written testimony, RealNetworks' David Richards said the proposed settlement doesn't give software developers enough incentive to make new products. That's because an application can easily sniff out and continue to use the Windows product rather than, say, RealNetworks' competing product.

And also:
But, perhaps more importantly, the states say software developers would have a greater incentive to build applications that also work with competing operating systems like Linux and Apple's Macintosh, thus diluting the power of Windows, now found in as many as 95 percent of desktop computers.

The entire point is to increase competition by not allowing MS products to be the default standard installed everywhere. The goal is to increase competition.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:I am confused... by SmileyBen · 2002-03-31 03:06 · Score: 2

Er - because for one thing the stripped down version would be *cheaper*! Why would an OEM use other options when they already have to pay for IE, WMP, etc., bundled into the price of Windows? The point is that with every release, MS ups the price of Windows to pay for the development of their browser / media play / IM system - usually worse than the current competition - and users end up with a system with bloat installed, and in many cases *running* regardless of whether they use it or not...
Re:I am confused... by whoever_you_are · 2002-03-31 03:39 · Score: 1

The point of doing this is to give other companies a chance to sell their product. It's like this: Imagine a company has a monopoly in TV's. You want a tv, but to buy from that company, you must buy their tv, bundled with their DVD player, VCR, and Sound System. There are other companies who offer those other things, but you will already have them if you buy the TV. Do you want to buy them again just to get a different brand? (yes I know they are free since they need to be to in order not to die out completely) but it takes up extra space in your living room since you can't detach the ones that come with the tv. Do you want to have a room full of extra stuff just to use a different DVD player? Maybe it's not a big deal if you have a big house, but many people don't. Now, the government is suggesting that you should not have to take an attached VCR, DVD, and sound system. Instead these should be sepearte products and the price should be split just as the stuff is. Some people probably don't even want a VCR, and they would save money.

Say the TV+DVD+VCR+Sound costs $800. a TV alone would be $400, a DVD alone would be $100, a VCR alone would be $100, and sound would be $200. Now, if it's split, you can buy this stuff without the VCR and save $100. And now that competition is back, the prices an all of these begin to drop as consumers get choices. This is the goal of the MS situation, not just to punish MS or to take free stuff from MS users. The goal is to allow people to choose what they want to buy and not have to pay the pentalty of a monopoly controlling all those products.
Re:I am confused... by Prior+Restraint · 2002-03-31 03:42 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Troll?! WTF?

Well, at least now I've finally collected the full set of moderations.
Re:I am confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:48 · Score: 0

That's probably the best explanation of the situation I've read. And I've read quite a few explanations.
Re:I am confused... by Graspee_Leemoor · 2002-03-31 04:59 · Score: 2

"But the default ones will still be there, and will be the default for the operating system"

No, you can make mozilla your default browser, and winamp your default mp3 player etc.

You may at this point moan that MS progs will still use IE to display html help. Well, that's no different from a netscape application using mozilla to display help...

graspee
Re:I am confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 05:31 · Score: 0

The bitching is about the first word in your three statements:

"You already CAN ..."

"You" here means "the buyer of the computer". The idea of the states is that the OEM will be able to do all those "CAN ..." statements and provide a turnkey solution to their customers, because currently, the OEMs CANNOT due to Microsoft.
Re:I am confused... by hkmwbz · 2002-03-31 06:11 · Score: 1

You ignored an important part of my statement, which shows that you misinterpret what I am trying to say:
"To get something else, you have to download and install it yourself."
What I was trying to say was that Microsoft's software will always be installed by default, and to use alternative software, you have to download and install it yourself. And most newbies probably won't be bothered to do so.
In other words: I was not talking about setting a default browser for opening local HTML files and links, but for software in general.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:I am confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:36 · Score: 0

>Er - because for one thing the stripped down >version would be *cheaper*!

No, actually, it would not be cheaper. The additional cost to Microsoft for adding components that have already been developed is neglegable. Microsoft would be charging the same price for XP even if it didn't come with IE, WMP etc. The problem with everybody here on Slashdot is that you misunderstand how the users who comprise the large part of MS's market think about Operating Systems and software in general. Most users don't even understand what an OS does -- they have no conception of what an OS without any bundled apps / utilities would accomplish. I guarantee you that these users would not be thrilled by the thought of paying hard earned cash for a computer that didn't do anything until they dropped even more money or, even better, found a way to get online to download and install the latest OSS. Furhtermore, we have all experienced the premium quality of the BS software "extras" added to systems by the box vendors.

MS is doing most people, including me, a favor by including working versions of useful apps like browsers and email clients. If people were dissatisfied with the quality of these programs, they could and would download alternatives (don't even start with the disk space B.S.). They don't.
Re:I am confused... by SmileyBen · 2002-03-31 12:45 · Score: 2

Erm no, you're just plain wrong. The non-settling states are *demanding* that a stripped down version be cheaper (though it isn't clear how this would be calculated) - that's why it would be cheaper.
Re:I am confused... by Theom · 2002-03-31 12:53 · Score: 1

And don't forget that the built in DVD and VCR will still use up mush power even if you use external ones.

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:I am confused... by Dave_bsr · 2002-03-31 14:13 · Score: 1

Here's my point: Start from the other side. Use the alternatives yourself. I'm gonna keep openoffice, Mozilla, *IM, Divx, Filzip, Xnview, etc. on a disk , that i can share with my friends. When the next MS virus hits (is it only a matter of time?) the product that gets affected i will replace with one of mine. when a friend of mine needs a new office suite, i will submit OO and they will probably appreciate it. If a major XP virus hits, and everyone's computer dies...I always have my linux. and all the products I mention are free or free+open, and only get better, faster, and stabler.

The point is, don't make MS change, but change it from the other end. if Microsofty products aren't superior, use your bandwidth and a cdr, and spread some goodness...right?

BTW, a quick plug for some apps i find useful: filzip is a great zip program for windows, and Xnview opens & converts almost any kind of image. try them. you might like them.

--

Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Re:I am confused... by soulhuntre · 2002-03-31 18:29 · Score: 1

"What I was trying to say was that Microsoft's software will always be installed by default"

*gasp* so you mean those evil bastards at Microsoft don't ship someone elses software on their operating system by default?

How dare they want to be able to control the product they developed and shipped!

The scum!

Next topic: Forcing Mozilla to ship with the IE rendering engine as a default component.

--
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
Re:I am confused... by hkmwbz · 2002-04-01 07:14 · Score: 1

If you had read the original story, you would have seen that this is another story about the antitrust trial, and Microsoft claiming that it wouldn't be possible to replace parts of Windows, as it isn't modular enough. This might well be, but that doesn't mean that PCs couldn't be installed with alternative software if the vendor wishes to do so.
The whole point of this is that Microsoft are charged with abusing their position as a monopolist, and try to get rid of other solutions. As a way to mend this, Microsoft could allow alternative software to be installed with the operating system, if the distributor wishes to do so.
Read the story.

--
Clever signature text goes here.

not impossible at all by NYCEE · 2002-03-31 02:16 · Score: 1

because they can work with the windows source. Think about it, if crackers can reverse engineer a software and come up with a solution to defeat the protection, how hard would it be to strip windows of IE, MSN Messenger or WMP? Microsoft, you disgust me!

They don't have to rip it out 100% by Brento · 2002-03-31 02:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

If they can't put it out the door without bunding parts of IE and Media Player or whatever, then just don't put them on the program menus, don't put them on the desktop, and don't make them the default file handlers. What's so hard about that?

It's a piece of cake compromise, and I sincerely doubt it's anybody's goal here to remove every bit of IE's code from Windows. If MS wants to use the IE code to display the user's desktop, or to show files in Windows Explorer, fine. Correct me if I'm wrong (always a given on Slashdot, people will even correct you if you're right) but I think the goal of the suit is to stop the anticompetitive measures, not remove certain lines of source code. Just start with the Start Menu, and go from there.

--
What's your damage, Heather?

Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · 2002-03-31 02:34 · Score: 2

Those are exactly the terms of the preoposed final judgement that Microsoft and the DOJ have suggested to the court, though. The non-settling states really do want to demand that Windows be completely rewritten.
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by mjh · 2002-03-31 02:42 · Score: 2

The article specifically addresses that point. In referring to the proposed final judgement offered by the DOJ and the settling states, it says:
In written testimony, RealNetworks' David Richards said the proposed settlement doesn't give software developers enough incentive to make new products. That's because an application can easily sniff out and continue to use the Windows product rather than, say, RealNetworks' competing product.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by Aceticon · 2002-03-31 02:56 · Score: 1

Correct me if I'm wrong (always a given on Slashdot, people will even correct you if you're right)

I would like to correct your assumption about people in Slashdot - what you say is just not true!!!
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by jmike · 2002-03-31 04:10 · Score: 1

Caveat: IANAWDTG (I am not a Windows Developer Thank God)
Right. Or better, leave the DLLs that implement the embedded views that the OS uses (for example, go to Add/Remove Programs on a Win2K machine--that scrollpane appears to be an HTML view), but remove the .EXE files that comprise the programs in question (IEXPLORE.EXE, etc.).
Of course, this means that Internet Explorer will still run faster and load quicker than other browsers and have a download size of like 89K to Mozilla's/Netscape's many megabytes... :-/
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by joemc79 · 2002-03-31 05:11 · Score: 1

Wow. It seems that if a software developer actually wants to use the MS "middle ware" in their app, then maybe they have good reason for that. We're talking about basic freedom of choice here. Freedom to develop software without someone (gov't) telling you what you can or cannot include in your product.
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:05 · Score: 0

its not an 89k install. its a 459k install wizard which downloads the 20-50 someodd megabytes of data that comprise the MSIE6/OE6 installation.
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by mjh · 2002-04-01 03:12 · Score: 2

No one is talking about removing the software developers ability to choose the MS middle ware if they want it. But currently, windows imposes an expense on every other middle ware out there. What the government is trying to do is level the playing field so that MS middle ware imposes the same expenses on the software developer as any other middle ware. Which means that the software developer will start to look at the other choices and decide which one works best, not just use what Microsoft hands out.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 18:13 · Score: 2

There *isn't* any other expanse to it.
If a Real wants to replace WMP, all they need is to implement all the publish interfaces, and register them on the published GUID.
That is all.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:They don't have to rip it out 100% by mjh · 2002-04-03 04:10 · Score: 2

Yes there is! WMP comes pre-installed on windows. Real can't get pre-installed becuase it violates the OEM license agreements that OEM's have with MS. So to get Real, you have to download it. To get WMP you don't have to do anything. To get real, you have to go out of your way and download the thing. 99% of the consumer buying public doesn't do this. Thus WMP gets a market for free, that Real (and others) have worked very hard to establish. Developers know this. So they, whether they like WMP or not, are basically forced to use it.

This is black letter antitrust violation: Using a monopoly in one market to extend into another market. The government, in their efforts to remove WMP from windows, is trying to level the playing field so that WMP is evaluated on the same terms as Real. The *entire* purpose is to restore competition to a market, from which MS has forcibly removed any and all competition.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.

what happened to flexible by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:17 · Score: 0

I think the states should bring the "purple ads" to court and argue outherwise.

Re:what happened to flexible by atheos · 2002-03-31 03:00 · Score: 1

mod this up!

keep it in by ericdano · 2002-03-31 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

My god, less friendly, slower!?!? Then leave the stuff in. I run windows XP. I hardly ever use IE. Mozilla is what I use. In fact, I hardly use any of uncle bill's software. Trillian is the little app that connects me to IMs (AOL, Yahoo, MSN, etc). I just run windows for games and a couple of music apps.

I guess the real issue is that 3rd party companies never get a chance to really show people that their stuff is better. I know a lot of Windows users use EVERYTHING that came on the computer and don't even know that you can use different browsers, email programs, IM programs, etc etc.

--
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--

Re:keep it in by tomstdenis · 2002-03-31 02:33 · Score: 0, Troll

That's the point of a bundle though. If Windows only came with the core OS and gui it would suck. The whole reason why people want to use Windows [aside from the fact it works and doesn't suck like Linux] is that it comes bundled with tons of tools that people want to use.

And like you said you use Mozilla ontop of Windows so how unfair is it really? Just because people don't CHOOSE to look for alternatives doesn't mean they can't CHOOSE to look for them if they want. The truth is that not everyone cares about the alternatives because quite frankly the MS based tools serve their purpose.

I wonder if /. can go a week without posting a MS bashing story?

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:keep it in by WildBeast · 2002-03-31 03:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

"I wonder if /. can go a week without posting a MS bashing story? "

Actually I don't remember /. going more than a couple of days without posting a MS bashing story.

A Possible Solution by Alien54 · 2002-03-31 02:19 · Score: 3, Funny

The cartoon User Friendly had a perfect answer to this just a few weeks ago:

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020310

Which, of course, simple undoes all of the things MS has done that were not quite legal.

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:A Possible Solution by jelle · 2002-03-31 11:18 · Score: 1

hihi.

But then they were right about it being unusable, slow, and a support nightmare ;-))

(yes that was too easy).

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.

Difference between Windows and Applications by mtippett · 2002-03-31 02:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now forgive me if my understanding of what Microsoft are saying is incorrect. Let me start with some assertions.

Windows is an operating system.
An operating system consists of a kernel and some libraries that expose the api of the kernel.
IE is a an application
An application consists of a core executable (IEXPLORE.EXE)
A set of libraries that provide re-usable components - (one of these may be the IE control - that doesn't matter though as the user can't run a library.

So what is the prime difficulty of doing a piecewise removal of the core applications (the EXE's) and the libraries (DLLs) that support those applications alone?

Of course you will not be able to remove the core dll's that may contain the IE control, but other applications depnd on that, but you still can't kick up IE and maintain your cookies, URLs and so on.

The end result is what is required. The users get a system that they have to go through a second step to get a browser, IM client, or anything else installed, thereby giving the user a choice.

I would expect that an addition to the 'click here to install the Microsoft Application' that Windows would have, there would have to be a 'view Non-Microsoft alternatives' that would have to be at that decision point.

Re:Difference between Windows and Applications by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:35 · Score: 0

Because IE is also the shell of the explorer UI. Windows wouldnt be much without a shell, now would it?

Try again, dirty GNU hippie.
Re:Difference between Windows and Applications by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:29 · Score: 0

The difference is that IEXPLORE.EXE is nothing more than a COM container. Everything else, the cookie control, the zone control, security, ActiveX, connectivity, are stored in OS components. Removing IEXPLORE.EXE does nothing.

Now are these components technically removable? Yes. However, a considerable amount of commercial software depends on these libraries to simply function (mention static linking and I hope zlib gives you a ton of problems.)
Re:Difference between Windows and Applications by theCoder · 2002-03-31 04:21 · Score: 1

WTF are you talking about? IE is not the shell on Windows, explorer.exe is. There are parts of explorer.exe that use the same HTML renderer that IE does, but you can safely delete iexplore.exe without killing your system. The HTML renderer (which some people consider to be IE) is still installed, however. You can't easily get rid of that without causing some problems.

But if you still think that IE is your shell, I encourage you to go look at
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\shell
and see what it says.

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Re:Difference between Windows and Applications by Bert64 · 2002-03-31 04:32 · Score: 1

Well you still have progman.exe, win95, nt4, and earlier didn`t come with ie atall.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Difference between Windows and Applications by Arker · 2002-03-31 09:12 · Score: 2

The HTML renderer (which some people consider to be IE) is still installed, however. You can't easily get rid of that without causing some problems.

Actually you can. There are a number of alternative shells - ranging from progman.exe to litestep. Personally, I'm quite happy using the old explorer.exe off my windows 95 disk - since it has no "integration" with IE I lose a couple of "features" like "active desktop" and the launcher bar on the task bar, neither of which I or anyone else I know has ever missed for a moment, and it's very noticeably faster.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Difference between Windows and Applications by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 15:25 · Score: 0

Well said. Whole deal is as simple as this.

ah... i see it now... by sydneyfong · 2002-03-31 02:20 · Score: 1

What is An Operating System - The M$ definition
An Operating System is the program when loaded, gives you a browser, a instant messenger, a media player, an office suite, all the things you wanted, plus everything that you don't. An Operating System also gives you an unpreceded XPerience.

Since M$ Windows is an Operating System,
M$ Windows = M$ IE + M$ WMP + M$N Messenger + M$ Office ( + XP )
Therefore, if M$ Windows is stripped naked, it violates the definition!! Surely M$ Windows must ship with all the bloat you can get!

It all makes sense doesn't it? Oh wait.

--
Don't quote me on this.

Windows is Compact? by nathanm · 2002-03-31 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Like most software companies, Microsoft has worked hard to make its Windows system as compact as possible, Enderle said. By intertwining code to minimize overlap, he said, Microsoft makes a product that saves valuable disk space but becomes difficult to segregate.

Is this guy talking about the same Windows everyone else in the world knows? The installed size has gone up with every release, up to 1 GB in XP. I don't know what this guy is smoking, but I want some.

Re:Windows is Compact? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:06 · Score: 0

Yep. The disk space required has gone up because of the additional features. XP is far and away the most feature-packed consumer OS. If they didn't work hard to remove duplication, it'd be far larger.

Remember this: Linux is small because it's ugly and useless, like your penis.
Re:Windows is Compact? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 12:17 · Score: 0

There is a very fine line between 'feature packed' and 'bloated'. And since when does the number of features in an OS determine how good it is. Well implemented features would be more appreciated by some people.
Re:Windows is Compact? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 17:44 · Score: 0

This statement proves that portions of the OS can be removed (though the common sense that the pope allowed peasants to have 500 years ago would suffice).

Libraries that prevent segmenting the program violates the purpose of creating libraries (but firmly uphold the principles of preserving a monopoly). If you have 2 programs using one function, and 1 of these programs is undesirable, then remove the program - don't touch the library. Turn to page 2 of your textbook.

"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by Karl+Cocknozzle · 2002-03-31 02:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare."

So their argument appears to be that, if we try to enforce the law, they'll make their "stripped" Operating System such a joke (it costs $20, but there's no GUI) as to be useless, de facto forcing everybody to buy the full version.

This isn't a troll or a flame...I've supported Windows for a living in the past. It's ALREADY a support nightmare. Any indication by MS that they're "going to make it worse" in a stripped down version of Windows is a serious threat... Imagine if your already sky-high Windows support costs went up 40% overnight...

The best thing that could happen to the ulcers of IT people would be for Windows (and Microsoft itself) to go the way of the Do-Do bird.

--
Who did what now?

Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by sqlrob · 2002-03-31 02:50 · Score: 2

So their argument appears to be that, if we try to enforce the law, they'll make their "stripped" Operating System such a joke (it costs $20, but there's no GUI) as to be useless, de facto forcing everybody to buy the full version.
It's useless in a store. But to an OEM that can make contracts with Opera,Mozilla,Stardock and other places?
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by CowbertPrime · 2002-03-31 03:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

It *would* be a support nightmare.
If you used all MS components (Windows, IE, Office, Outlook, and MSN Messenger), all you need to do is call MS for support. If "Mr. Wang's funky widget"(tm) that you installed to "enhance" your browsing experience decides to overwrite MFC42.dll with one that breaks Office, what are you supposed to do now?

Remember as a govermental agency, you are supposed to assign *blame* as an excuse for lost productivity while dealing with this problem. Do you blame the IT help desk, luser, MS, or the ad-company that installed the widget?

I have seen this in network support cases. The most notorious one being AOL clients that replace tcp/ip or refuse to do DNS resolution unless you are connected to their service or some other funny things. The way AOL used to tell you how to fix it made it worse (making *us* reinstall AOL, and then fooling around with the registry to re-enable DHCP).

MS's defense is interesting because they clearly know that Govermental Agencies (e.g. the states) are a large client base but also demand higher standards of support. MS wishes to not be held liable for ripping out pieces of its OS and making things (more) unstable. For example, in Win2k and XP, you can't get rid of IE, because explorer hooks into mshtml.dll. Outlook also depends on mshtml.dll, so you'd break that too. Even though you can *disguise* the system into looking like it doesn't have IE, that is a far cry from getting rid of it completely.
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by carm$y$ · 2002-03-31 04:05 · Score: 1

I've supported Windows for a living in the past. It's ALREADY a support nightmare.

Is it so hard is to say "reinstall" 200 times per day? :)

--
-- No sig today
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by TandyMasterControl · 2002-03-31 04:25 · Score: 2

so they rewrite Explorer and related dlls to separate IE from internal html uses. Problem?
They rewrote a damn sight more to move video drivers into the kernel, making NT less stable between 3.5 and 4.0
You know, usually, when you're found guilty of breaking the law you are required at minimum to change your ways a bit. But I realize we're talking about Microsoft.

--
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:28 · Score: 0

Amen brother.
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by JordanH · 2002-03-31 06:36 · Score: 2
- It's useless in a store. But to an OEM that can make contracts with Opera,Mozilla,Stardock and other places?
What OEM would want to be in the position of having to support a Windows that was even less stable or coherent?
Most OEMs would avoid this like the plague, as their support costs are already one of the most difficult things for them to control.
If MS doesn't get contained on this issue, the next thing you'll know is that MSN will be integrated in such a way as to remove it will be impossible. Installing AOL would add considerable bloat and would never work as well as the integrated solution.
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by sqlrob · 2002-03-31 07:23 · Score: 2

Who says its more unstable? Microsoft? MS code is not exactly the paragon of stability.

As for coherent (I believe you mean consistent), that depends. The potential is there, but if MS' GUI standards are followed, it's not an issue. The difference may be useful (for example, it's been shown that menus based on angle rather than position are more easily used and remembered. When's the last time you saw that implemented anywhere?)
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by JordanH · 2002-03-31 09:31 · Score: 2
- As for coherent (I believe you mean consistent),...
I meant coherent. Which, in this context is a synonym for consistent.
I don't really understand your points. Are you saying that it would be as stable and consistent (I'll use you're word since you seem so hung up over it) either way?
I'm not sure if it would or not. If the unbundled version is more unstable, it may well be MS's intentional design. Doesn't matter really. The threat that it would be a support problem would scare the OEMs, who have enough headaches in this department.
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by nathanh · 2002-03-31 10:28 · Score: 2

If you used all MS components (Windows, IE, Office, Outlook, and MSN Messenger), all you need to do is call MS for support. If "Mr. Wang's funky widget"(tm) that you installed to "enhance" your browsing experience decides to overwrite MFC42.dll with one that breaks Office, what are you supposed to do now?

Well, that's easy, you call the packager. If your Ford Explorer rolls because the integrated Firestone tyres aren't good enough, then it's a problem you raise with Ford. They put the whole package together so they're responsible for the consumer and dealing with complaints.
Afterall, you might know that the tyres on a Ford Explorer are from Firestone, but would you have a clue who produced the air-conditioner? Do you care? If the air-conditioner breaks then you call the Ford Dealer. You don't call Matshuiama Industries in Korea and demand somebody fix your air-conditioner!
I don't see why Microsoft should be treated any differently. They're a parts supplier, but they seem to think that the OEMs (Compaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway) shouldn't be allowed to bundle their parts in a way that best suits the OEM's customers. Microsoft seems to think that they are producing a final product, but Windows is only a single part in the OEM computer. For all the other parts (hard drive, power supply) you complain directly to the OEM. So why is Windows given special treatment.
Sure, forcing all the OEMs to be exactly the same makes things really easy for Microsoft, but it destroys consumer choice. The Dell and the IBM and the Compaq and the Gateway offerings all have different hardware, and that's good, but why is it exactly the same piece of software?! Why can't IBM offer IBM Media Player or Gateway offer FreeAmp? Why is Microsoft (a parts supplier) telling the OEM (an integrator) how to do their job? Why isn't the OEM listening to me, as the consumer? Why is Microsoft more important than ME THE CONSUMER?
The system is broken. Microsoft broke it. The USA government needs to restore order.
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by sqlrob · 2002-03-31 12:30 · Score: 2

I meant coherent. Which, in this context is a synonym for consistent.
I was using more 1b. IMHO, user interfaces can be consistent(same style), yet not make any sense(incoherent).
I don't really understand your points. Are you saying that it would be as stable and consistent (I'll use you're word since you seem so hung up over it) either way?
For one thing, you are assuming stability now, which is not a given. The main thing that software vendors would have to do is to convice the OEMs that their replacement is more stable than MS', offering lower tech support costs. It is possible, whether or not that claim is true or not. When 3.1 was out, didn't Packard Hell have a different desktop?
Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates by JordanH · 2002-03-31 15:09 · Score: 2
- I was using more 1b. IMHO, user interfaces can be consistent(same style), yet not make any sense(incoherent).
I used coherent because I was implying both same style and logical consistency. Having a consistent and logical interface lowers support costs because inexperienced users are more likely to be able to use it without asking for support.
- For one thing, you are assuming stability now, which is not a given.
I am not assuming stability now. Also, stability is not either present or missing, it's a sliding scale.
Whether it's true that the new unbundled Windows is more or less stable is really irrelevant. All that's important is that MS can FUD the OEMs into believing that their support costs will go up because MS won't (be able to) stand behind the unbundled Windows systems.
- When 3.1 was out, didn't Packard Hell have a different desktop?
I don't remember that, but what was happening in 3.1 days seems pretty irrelevant today. Packard Bell probably had invested in their pre 3.1 desktop that they weren't abandoning right away. Were they even selling OEM Windows at the time? If not, then this is irrelevant because if customers installed 3.1 on the PB then they were completely out of the picture for support.

Re:DAY 5 OF SLASHDOT ROTO BLACKOUT by GauteL · 2002-03-31 02:20 · Score: 1, Offtopic

It is not open source. It is shared source, with a very restrictive license.

MS's stance has not changed! by krazyninja · 2002-03-31 02:20 · Score: 1

This was the same story which they gave for the Netscape trial, that Windows IS highly dependent on IE. Looks like MS's stance has not changed since then. But whether they are telling the truth is anybody's guess....

--
"Do something man. Right now."

Not all that impossible by jonathan_atkinson · 2002-03-31 02:21 · Score: 5, Informative

It is possible to remove a whole lot of the default crap that ships with Windows.

Before I switched to Linux full-time, I tamed my Windows box with 98lite. To quote from the specs page, the current version allows removal of:

* Internet Explorer
* Media Player7 (Me)
* MovieMaker (Me)
* PC Health (Me)
* Media Player2
* DirectX
* Direct Media
* Task Scheduler
* MS Cryptography
* Web Folders
* Internet Control Panel
* Internet Search
* Telephony
* ISDN Configuration Wizard
* Disk Defragmenter
* Scandisk
* ICM Color Profiles
* Imaging Support
* System Information
* CleanUp Manager
* Tune-up Wizard
* Active Movie
* Dr. Watson
* Data Access Components
* Connection Manager
* Email Stationery
* Windows Help Files
* Legacy Windows 3.1 files
* DOS command Files
* Desktop Color Schemes
* Desktop Tiles

98lite allows the removal of the entire MSHTML engine and all the other Windows Media crap. So, if "the current operating system is highly dependant on core technologies like IE and Windows Media Player", I sure didn't notice it after I ran 98lite.

--jon

--
Cleanstick.org: Dumb weblog about nothing

Re:Not all that impossible by teamhasnoi · 2002-03-31 02:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

There is no excuse _not_ to run windows with 98lite. It's faster. More stable. I ran a win 98 box w/ lite and it _never_ crashed. (this of course was a pentium 200 OC'ed to 225) I'm now running w98 on a pentium 4 / 1.8 and it's great. It's the way windows should be. Until openBeos get done, that is.
For anyone wondering, "why windows?" Audio.
Re:Not all that impossible by Rhinobird · 2002-03-31 02:57 · Score: 1

I wish IEradicator worked on Win2kSP2...

--
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Re:Not all that impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:00 · Score: 0

Problem with you sig is that "spalling" is a real word, so a spelling checker would not necessarily catch it as an error.

Spalling is when chunks fracture off materials subjected to explosive force.
Re:Not all that impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 04:25 · Score: 0

Right, and if I removed every damn thing on that list I might as well format it all, install linux, xfree86, and use nothing but twm.
Re:Not all that impossible by Faust7 · 2002-03-31 04:45 · Score: 1

It is possible to remove a whole lot of the default crap that ships with Windows.

I've no doubt of that. But...

Internet Explorer

To be replaced with what? Netscape 4? Buggy and definitely not up to the latest standards. Netscape 6.2? Even slower. Opera? A pay browser with fewer features? Gah.

Media Player7
Media Player2

Quicktime and RealPlayer are horrible memory hogs compared to Media Player 7.1 (to say nothing of privacy; have you seen RealOne? Ugh!). I have them only so I can play their formats. There are alternatives for MP3s, but of the myriad of players out there, what would I use? Winamp, one of the reigning champs, which as of version 2.77 (latest is 2.79), didn't even read LAME-encoded MP3s correctly? (It was slicing off a fraction of a second from the end of the files; bad news when you're convering lots of small .wavs to MP3.)I see no reason to move away from what already works--Media Player.

I also see a lot of very useful system utilities in your list such as Disk Defragmenter and Scandisk. I realize that for certain purposes machines should be slimmed down as much as possible, but what are you going to do with bad clusters and fragmented drives? Install something else? Good lord, what would be the point of that?

--
The coolest voice ever.
Re:Not all that impossible by Squorch · 2002-03-31 05:58 · Score: 1

Yes, a four year old operating system is "the current operating system." Oh, that makes sense.
Re:Not all that impossible by gimpboy · 2002-03-31 07:05 · Score: 2

i think your post really highlights many of the issues associated with a monopoly. as a result, people are unable to compete with them. in order for the products you mentioned to overcome their shortcomings, they need to be used.

i do not believe the original poster was not suggesting that you uninstall all microsofts stuff. he was meerly pointing out that the claim that "You just can't yank Internet Explorer out." is incorrect. as evidence, he pointed to an example where the majority of the stuff could be uninstalled and have the os still function.

on a personal note. i might have not switched to linux if i knew of such an option. i did swtich for stability reasons. i wouldnt switch back now, but that is just me.

--
-- john
Re:Not all that impossible by Ogerman · 2002-03-31 07:48 · Score: 2

You might be interested in some of the more recent Linux audio applications that have begun maturing lately. The latest version of MuSE is pretty amazing. It's almost a cakewalk replacement, although some of the audio (wave) features are still in the works. Right now it's primarily a MIDI sequencer / notation app. and a quite useful one at that. Be sure to use a low-latency kernel and make the MuSE binary setuid root. Course that goes for any real-time-critical audio application under any *nix. AFAIK, Win NT uses some kinda hack to get around the ordinary kernel schedueling. Win9x essentually runs everything with supervisor privledge, hence its total lack of security and extreme vulnerability to viruses.
Re:Not all that impossible by sheldon · 2002-03-31 14:18 · Score: 1

Why on earth would you be running Win98 on a Pentium 4 when WinXP is available?

Christ, you complain about stability, and yet still use that Win98 crap?

The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-03-31 02:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The reason you can't remove those components from Windows is precisely because windows is so modular.

Windows is HIGHLY modular and componentised which is EXACTLY why you can't remove certain components. It's all the component REUSE that causes windows depend on stuff like IE. You guys all think you're great software engineers but can't seem to understand that!

Java is OO and very componentised. But that doesn't mean Java could exist without java.lang.String!

Sure, you could replace java.lang.String with an implementation that acts just like it. That's precisely what you can do in windows too. You can replace the IE component with the Mozilla component (it has already been done). The only problem is that you're now forcing MS to sell a product that is made up of 3rd party components they may not want to be associated with their products. (Imagine what a nightmare it would have been to have the bloat that is Netscape 4.6 included in windows 98).

Anyway. I just wanted to point out again, that something being componentised doesn't mean you can remove any components. (It only means you could REPLACE the component). You can't remove IE from windows, but you could replace it. Just like you can't expect the MOTOR component of a car to be removed and still have the car work.

Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Prior+Restraint · 2002-03-31 02:49 · Score: 1

Thank you for your ranting summary of the linked-to article. You obviously grokked it much better than many others here.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Ozan · 2002-03-31 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

IMHO comparing every software component with the engine of a car gives a rather distorted view on this issue. The engine of a car would be the kernel of a OS, and of course it is an essential component, but a program like MSN Messenger or Media Player would be more compareable to an A/C or a window lift than to a key component of a car.
Of course a car needs engine, gearing and wheels, but theese aren't under consideration here at all here. We are fine with the kernel and the file system.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by pohl · 2002-03-31 05:02 · Score: 1

Not really. What he doesn't understand is that modularity allows for a separation of interface and implementation. Any module that they remove would need to be replaced by an alternate implementation of the same interface...allowing the whole system to operate as before. What they really don't want to do is write a formal document that specifies the interface and its semantics. Modularity makes this possible, not impossible.

--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-03-31 05:49 · Score: 1

Good point. Maybe the engine wasn't the best example! My point regarding windows still stands though. Do you consider gtk to be an important part of Redhat Linux? It's so essential for Gnome. Gnome is highly componentised, but this causes many dependencies on Gnome's libraries. Just like how Windows depends so much on IE's libraries.
I bet you'd also consider glibc to be an integral part of Linux no? There was a time when it wouldn't have been an integral part of an operating system (say on a C64).

Redhat Linux isn't a very useful desktop OS without Gnome and X. You could remove Gnome from the distribution (or maybe just the HTML renderer in Gnome). This would however render many parts of Redhat useless. The only solution is to replace those components and not just remove them. Redhat Linux did exist at one time without Gnome, just as Windows did without IE. That doesn't mean they should have to exist without them today. Redhat as a desktop OS would be crippled, and so would Windows.

It's clear that what is considered to part of an OS changes over time to time as OSs start to provide higher and higher levels of abstraction over hardware.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by seann · 2002-03-31 06:22 · Score: 1

you can't use free operating systems in this debuate, we've already told you that the past 3 years.

you have the choice of what you want to put and modify with free operating systems, where as your stuck with what ms gave you.

--
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Ozan · 2002-03-31 06:51 · Score: 2

I think it is needed to distinguish between programs and libraries/classes. gtk, qt, glibc and the mfc certainly are heavily used components, and I too regard them as an essential part of the OS, but why do you consider Gnome and X as essential as those?
I think you can still set up a usefull system without a graphical interface as a server and low-end workstation for certain types of work, there is still no essential need for X or even a desktop environment.
Nevertheless the user still has the choice to install these in the setup, no one is forced to include them in opposite to for example MSN Messenger in Win XP.
I don't think that MS should be forced to cripple its OS down, but there are cerstainly less radical possibilities to unbloat windows.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Some+Dumbass... · 2002-03-31 06:57 · Score: 2

The reason you can't remove those components from Windows is precisely because windows is so modular.

Windows is HIGHLY modular and componentised which is EXACTLY why you can't remove certain components. It's all the component REUSE that causes windows depend on stuff like IE. You guys all think you're great software engineers but can't seem to understand that!

Quite to the contrary, that's why removing IE would be hard. You could do it - by writing code to handle each of the individual functions which IE previously handled, then sorting out the various calls in your code so that they call the correct new functions. Perhaps they could recycle some Win95 code :) Yes, you'd lose functionality. For example, your hard drive browser could no longer double as a web browser. It's still doable, though. From the article:

"Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "You just can't yank Internet Explorer out."

The proposal would require "a complete redesign" that would cost millions of hours to build and test, Desler said."

Hard, but still doable - even according to MS! :)
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by gimpboy · 2002-03-31 07:25 · Score: 2

What they really don't want to do is write a formal document that specifies the interface and its semantics.

this is exactly what i was thinking. it would really help out the wine folks though ;). since they are focusing more on the implementation and not the interface.

--
-- john
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Tony-A · 2002-03-31 07:40 · Score: 2

Imagine Microsoft supporting Netscape 4.6 included in windows 98.
... warms the cockles of my heart.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by SilentStrike · 2002-03-31 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Making a programming langauge depedant on the ability to handle strings is a reasonable thing to do.

All the classes Sun considered fundamental to the langauge is in the java.lang.*.* packages. Notice how small the fundamental classes are in java relative to the total number of classes in the API. This is how a good system is designed. There is a small core functionality on top of which other things are built.

Being able to read and display webpages with a graphical interface should not be fundamental to an OS. For example, if Java lost it's java.net package, surely, a significant number of Java programs would fail to work. However, the large majority of packages (not net related) would still work fine. IE shouldn't be anymore needed for the core of the OS than should office.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by dimator · 2002-03-31 09:58 · Score: 2

Just like how Windows depends so much on IE's libraries.

I really want someone to enumerate what these crucial dependencies are. So far, I've heard HTML Help. Big fucking whoop. How hard would that be to switch? It's help, for chrissakes, not the kernel.

Secondly, if unrelated code ended up in "IE's libraries," and that's what these "dependencies" are based on, well then this is tough shit. If it's not related to HTML layout, it should never have been in those libs. Unrelated code should be transplanted into other libraries. This is not the techinical impossiblity that MS makes it out to be. Hard? Who cares if it's going to be hard? If this is the ruling, then this is the ruling. The courts are not going to mandate the eating of strawberries - they're going to mandate a damn solution.

--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by tswinzig · 2002-03-31 10:57 · Score: 2

Windows is HIGHLY modular and componentised which is EXACTLY why you can't remove certain components. It's all the component REUSE that causes windows depend on stuff like IE. You guys all think you're great software engineers but can't seem to understand that!

You don't need to install the entire browser and load it entirely into memory when the OS starts up. Just give access to the DLL's that are needed, when they are needed. Publish the API's for the DLL's so they can be replaced with 3rd party software (like Mozilla).

--

"And like that ... he's gone."
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Cuthalion · 2002-03-31 11:01 · Score: 1

Well, let's see. The desktop has explorer integration (Active Desktop), the file explorer (and thus the file open dialog) CAN use explorer integration (view as web page), and, perhaps most difficult of all for MS to fix: Many 3rd party applications use explorer to embed web pages in their application (For instance: eDonkey2000, Quintissential CD, WinAmp, to enumerate the ones that I have installed that I am aweare use browser components directly. I am sure there are a lot lot more).

FWIW, Windows Media Player is the same way. Want to show video under windows? Most of the codecs and filter structure is basically windows media player. Certainly the EXE which draws a window and instantiates the published video stream objects isn't the problem. That's why it's easy for windows applications to show windows media files in their windows but not QuickTime or Real.

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by SteveX · 2002-03-31 11:53 · Score: 2

Isn't that basically what this is:

Interfaces and Scripting Objects, from the MSHTML reference docs on MSDN.

Reimplement those interfaces, replace the GUIDs in the registry with pointers to your own modules, and you've replaced IE.

- Steve
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 14:48 · Score: 0

Well all those applications Ive seen being written using asp/ie must be my delustions then. If a OS is the thing to display these things then does it not follow the os should include the things it needs to display them? OS definition
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-03-31 14:59 · Score: 2

Uh. Like I said. Redhat would be a crippled DESKTOP operating system. You could run Win31 if you want a useless OS if you want too.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-03-31 15:07 · Score: 1

It's pretty clear that HTML renderers are an important part of an operating system.

Linux comes with several.
Solaris comes with several.
Swing (Java) supports HTML thought JHtmlPane. Basically another IWebBrowser control.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by Ozan · 2002-03-31 15:18 · Score: 2

I still don't get your point, redhat can run apache, sendmail, etc serving hundreds of clients all without X and Gnome, I wouldn't call that crippled.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by rutledjw · 2002-03-31 15:49 · Score: 1

NO, NO, NO. Your analogy isn't even close. You're comparing apples and oranges. An accurate comparison to the windows debacle would be if javax.servlet.* and java.lang.String were "integrated". There's no rhyme or reason for it.
In the same way, there is no reason for MS components, DLLs (or whatever) to combine function like they do. There is no reason for IE functionality to be existant in OS components. Combining fucntion in that manner is not consistent with good programming practice.
The fact that people HAVE removed these "critical" IE components and the OS still works which COMPLETELY refutes this statement:
It's all the component REUSE that causes windows depend on stuff like IE

And...

You can't remove IE from windows, but you could replace it.

What are you talking about? People have DONE it!

You guys all think you're great software engineers but can't seem to understand that!

Pffft. Whatever

--

Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by SilentStrike · 2002-03-31 18:38 · Score: 1

HTML renderers are an important part of a modern usable desktop system. However, there is no need for a web browser to be integrated into the OS. While there is lynx, konqeuror, mozilla, galeon, opera, etc, availible for usage on Linux, none of them are required for the kernel to be functional.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-03-31 19:08 · Score: 1

While there is lynx, konqeuror, mozilla, galeon, opera, etc, availible for usage on Linux, none of them are required for the kernel to be functional.

Who said IE was required for the kernel to function? It isn't. But that doesn't mean IE isn't integral to Windows. Windows would be crippled without it. Or are you now saying that the kernel is the only thing that makes an OS an OS?
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-03-31 19:12 · Score: 1

For fucks sake. Since when is running apache, send mail and serving hundreds of clients a function of a DESKTOP operating system?

Without X or Gnome redhat would be crippled as a desktop OS.

How many times do i have to spell it out to you?
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by SilentStrike · 2002-03-31 19:47 · Score: 1

Microsoft is complaining that it would be an unmanagement mess to rip IE, Media player, etc, etc out of windows, because it would cause so many different combinations of software to support. However, the different combinations really shouldn't matter. The behavavior of MSN should be indepednant of the behavior of IE, and the behavior of office should be indepedant of windows media player. As has been said before, it's bullcrap. The core functionality of the OS should be indepdendant of its web browser.

From the article...

""From an engineering standpoint, No. 1, we cannot remove software code for multiple functionalities without degrading other functionalities of the operating system," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "You just can't yank Internet Explorer out." "

I don't see how Windows should be crippled without IE specifically. Surely, I wouldn't want an OS without a browser, but that doesn't mean that a particular browser neccesary for the OS to run.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-03-31 21:00 · Score: 1

Are you on crack?

So I guess you think the behaviour of Gnome should be the same without glibc?

Desinging reusable components is the reason there are so many depedencies. It's a really good thing. It means the office team don't have to write their own html browser, or audio player. You can embed windows media player and into a word document and know it'll function just the same as the normal media player.

The core functionality of the OS isn't the only thing that makes up Windows. Windows has a UI, browser, notepad, media player (which by the way has been in there from windows 3.0), command prompt, calculator etc.
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by SilentStrike · 2002-04-01 05:23 · Score: 1

I am saying that the applications should be the most dependant, and not at all depended upon. Gnome should be highly dependant on glibc, however, the behavior of glibc should be indepdendant of gnome. Applications should be the bottom layer of the depdenency tree. A standard c library will probably be really high on the dependency graph, while apps (that themselves are not directly needed to build the code, make, compiler, etc) should be low in the graph.

Why should a media player belong in an office document?
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by tswinzig · 2002-04-01 09:50 · Score: 1

Steve, do you really think it's that easy? If it was, companies would have done it already. Microsoft would point to it in trial and say, see, it can already be done without any extra help from us.

The main problem I see would be that Microsoft could make registry changes at any time that would break this hack. I'm sure there are other problems.

--

"And like that ... he's gone."
Re:The reason you can't remove those components by TummyX · 2002-04-01 14:55 · Score: 1

I am saying that the applications should be the most dependant, and not at all depended upon. Gnome should be highly dependant on glibc, however, the behavior of glibc should be indepdendant of gnome. Applications should be the bottom layer of the depdenency tree. A standard c library will probably be really high on the dependency graph, while apps (that themselves are not directly needed to build the code, make, compiler, etc) should be low in the graph.

*rolls eyes*. Well duh. I thought we had cleared up that the kernel wasn't depedent on IE. What we have is a problem that apps ont the same level (or above) as IE depend on it. Anyway, if the kernel did depend on IE all it would mean is that IE would be a subsystem of the kernel (it isn't). So your argument is futile.

Why should a media player belong in an office document?

Uh. Some people like video clips in their powerpoint presentations. Some people want HTML in their word documents/excel spreedsheets. (Excel XP automatically changes cells according to data from webservices such as stock prices).

Optionalizing components yerself by The+Fifth+Man · 2002-03-31 02:29 · Score: 1

http://home.columbus.rr.com/squishee/

I didnt have time to really do a great job but I took a stab at exploring how to "optionalize" many windows components... If anyone has improvements, send them along... FDV (vor7ck@earth7link.net, remove the digits)

Huh? by aallan · 2002-03-31 02:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft defends the solution by remarking Windows was not designed to be a modular system, and the current operating system is highly dependant on core technologies like IE and Windows Media Player.

Its an operating system, why on Earth is a Media Player a core technology? An OS is the layer that stands between the hardware and applications. If it does anything other than this, its fluff...

Al.

--
The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker

Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:08 · Score: 0

We have hardware to play audio and video today, bumblefuck.
Re:Huh? by caspper69 · 2002-03-31 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because most of the flunky-ass software writers out there are not talented enough, nor do they have the time to write a video player and codecs and deal with all of the associated driver issues, etc. If you wrote an app to play or edit a movie, you'd be damned well happy that you didn't have to worry about all of the little details. That's why it's part of the OS. And I bet you see a lot more applications that handle/play/use video on Windows than in any other OS (sans Mac, which has QuickTime built in).

Dipshits.
Re:Huh? by CeruleanSilver · 2002-03-31 09:16 · Score: 1

Its an operating system, why on Earth is a Media Player a core technology?

Because video/audio playback is something most consumers expect when they buy a computer. Sure, OEMs could stick in some custom 3rd party app to do the same job if they wanted, but then do you think support for audio/video would be so ubiquitous among Windows programs? If it wasn't as simple as telling the OS to render media type X, because you knew it was supported, do you think there would be so many apps like Morpheus that have a "preview media" button built in?

The point is, MS has made media playback part of the core technology. It may be "fluff" to you, or to anyone who thinks an OS need only provide bare minimum functionality, but where do you draw the line? Personally I see the inclusion of such features as a good thing-- even if Media Player is the most unresponsive app I've ever had the misfortune to use.
Re:Huh? by Cl1mh4224rd · 2002-03-31 17:17 · Score: 1

convenience is not a core technology. media player is not necessary for the os to work properly. at least it shouldn't be...

--
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.

The Remedy is useless. It's the KERNEL, DUMMY! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:31 · Score: 0

Who are we kidding? Why are we arguing arguing about whether or not Microsoft can remove 2% of Windows features, in order to "open up the market" when the market still remains deadlocked in a Microsoft monopoly, caused at the root, by their control of the Win32 API and Windows explorer based user interface.

Imagine only Ford makes cars that will drive on your roads. Imagine the states are saying Ford has to allow third parties to make CD players, garbage cans, and decorative seat covers for their cars. Well, what about the operating system market itself? Unless >1 vendors sell 100% Windows-equivalent/Windows-compatible operating systems, then the rest of this is all 100% BS.

What are they arguing over? Forget IE, forget media player, force Microsoft to release source code enough to provide the core kernel and operating system DLLs, enough to bring up a Windows-explorer shell, and to be able to install and run Microsoft Office on top. Anything less is a joke, and a slap in the face of consumers.

If they want a less severe remedy, force 100% full disclosure of the versions of Windows that use the old DOS technology that Microsoft no longer uses or sells, including Windows 95 and 98. From there, the open market should be able to resume and try to compete.

Just for fun, how about forcing MS to release it using a BSD license, instead of a GPL license, since they object to the "viral" nature of the GPL, they should be forced to eat their own words.

Regards,

Warren Postma

Just open source it by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:32 · Score: 0

Just have them open source the OS stuff (including everything they claim can't be ripped out). MS can then do what they want with it, as could anybody else, thus leveling the playing field. They would have to compete with other 'distros' for who could produce the best windows. The product would likely benefit from such competition, thus good for consumers, good for windows, good for everybody EXCEPT MS as monopoly, because they'd cease to be one. Problem solved.

Vizualize this defense by rknop · 2002-03-31 02:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

But, your honor, going to jail for my crimes would mean that I couldn't keep going to my job, and that I couldn't go to baseball games, and gee, it would make my life really hard!

Somehow, it seems to me that inconvenience to a party found guilty of violating the law should be laughed out of court as a defense against a penalty.

-Rob

Re:Vizualize this defense by jelle · 2002-03-31 11:08 · Score: 1

They're counting on the judge believing using his computer would become a lot harder if he punished them.

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.

Fine MS for every lie they tell.... by 3seas · 2002-03-31 02:35 · Score: 3, Funny

And they won't be worth much, certainly not billions...

Now isn't that all anyone really needs to know about MS?

Along with the question "Do you think Lying is OK?"

Re:Fine MS for every lie they tell.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 12:20 · Score: 0

The problem, of course, is that MS would appeal each of those convictions. So while they are pronounced guilty, nothing would happen for years and then everything would get dropped, because everyone is sick of it.

Sound familiar?
Re:Fine MS for every lie they tell.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-04-01 00:21 · Score: 0

If BillG had a nickel for every time windows crashed...oh wait, he does...

So why do they have to be removed? by JPriest · 2002-03-31 02:37 · Score: 2

So you can't have windows without explorer, so what? If the applications are part of windows just remove GUI access to those applications and let other vendors install their own applications in their places. Done. I personally feel that it would best benefit the technology if Microsoft is forced to give back something (money) to various open source projects. Although deciding the projects/groups could be difficult. I also think it would be nice if Microsoft would discontinue some of their current anti competitive tactics giving OEM vendors the ability to ship computers with other desktop operating systems. I shouldn't have to purchase a copy of windows every time I buy an OEM computer just to format and install something else.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.

IEradicator for Windows 9x and 2000sr1 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html

Taken from that site:

"
IEradicator is tiny, script that uses the Windows setup engine to surgically remove Internet Explorer versions 3 through 6.0 from Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium and Windows 2000(sr1).

If you are one of the 70+% for which IE is the browser that floats your boat you can reinstall the version you prefer. If not, then you can bask in the inner glow of knowing you just secured your PC from all known and unknown, past and future, IE security bugs while claiming back 30+MB of closet space. Isn't it nice to have the choice?

The removal process is elegant with all COM servers politely being asked to de-register themselves from the system registry using their inbuilt deinstallation routines before being eliminated from the hard disk. IEradicator then pulls out the cleaning gear and gives the registry a good polish before returning control back to you. The MS HTML Engine (shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll) is left on the machine to provide needed functionality for other applications that render HMTL (e.g. Outlook Express) or that launch a mini-browsing window (e.g. Winamp's Mini Browser, Netmeeting's Online Directory).

We will re-release a version that removes the shell integration like IEradicator used to do shortly. People complained the old IEradicator went to far, now people are complaining the NEW IEradicator is not severe enough...so be it, two versions it will be. If you are hard-core, you can rid yourself of IE altogether using the new 98lite Professional."

My brother used it on some windows boxes and it worked great.

Re:IEradicator for Windows 9x and 2000sr1 by joemc79 · 2002-03-31 05:19 · Score: 1

I think the problem here is that the states want the DLL's gone too. Which means any app (and there are lot's of 1st and 3rd party) or OS component that depends on that DLL will not function without it.
Re:IEradicator for Windows 9x and 2000sr1 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:57 · Score: 0

What if this product was brought up in court? I think microsoft might get shafted if they didn't think fast.

It doesn't really matter by rant-mode-on · 2002-03-31 02:43 · Score: 4, Funny

It doesn't really matter if Windows installs can be made more modular (I say more modular, because the last time I installed it it asked loads of questions about what I wanted install). The reason it doesn't matter is because MS will just release versions without IE, Media Player etc, and then force you into installing them later:

"Notepad requires Windows Media Player to run. You must intsall Windows Media Player to continue. [Install] [Cancel]"
"Office requires a totally unrelated piece of MS bloatware. You must intsall some more bloatware to continue. [Install] [Cancel]"
"Blue Screen of Death requires Internet Explorer to run. Internet Explorer is an essential part of our BSOD technology, you will not get any BSOD's unless you intsall Internet Explorer. [Install] [Cancel]"

Re:It doesn't really matter by WildBeast · 2002-03-31 02:51 · Score: 1, Troll

not happy with MS? Use Linux, it's not like you don't have any other choice. We've never had so many choices, yet weirdly enough everyone wants to use the same OS.
Re:It doesn't really matter by JamesOfTheDesert · 2002-03-31 03:38 · Score: 2

We've never had so many choices, yet weirdly enough everyone wants to use the same OS.
It's not that there aren't any choices, it's that there aren't enough super convenient choices.

--

Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Re:It doesn't really matter by eleqtriq · 2002-03-31 04:31 · Score: 1

I have choices? Show me how to run Photoshop and Groupwise in a Linux enviroment. Any don't offer me alternative programs that are incompatible... I'm not the head IT guy that mandated these programs and their file formats.
Re:It doesn't really matter by LiENUS · 2002-03-31 05:11 · Score: 1

*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*C LICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLI CK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK*CLICK* darned the cancel button on number 3 seems to be broken :/

stupid lameness filter lets just fill this box up with some more text so i dont have so many caps
Re:It doesn't really matter by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 09:48 · Score: 2

It's not that there aren't any choices, it's that there aren't enough super convenient choices.

Wait a minute. You have a free compiler, and all of the Linux source code. If Linux isn't 'super convenient' enough, then snap to it and get working - MAKE it super convenient.

You can't blame other people because their stuff is better than yours. That's just jealousy.

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:It doesn't really matter by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 09:51 · Score: 2

I have choices? Show me how to run Photoshop and Groupwise in a Linux enviroment. Any don't offer me alternative programs that are incompatible... I'm not the head IT guy that mandated these programs and their file formats.

If Adobe won't port their software to your platform, surely it's Adobe you should be complaining about, and not Microsoft?

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:It doesn't really matter by overturf · 2002-03-31 11:22 · Score: 1

Show me how to run Photoshop and Groupwise in a Linux enviroment

Perhaps if you paid Adobe and/or Novell a truckload of money you'd see this happen. Shoot, if you could even just convince them that they'd recoup their costs + a reasonable bit of profit on a Linux port, I suspect they'd be all-over-it in a heartbeat.

Problem is, we all know neither of these companies would make a dime if they spent the time and $$ to port the apps over... Sorry.

Microsoft is being intentionally misleading... by Munelight · 2002-03-31 02:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

MSN Messenger ships with WIndows XP and likes bothering you to register a passport account. This is a pain in the ass, and it doesn't appear in the add/remove programs list. Luckily if you edit the sysoc.inf files you can find the msmsgs line and remove the 'hidden' option from it. Then you CAN remove it through add/remove programs. It seems to me that Microsoft is being intentionally misleading about what parts of their operating system can be safely removed and which can't.

If it's discovered that they've lied in court I think the company should be dissolved for a period of time not less than what an individual caught lying in court would be sentenced to. It's time that corporations enjoyed some of the responsibilities of being considered 'individuals' as well as the rights and priveleges.

I don't buy it. by invenustus · 2002-03-31 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

As long as government offices take your money to buy Microsoft software, as long as government schools take your money to teach children to use Microsoft software and nothing else, and as long as government jobs that take your money require submitting a resume in Word DOC format, government will be helping Microsoft's "monopoly" as much as it hinders it. It makes me really suspicious that all "antitrust" actions are just attempts to increase the power of government.

--
grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l

Something called... by j_stirk · 2002-03-31 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Disk space and bloat...

If I have another browser installed, why the heck would I want an extra 50+MB of space taken up on IE??

If I install another IM system, I dont want the OS nagging me to get .NET, or have more hard disk space taken up by MSN Messenger which I dont use...

If I install another Media Player, I dont want to have to have yet more hard disk space wasted because some if I try to remove WPM I get .DLL failures, etc...

The reason there is all the bitching is because if you dont want to use M$ products, you whould not have to have them on your system!

It is like Ford saying "Here's your new car, it comes with tires, but if you want another brand of tires, you still have to keep these four tires in your car otherwise it wont work..."

Its just stupid, pointless and, frankly, quite childish to prevent users from removing IE, WMP, MSN Messenger, etc. from their systems if they dont want to use it.

Take for instance my school. We have, for trials, migrated 2 workstations over from NT4 to WinXP in our CISCO lab. It comes with .NET Messenger (MSN Messenger), we cannot work out any way to remove this, and every day, we find some shmuck trying to use it. Why is it that we are unable to remove it? Is it a crucial part of the NT5 kernel??? Would XP cease to work without it??? NO! It is just bloat and pointless waste of space, and time.

So this is not just Anti-M$ bitching just for the sake of bitching. This is about M$ forcing its aplications down the throats of people who dont want it. Not everyone has a 40GB HDD, and why should we be forced to endure the waste of space and bloat of aplications we dont use???

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:

Re:Something called... by plone · 2002-03-31 03:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Stolen from some website:
Remove Windows Messenger
Contributed by Claus Bruun and many others
It seems that a lot of people are interested in removing Windows Messenger for some reason, though I strongly recommend against this: In Windows XP, Windows Messenger will be the hub of your connection to the .NET world, and now that this feature is part of Windows, I think we're going to see a lot of .NET Passport-enabled Web sites appearing as well. But if you can't stand the little app, there are a couple of ways to get rid of it, and ensure that it doesn't pop up every time you boot into XP.

If you'd like Windows Messenger to show up in the list of programs you can add and remove from Windows, navigate to C:\WINDOWS\inf (substituting the correct drive letter for your version of Windows) and open sysoc.inf (see the previous tip for more information about this file). You'll see a line that reads:

msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7

Change this to the following and Windows Messenger will appear in Add or Remove Programs, then Add/Remove Windows Components, then , and you can remove it for good:

msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,7
Re:Something called... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:35 · Score: 0

"Take for instance my school. We have, for trials, migrated 2 workstations over from NT4 to WinXP in our CISCO lab. It comes with .NET Messenger (MSN Messenger), we cannot work out any way to remove this, and every day, we find some shmuck trying to use it. Why is it that we are unable to remove it? Is it a crucial part of the NT5 kernel??? Would XP cease to work without it??? NO! It is just bloat and pointless waste of space, and time."

I agree so I went to google and typed "removing messenger from xp" the results are below....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=removing+me ss enger+from+xp&spell=1

the first link in the results is http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~oaaltone/xp/guides/ xp_msn_messenger/ If you look on the web you can find ways to remove most aspects of XP.

My only question is, why would your school have no one who thought of this approach?
Re:Something called... by john_uy · 2002-03-31 03:52 · Score: 1

Take for instance my school. We have, for trials, migrated 2 workstations over from NT4 to WinXP in our CISCO lab. It comes with .NET Messenger (MSN Messenger), we cannot work out any way to remove this, and every day, we find some shmuck trying to use it. Why is it that we are unable to remove it? Is it a crucial part of the NT5 kernel??? Would XP cease to work without it??? NO! It is just bloat and pointless waste of space, and time.

well in our network, we have disabled windows messenger of the workstations. and we are able to fully control all computer systems restricting one's access to certain apps and avoiding messing up with the computer. everything is done without installing any 3rd party software. just the policy settings.

and if you think that having all of those software takes up harddrive space. i bet your collection of mp3 and other files is 100000x more than a simple 4MB installation file. with the 160gb hdd on the horizon and a hdd with the smallest 20gb in the market, what do you do with all the space (other than storing those mp3 files in it?)

I agree with you when you say:
It is like Ford saying "Here's your new car, it comes with tires, but if you want another brand of tires, you still have to keep these four tires in your car otherwise it wont work..."

however, have you ever thought that you bought a car without any parts in it. meaning because you can "rebrand a car" this means that I can sell one without tires (and you will be the one to choose) or i sell you without any parts like the fuel injection, spark plugs, radiator (because you can all purchase these things from other small shops and assemble them!) You haven't seen a car sold in a bare configuration, have you?

but the big question there is, will ford be liable if something happens (an accident) because you fitted the wrong part (because you customized it)?

i also do not get why all people are bashing windows. i mean you have the choice to use it or not. if you do not want, then don't (as most of you are doing.) it is not that microsoft is forcing everyone to use windows (because if it is, then all you guys reading this have a windows workstation).

as a consumer in part, i paid roughly $80 for an original windows xp home in our country (i really do not get where you get all the price figures). and i am happy to get windows messenger, ie, windows media player, etc all built-in. imaging if i were to pay the same amount just to get the os (and your start menu will not have any programs menu but control panel.)

i would also argue in linux, i think if you are to do the same thing, most companies should not include any add-ons installed. so the distribution copy should be the kernel and it alone.

don't mind if you mod me down. i just wonder why people contradict themselves often (and sometimes i do that too.)

:)

--
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
Re:Something called... by D'Arque+Bishop · 2002-03-31 03:54 · Score: 2

Oh, yes, that works... until you make the mistake (like I did) of just blithely installing whatever critical updates MS says you need. When I told my system to install critical updates yesterday morning, one of them was a "Windows Messenger 4.6 Connectivity Update". It said you should install the update even if you weren't running Messenger, so I did. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that it meant it would then reinstall Messenger for you... Worse, Messenger no longer appeared on Add/Remove Programs so that I could uninstall it!
What I ended up doing was putting the following command in the Run box: "RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove". I found THAT via a Google search, but not after much cussing of MS.
I guess my point here is that I for one would be GLAD to see them strip down Windows et al... stop giving us the crap we don't need or want. (The place I work for is a perfect example: I'm sure when it's time for us to upgrade to XP Pro and .NET, we don't need WMP or MSN Messenger, especially in a thin client environment...)
Just my $.02...
Re:Something called... by Julian352 · 2002-03-31 03:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's a way to remove a lot of the components that come with Windows XP:
http://www.ntcompatible.com/faq328.shtml
(fo r those that don't like links:

Open C:\WINDOWS\inf\sysoc.inf and change msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7 to msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,7

that file has a long list of components, many of them hidden)

That example is for MSN messenger, but if you remove the option of "hide" from other components on that list, you'd be able to remove them too. That includes the games that come with XP and some other features.
Re:Something called... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:59 · Score: 0

what about those people who DON'T KNOW what mozilla/netscape is or the difference between irc/icq/aim/yahoo? would it be easier to just delete those program files/delete from start up and forget about it or convince a family to convert to linux?
Re:Something called... by keeg · 2002-03-31 04:15 · Score: 1

Take for instance my school. We have, for trials, migrated 2 workstations over from NT4 to WinXP in our CISCO lab. It comes with .NET Messenger (MSN Messenger), we cannot work out any way to remove this, and every day, we find some shmuck trying to use it. Why is it that we are unable to remove it? Is it a crucial part of the NT5 kernel??? Would XP cease to work without it??? NO! It is just bloat and pointless waste of space, and time.

Take a look at Tweakxp, they have a lot of good advice on xp-installations, among them how to remove MSN Messenger.
Re:Something called... by arkanes · 2002-03-31 04:27 · Score: 2

In (sort of) order...
a) Disk space: Sure, my MP3s take up alot more space than windows messenger or outlook express do. But it's still disk space I want back. There's also the fact that I have a small windows partition, and all the MP3s and whatnot are on a seperate physical drive, so removing outlook express saves me space on a partition where I actually need it.
b)Bare bones car: You most certainly can buy a bare-bones car, as in a car that has just enough functionality to run and no more. The care analagy is over-used and hard to stretch this far anyway.
c) Liability: MS has far less liability for anything involved in windows than Ford does for it's cars. For example, MS can quite legally have Windows wipe any linux partitions it finds, and not be liable (although doing so would probably spark enough suits that there'd finally be a real test of the EULA, and they don't want that).
d) Using windows: This isn't so much that "MS makes me use windows and it sucks", although very few people here never touch windows at all - whether it's just for games, or they support it at work, or whatver. It's about bashing a company for making totally false statements in court, and creating a shoddy product, that somehow has become an industry standard. If it's going to be a (de facto) standard, then by god it should be better.
e) Components in linux: You can remove any component you want in linux without affecting things that don't directly rely on that component. Removing the X libraries won't make your system crash when you try to boot. The distribution model for windows is different than for linux, but the basic correlation is Microsoft -> linux kernen :: OEM -> linux distro, which is sort of what the States are pushing for here - A stripped down, core OS which OEMS may then add whatever functionality they want to. MS fears this like the plague.
As for how much you paid... well, if there was a stripped down OS, one would assume it would cost less. And nobody is saying that MS can't add this functionality, simply that it needs to be removable and modifiable. For example, the poster above who mentioned an update for Windows Messenger that "you should install even if not running it". What the heck is up with that? Why should I need to install updates to a program I don't use? Because they've intentionally loaded core OS functionality in the same DLLs that app uses. Thats blatantly poor programming practice, and the only reasonable explanation for it is to give them a legal out.
Re:Something called... by j_stirk · 2002-03-31 04:36 · Score: 1

Take for instance my school. We have, for trials, migrated 2 workstations over from NT4 to WinXP in our CISCO lab. It comes with .NET Messenger (MSN Messenger), we cannot work out any way to remove this, and every day, we find some shmuck trying to use it. Why is it that we are unable to remove it? Is it a crucial part of the NT5 kernel??? Would XP cease to work without it??? NO! It is just bloat and pointless waste of space, and time. well in our network, we have disabled windows messenger of the workstations. and we are able to fully control all computer systems restricting one's access to certain apps and avoiding messing up with the computer. everything is done without installing any 3rd party software. just the policy settings.
That is what ours should do... However a nice virus through the network doesnt help policies... I wish ours DID do that...
and if you think that having all of those software takes up harddrive space. i bet your collection of mp3 and other files is 100000x more than a simple 4MB installation file. with the 160gb hdd on the horizon and a hdd with the smallest 20gb in the market, what do you do with all the space (other than storing those mp3 files in it?)
For your info, my MP3 collection is probably about 1.5Gig... Nothing to write home about... The main difference is where my 1.5Gig of MP3s I listen to and use, whereas IE, WMP, etc. I _NEVER_ use... And as for IE5.5, its installer to Download (so most probably compressed) for most (not even all!) of the modules is about 30-50Mb!!! And that is probably compressed... So thats atleast 50Mb that is wasted... I may as well just mark the clusters as bad on the hard disk and be done with it... (I had to download it when I was using W95 by the way... So I havent downloaded it recently... I dread to think of the size of IE6!) Also, I still use a 3GB drive to accompany my 40 GB HDD. There are alot of people out there who simply do not have a 2Ghz P4 with a 80GB HDD. Most workstations at my school have only 4GB or (in some cases) 2GB HDDs... Its simply not a good argument to say "We have 160GB, LETS FILL IT!!!". If there was a court for programs, Im sure that would come under the charge of "Gross Abuse of Hardware" =P
however, have you ever thought that you bought a car without any parts in it. meaning because you can "rebrand a car" this means that I can sell one without tires (and you will be the one to choose) or i sell you without any parts like the fuel injection, spark plugs, radiator (because you can all purchase these things from other small shops and assemble them!) You haven't seen a car sold in a bare configuration, have you?
This isnt a matter of cutting the code yourself to assemble the modules of Windows, any installer (if done correctly) could seamlessly add and remove modules as easy as installing other 3rd part applications (which IE, WMP, MSNMS are anyway!!)
i also do not get why all people are bashing windows. i mean you have the choice to use it or not. if you do not want, then don't (as most of you are doing.) it is not that microsoft is forcing everyone to use windows (because if it is, then all you guys reading this have a windows workstation).
That is right, we do have the right to choose, and most of us have... Microsoft is not forcing us to use its products, as we know there are alternatives, and are willing to work to use those alternatives. However, Microsoft is using tactics that prevent a peon/average user from realising that there are other products, and (to use a rather tired old metaphor) we are much like Morpheous in "The Matrix"... We are helping to free their minds (i warned you it was bad... =P)
as a consumer in part, i paid roughly $80 for an original windows xp home in our country (i really do not get where you get all the price figures).
Over here (Australia) the cheapest I have seen XP home for is about $150 AU (approx. $75 US)
i would also argue in linux, i think if you are to do the same thing, most companies should not include any add-ons installed. so the distribution copy should be the kernel and it alone.
When a Distro is put out, it is (practically) 100% customizable. If you dont want a certain feature, you can just remove it. Take for example (getting a worse, and worse example, but one none-the-less) RedHat on a desktop. If you dont want a browser, email client, news reader, etc. that comes with it - fine. Dont install it. Funny how M$ doesnt give you the option of saying "Do not install IE6" in the XP install... (Infact, does XP give you ANY options in the XP install!?!?!?)

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:
Re:Something called... by DebH · 2002-03-31 04:47 · Score: 1

have you ever thought that you bought a car without any parts in it. meaning because you can "rebrand a car" this means that I can sell one without tires (and you will be the one to choose) or i sell you without any parts like the fuel injection, spark plugs, radiator (because you can all purchase these things from other small shops and assemble them!) You haven't seen a car sold in a bare configuration, have you?

That's not a very good analogy because the parts you mention are essential to a car's basic operation in getting passengers from point A to point B. The things MS tacks on (and raises its prices for, and forbids us to remove) are more akin to a car's A/C, stereo, CD player, pinstriping, paint sealant, undercoating, window tinting, and ScotchGuard. Nice things to have it you want to pay extra, but plain annoying if you're FORCED to have them and warned that attempting to remove them will cause the whole car to stop running, and void the warranty. :P
Re:Something called... by McDoobie · 2002-03-31 07:51 · Score: 1

For an OS thats supposedly easy to use, why should I have to go through all that B.S. just to remove something I never asked for in the first place?
Re:Something called... by NineNine · 2002-03-31 08:02 · Score: 2

XP is a CONSUMER OS. CONSUMERS at HOME want shit like MSN. If you're not a mommy or daddy at home doing your taxes and letting your kids IM and play games, DO NOT USE XP. Is that so fucking difficult? This is the same as people in businesses bitching about Win 95/98/ME instead of using NT/W2K like they were supposed to. You're buying a fucking Geo and trying to use it as a towtruck. That's fucking stupid. Install W2K and shut the hell up.
Re:Something called... by CoolVibe · 2002-03-31 08:27 · Score: 2

"...and as an extra feature, you can steer the car with the volume knob on your car stereo.."
Dunno where I got that. I vaguely remember some quote like that in Lloyds Delphi Notes.
Re:Something called... by CoolVibe · 2002-03-31 08:47 · Score: 1

Oh ye of little understanding...
Us geeks just need to bash on that monstrosity they pay us to support every day. We absolutely MUST have our fix of Microsoft bashing. It's something we can't live without, just like coffee.
So shut the hell up and let us rant if we want :)
(Yes, that was tongue in cheek and meant to be funny.)
Re:Something called... by bgeiger · 2002-03-31 13:22 · Score: 1

however, have you ever thought that you bought a car without any parts in it. meaning because you can "rebrand a car" this means that I can sell one without tires (and you will be the one to choose) or i sell you without any parts like the fuel injection, spark plugs, radiator (because you can all purchase these things from other small shops and assemble them!) You haven't seen a car sold in a bare configuration, have you?
Actually, yes I have.
I can buy one without air conditioning/heater, power windows, radio, et cetera. To me, that's the equivalent of, say, M$IE.... nice features, but definitely not necessary.
And if I do find them necessary, I can always install an aftermarket version. (That'd be Mozilla, in case you're not paying attention.)
but the big question there is, will ford be liable if something happens (an accident) because you fitted the wrong part (because you customized it)?
That depends. If I install an aftermarket AC compressor, and it fails, I can't complain to my car dealership. However, if I install it, and my tires blow out, I can rightfully complain.
Same thing applies here. If I install Mozilla, and it won't run, I can't complain to Microsloth. However, if I install Mozilla, and Solitaire won't run, I can complain. (Not that I play Solitaire, but...)
as a consumer in part, i paid roughly $80 for an original windows xp home in our country (i really do not get where you get all the price figures).
You probably got the upgrade. Full versions around here cost approximately USD $200.
and i am happy to get windows messenger, ie, windows media player, etc all built-in. imaging if i were to pay the same amount just to get the os (and your start menu will not have any programs menu but control panel.)
I don't want Messenger. I don't want IE. I don't want Windows Media Player. Why are you forcing them down my throat? The point is, Joe Sixpack can't remove those items, even if he installs other programs that do the same things. Most tech people can't remove them either. Even if they can, it's not nearly as simple as in Linux: "dpkg --purge mozilla" or "rpm -e mozilla", etc.
i would also argue in linux, i think if you are to do the same thing, most companies should not include any add-ons installed. so the distribution copy should be the kernel and it alone.
In Linux, you *can* do that. It's possible to install only the kernel and the bare minimum libs needed to run. You can fit an entire system on a floppy, remember?
Also, you can remove anything you want. Most distros either include three or four different web browsers, or ask you which you want upon install.

--
o/~ All God's children shall be free in Pirates of the Caribbean, when we reach that Magic Kingdom in the sky... o/~
Re:Something called... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 20:22 · Score: 0

IMHO, it's kinda stupid saying you're concerned with the extra 50 MB of IE, the extra (what... 5 MB) space for MSNenger...

first off,
most end users don't even GET the concept of hard drive space

secondly,
check pricewatch.com and tell me what the smallest hdd you can even BUY is

I can't even FIND my 17.2 GB HDD out there!
tell me what that extra 50 MB is going to accomplish? An extra word doc? Come on!

thirdly,
I run win2k, and while perhaps it's not winXP, i have friends who do use it... and I've NEVER been FORCED to install MSNenger, nor have i ever seen my friends forced to use it.
And even if it IS left resident on the computer, whooptie-do. It's another start menu item i can delete, another start menu group that the average end user will ignore.

Fourthly,
Most end users don't build their own computer (obviously), nor do they generally run a 'clean install' of an OS. most end users buy from dell or gateway or compaq or whatnot, and get a system that's got 10x the space IE may use with other worthless crap. so again, what's the point of "saving the space"?

in terms of media player,
again, back to the whole "most end users don't even know what hdd space is"/"most end users buy OEM with more crap than they know what to do with"... hell, most generally have RealMedia as their default player... WMP isn't interfering with it. Most media players even have the stupid little agents in the systray for FASTER loading!

if people are complaining about their OEM puters bein full of junk, take a moment to realize what they're ACTUALLY saying.

Partly agree by Otis_INF · 2002-03-31 02:47 · Score: 4, Informative

(NOTE: I'm not debating the issue IF tying IE's core libs to win32 was a WISE decision or not)

The fact that IE's core libs are part of a greater lib-set (the shell extension libraries, part of win32) is discussed a zillion times and can't be denied the tying is there and there to stay. Removing 'IE' from windows by the tools available do not remove the core libraries because these are also used by the shell and a lot of 3rd party tools. Removing also these core libraries is not a solution, especially because 3rd party tool users on windows NEED the libraries to use the 3rd party tools anyway. These tools will break OR these users have to install IE anyway to use these tools, so the removal of these core libs is IMHO not that useful.

Although I'm a sole win32 developer and like some of the Microsoft technologies a lot, I simply can't understand why they say 'Windows is not designed to be modular'. It IS setup and designed to be modular. The problem is: the modules designed are not designed in a way that they are usable :).

Also: windows media player is a technology which uses codec's in the form of COM components. I simply can't see why windows media player can't be removed from windows: it's a shell around COM components.

--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.

Re:Partly agree by rabidcow · 2002-03-31 03:48 · Score: 1

Removing 'IE' from windows by the tools available do not remove the core libraries because these are also used by the shell and a lot of 3rd party tools. Removing also these core libraries is not a solution, especially because 3rd party tool users on windows NEED the libraries to use the 3rd party tools anyway.

Technically, all these tools need is the API. They need *something* that put out the right interface and performs a similar function. Of course, the way MS set things up, they probably ask for the interface by CLSID number, which are usually application and company specific.
Re:Partly agree by mpe · 2002-03-31 07:46 · Score: 2

I simply can't understand why they say 'Windows is not designed to be modular'. It IS setup and designed to be modular. The problem is: the modules designed are not designed in a way that they are usable :).

Or even deliberatly implimented in a way that makes actual modular use virtually impossible.
The same way that Windows does not actually need to copy files back and forth as "roaming profiles". But try making it simply alter the relevent registry keys to point at the server copy...
Re:Partly agree by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 20:54 · Score: 2

The problem isn't in the wrapping, it's that the states wants *all* of it removed.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

The Support Nightmare by blacklite001 · 2002-03-31 02:51 · Score: 1

"Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare."

We can't have that! Not an operating system that runs slowly and is complete pain in the ass to support! Gasp.

Re:The Support Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's obvious that a lot of people have forgotten the good old days of Windows, when application developers routinely used the fact that Windows was modular to do things like, oh, I don't know, replace critical system .dll's with their own versions, or old versions, breaking everything else that was installed that heppened to rely on those functions. I hate to think what the effect would be if a vendor on a modular solution like Linux decided to, oh, replace glibc, or something.

Something to consider is this:

Windows has a big disadvantage when it comes to competing with every other operating system out there. It has to run on every imaginiable intel platform out there, from the homegrown stuff to the $19.95 corner store specials. Not only that, but it has to be done in such a way that even an idiot can make it work. There's not another operating system out there that has to live up to these expectations. MacOS? Apple owns the hardware, too. Same for Solaris. (Don't get me started on anti-competetive and monopoly when talking about those two. Remember the Apple clone debacle?) Linux/FreeBSD users are signifigantly more advanced than your average Joe off the streets...or even your average CEO. I'd hate to think of my father, for example, getting his new PC, and having to download and install Netscape...without any browser already on the computer. Have you ever tried walking a 54-year old computer illiterate who types with two fingers on the best of days through downloading a program with nothing more than a command line FTP client?

The point is this: Consumers want to be able to plug in their new PC, and get on the Internet. They don't want to spend days downloading applications, figure out how to set them up, and then have to learn how to use them. You're overlooking the basic fact that the average person only has an IQ of 100. Microsoft makes a product that people want. People are willing to pay for it despite the existance of free alternatives. We all loudly proclaim the importance of freedom and free-enterprise, until someone gains a monopoly (which Microsoft, by the strict legal definition, DOESN'T HAVE. See US v. Standard Oil of New Jersey. I can count 5 competing products right off the top of my head.), then we run yellingn and screaming for government intervention.

As to the support issue:
Microsoft should stop providing support as soon as a user or vendor installs a new application or a device driver not certified by Microsoft. The user or vendor has altered the product in a fashion beyond Microsoft's control; but they don't. How many times have you seen stickers that say "warranty void if removed"? I have yet to understand why Microsoft doesn't do the same; it would decrease their support costs significantly.

But, then, you'd all be complaining about how poor Microsoft Support is. (Oh, wait...) For the number of different platforms, configurations, additional software they have to support, etc. I think they do a reasonably decent job.
Re:The Support Nightmare by VB · 2002-03-31 05:52 · Score: 1

Windows has a big disadvantage when it comes to competing with every other operating system out there. It has to run on every imaginiable intel platform out there...

How is Windows disadvantaged? Linux runs on all the following:
alpha cris ia64 mips parisc s390 sh sparc64 arm i386 m68k mips64 ppc s390x sparc

WRT voiding of warrantees, keep in mind this is software. If M$ put their software together correctly, it would be secure, stable, and prevent installation of rogue software by the end user correctly, instead of threatening them through the EULA.

Windows is $300 for an upgrade for the FIRST YEAR! That is approaching the cost of the actual PC! I would expect anything I spend $300/yr to be perfect!

But, it isn't. And, if it can't be modularized in a way to keep it manageable to windows developers, at least show me some KDE desktops at Best Buy. Your dad doesn't need to run Linux, but shouldn't he have the right to judge that for himself? Perhaps he could use the extra $250 he'd save for other things. Or, perhaps he could pay a more reasonable fee for windows if other OSes were allowed to be sold at the Gateway store.

--
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic

Support? Really? by Netmogul · 2002-03-31 02:52 · Score: 1

Does Microsoft really support Windows now?

Do they really have a leg to stand on when it comes to objecting to cost of support?

It seems that if support were really a grave concern, that the OEMs, Incs, and ISVs -- the real Windows support folks -- would be up in arms protesting a potential "support nightmare."

Where is the outcry? The audience is listening.

-Netanyahu

Re:Support? Really? by EnterprisePenguin · 2002-03-31 04:52 · Score: 1

This is a good point. If someone purchases a computer from an OEM, if they have problems, they call the OEM, then M$ as a last resort.
The act of making the OS 'modular' allows OEM's to make a choice of what THEY want to support on the merits of the middleware application.
The OEM's are not screaming because they are in business to sell hardware. They see an opportunity to cut support costs which will eventually be passed on to the consumer.
The funny thing is M$ is making this out to be bad for the consumer, I disagree. The fact that the OS is modular, and that their OEM does not install IE, does not stop the consumer from installing it (of course M$ not wanting install disks shipped with hardware makes it a bit more difficult, but thats their fault). It doesn't even stop the customer from asking the OEM to install IE instead of the OEM's default.
What it does allow for is a group of inovative developers to create bexplorer (better explorer), and have the ability to talk OEM's into installing it instead of M$. If the OEM finds customers complaining about bexplorer, they will stop loading it, if M$ sees that OEM's are loading bexplorer more often, they will adopt the features of bexplorer, either way, everone has a chance to win.
I run linux because it does what I want it to do.
My mom runs Windows because it does what SHE wants it to do.
Choice is a good thing!

One question by corps_inc · 2002-03-31 02:52 · Score: 0

Aren't they pathetic?

Just let them go. by MantiX · 2002-03-31 02:52 · Score: 1

Screw it. The answer here is quite simple really, and I have more confidence now than ever before. Being a consultant, and one that installs mostly Microsoft solutions, I have to support a lot of things they do. And arguably, some of their technologies are pretty kewl, invented, bought out, or whatever. However, whats at play here, is a greater mentality, that in general, people disagree with. Microsoft I don't think REALISE that as a "generality", people are using their technology only because its all that exists, to the level of professional development that it exists on.

Simply, Linux, whatever, people have just plain got the shits. Microsoft: Go ahead. Continue on your way. In the end, (and the fact that one of your execs in years past was quoted as saying "there are six things that stop me from going to sleep, Linux is one of them" says a lot about how below the surface, you fear what is just a public expression of disapproval of your attitude) you will suffer the same fate of an IBM, an AT&T, and so on.

Microsoft, I like some of what you do. As for the rest, you are merely a small group of greedy corporate executives. Thats all. Nothing more. I suspect you will all bail and just say we had it wrong when the share price slumps, indicating the same lack of spine you have in "how" do you things now. To want to produce the best OS, is not wrong. To want to eradicate all opposition, is.

To the guys actually putting in a hard days work: I am disappointed for you in that what you do helps you get a days pay, when ordinarily if only you could have a different crowd to earn that days crust from. Whilst I know Linux isn't that opportunity, I am none the less aware of what must be an enourmously frustrating situation.

In the meantime, Linux is the providing the best fight, with the most guts, purely because (and don't get me wrong, we're talking about computers vs life and World Wars) people are actually prepared to put aside time and use their expertise to support something, whilst enduring what has been a lengthy process (but is getting so much better), simply to avoid YOU. I fin'd it ironic that the there are 3 things where this is found.

1. To avoid defeat of freedom. Which ties into 2:

2. To uphold their religious belief (merely stating fact here, a reflection upon events over all time, where people have come together to support a notion.

3. To not do business with you.

Now the first 2 are galant, and on a scale beyond what we can possibly apply to this issue. I am merely stating that you guys have managed to irritate enough people so that they can volunatarily develop an OS capable of what yours can now, only harder to setup, with no where near the application support. Funny, I notice people developing for Linux a bit more now. But I am guessing your deliberately ignoring this at the moment.

Ignorance is bliss, but in the court of public opinion, it is not an excuse for being greedy.

I hope for your sake you might emply some dignity, humility, and actually serve the public interest for once, not your own.

Pardon Me?

"Oh, but I sold Windows 2000 to the Military supporting US soldiers, so they can upgrade to XP within 18 months..." does not make you patriotic.

By Military standards, a good technology is one that does its job, to the best of its ability, faster, smarter, with an ability to grow, and work well with other technologies.

So Microsoft, I ask you:

Where do you want to BE... Tomorrow?

Leave the support to the OEMs. by man_ls · 2002-03-31 02:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

I actually agree with this-between Office, Media Player, and MSIE; each of them provides vital system functionality that would be hard to replicate perfectly elsewhere.

Microsoft doesn't want to have to support 3rd-party extensions to their core software-rightfully so. That's why overclocking voids your warrenty on OEM systems...it's an unsupported modification.

So, let the OEMs who are modifiying Windows do ALL the support. "Sorry, we do not support modified versions of Windows."

Let 'em continue selling a Microsoft-supported version; and for the same price let the OEM's pick either a full copy of a "modular" copy. Just, when the modular copy doesn't work because someone didn't follow the specs properly, they can't complain to MS about it.

Windows 3.1-ish was relatively modular...there were available replacement environments and stuff. For more complex OSes, modular and workable (not necessarely stable) are different things.

Re:Leave the support to the OEMs. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 05:28 · Score: 0

MS already forces OEMs to do the support work for their distributed bundles.

Have you ever phoned up for tech support on a OEM installation? You'll be charged $60+ just for the semi-trained parrots to read answers from the Knowledge Base you already failed to get any answers from.

If OEMs modify the windows installation, sue they'll have to suuport the resulting kit. But as they already do this, it's not as if this is an extra load.
Re:Leave the support to the OEMs. by ONU+CS+Geek · 2002-03-31 05:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Isn't this the way it is now? (referring to the OEM Support)
If I go out and buy a E-Machine, Dell, or Gateway that has $WIN_VER preinstalled, and if $WIN_VER breaks, if I call Microsoft, they'll only referr me to the Computer Vendor for Support.
Anyone who deals with OEM contracts care to expand on this?

--

I disable sigs...do you?
Re:Leave the support to the OEMs. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:39 · Score: 1, Informative

Yes -- OEMs get a steep price reduction on Windows in return for providing suppport.

The problem with this proposal is that no OEM will load a crippled version of Windows that doesn't run all off-the-shelf software. That would increase their support costs, most likely beyond the few bucks they save buy not purchasing IE/WMP.

So, it's really a non-solution. Maybe it's just a little hope that OEMs might apply more leverage against new MS middleware. Although that's very unlikely, because the MS Middleware is what moves the machines (see Win XP).
Re:Leave the support to the OEMs. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:12 · Score: 0

> I actually agree with this-between Office, Media Player, and MSIE; each of them provides vital system functionality that would be hard to replicate perfectly elsewhere.

...and the reason for this difficulty in replication? Because Microsoft doesn't document the APIs and file formats necessary for said replication. Monopoly, anyone?

What they mean by slower. by bluelarva · 2002-03-31 02:54 · Score: 1

a slower, much-less user friendly Windows

I think what they mean is slower is application launch speed. It's obvious a chunk of IE code is always preloaded in the system memory during boot sequence. When user double click on that blue e on your desktop it just invokes them. If MS is forced to remove this preloading mechanism it would take a considerable time to launch IE. But what I don't understand is that they can still add this preload feature even if they were to ship IE separate from the rest of the system. MS Office have been doing it for years. Mozilla offers this option during install. It's not that MS can't, they just don't want to. In conclusion MS is flat out lying.

On Linux, Trillian runs under Wine... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 02:56 · Score: 0

...not that it's required. There are plenty of IM programs.

Re:DAY 5 OF SLASHDOT ROTO BLACKOUT by gbarta · 2002-03-31 02:57 · Score: 1

Really?

Windows isn't modular! by mjh · 2002-03-31 03:00 · Score: 2

If windows isn't designed to be modular, that means it's not designed to allow users to decide what software they want and don't want.

Is that an admission that windows is designed to be Microsoft forcing software down users throats whether they want it or not?

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.

Re:Windows isn't modular! by pohl · 2002-03-31 03:06 · Score: 1

I think you're right. Worse yet, it's an admission that they're not interested in producing quality software, since modularity is the first freakin' step in good software design.

--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

Minimise Overlap??? What about XP??? by j_stirk · 2002-03-31 03:01 · Score: 1

I know at one stage (not sure if it was continued to production) that XP would put any and all DLLs a third party program installed and regardless of where the installer asked for them to go, put them in the Program's directory. Consequenially, this meant that you could, and quite often would have 5 or so copies of DLLs if you had a few programs that used that 3rd party DLL, as each program installed their own. Doesnt this defeat the original purpose of DLL's??? Oh wait.. They're Dynamic Link Libraries... Nowhere does it say they have to be used as re-usable Libraries. Sorry, my bad... Can anyone tell me if this is still the case in the current official XP releases???

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:

Re:Minimise Overlap??? What about XP??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:39 · Score: 0

This is part of XP's fight against DLL Hell, whereby you'd install a program and it would replace DLLs used by other apps, and then the other apps would break because they can't use the newer DLL that just got installed. Many apps are bad about this, and don't have the more complex installers needed to detect the older DLL(s) and install the newer versions in their own directory, as they should - they just stomp on whatever's already there.

Can't fault XP on this one; blame sloppy installer writers.

Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about by cyberlotnet · 2002-03-31 03:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Every time a subject like this comes up all the morons crawl out of the woodwork and show just how little they know about the whole Microsoft issue to begin with..

THIS IS NOT ABOUT WINDOWS SUCKING OR LINUX SUCKING Get a grip people

I use Windows and home and Linux at work.. Why? Windows plays all the games I like to play and linux handles all my work better, makes development easy..

I use linux, I would switch to linux totally if I could.. Do I hate Windows.. Its not the SOFTWARE thats on trial people its the Methods that made the software so popular..

Linux people should stop saying windows sucks.. Thats not truly the issue at hand.. You should be saying Bill is a backstabbing, cheating ahole... But then if our president can get a blowjob and get away with it.. Why can't Bill screw over companys.

Windows people have to understand its not windows itself that is pissing linux people off.. its the pure power Microsoft has over companys.. In essense they Had a button at hand that said you live or die by my word..

If a company refused to obey microsoft.. They refuse to sell to them.. The company has to buy off the normal market.. there prices go up there sales go down.. the company dies..

Microsoft HAD THAT POWER AND USED IT ABUSIVELY..

We made it wrong for Coke to tell stores if you want to sell our product you CANT SELL PEPSI.. why can't it be the same for Microsoft..

That is ALL WE ASK

--
Personal Website

Re:Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:11 · Score: 0

And yet deals can be struck by Pepsi outlawing the sales of Coke carbonated beverages.

Oh, I'm sure in that case, it's a 'willing' agreement. Still, these OEMs and such could've stood up to Microsoft long ago. Let them reap what they've sown.

The idea that a business must play nice with everyone is ridiculous. A business, by god, should have the right to decide what other entities it does business with.
Re:Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about by cyberlotnet · 2002-03-31 03:16 · Score: 1

There is a BIG diffrence in this case.. Not being able to sell Coke or Pepsi will never destroy a place..

Until the last couple years being told You can't sell Windows on your computers.. That would destroy almost any computer company.

--
Personal Website
Re:Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about by dieMSdie · 2002-03-31 03:43 · Score: 2

Wish I had some mod points right now. You just posted my own argument on the whole Linux vs. Windows thing!

Speaking of "support nightmare" - I have had to support various versions of Windows since 1995. It has always been frustrating. The worst part was when I started using Linux in 1996. Suddenly, I was using an OS that was much more stable and easier to configure than Windows - yet I was still having to support Windows on other people's machines. Thus, my nickname on Slashdot was born...

All the states need to do is remove Microsoft's power over the OEMs. Suddenly, you would see Linux shipping on computers, or you would see drastic price reductions on what Microsoft charged for Windows.

--
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
Re:Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about by jonasj · 2002-03-31 05:50 · Score: 1

But then if our president can get a blowjob and get away with it.. Why can't Bill screw over companys.

That argument is complete bullshit. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife -- so what? I could understand if she got angry, but why did it have to be made into such a big thing?

You [meaning "Americans"] even talked about deposing (is that the right word?) him. Because he had a blowjob? Is that illegal? Honestly, I don't get it.

And I also don't get how you can compare this to Microsoft's business methods. How are these two things even remotely related?

--
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Re:Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:56 · Score: 0

You [meaning "Americans"] even talked about deposing (is that the right word?) him. Because he had a blowjob? Is that illegal? Honestly, I don't get it.
The word was impeaching: meaning throwing him out of office. And there were impeachment proceedings, but IIRC, the Senate didn't have enough votes to impeach him. (Probably because the economy was doing well at the time, another year or two later and he'd have been out on his ass...)
And why did this happen? Because he lied under oath. Not because he got a blowjob, but because he went into a court of law, took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then lied through his teeth.
Re:Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about by Brendor · 2002-03-31 19:15 · Score: 1

Love the art, not the artisit.

IE is not just an "application" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:07 · Score: 0

As a VB/ASP developer, I know that IE is not just an "application". It's just the "outer layer" of an entire infrastructure of COM objects and services for internet interaction. Removing that WOULD break much of my code. Having to worry about supporting 10+ "alternatives" would be this developer's Hell! I wish to provide my customers with solutions, NOT a mess of extra plumbing!

For a good discussion of this, I suggest you check out this study on "ACTONLINE":

States' Proposed Remedies in Microsoft Case Could Cost Software Developers and Consumers $80 Billion

Re:IE is not just an "application" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 04:25 · Score: 0

As a VB/ASP developer, I know
Sweet Fuck All

Re:DAY 5 OF SLASHDOT ROTO BLACKOUT by cyberlotnet · 2002-03-31 03:07 · Score: 1

Source is USELESS you can't use it.. Or risk making your own code "dirty" by just looking at it..

If Microsoft can prove I looked at that source, and a year down the rode they don't like me they can try to claim some idea or something I did was done purely on what I learned from that source...

Forget if it was a idea of my own if they can tie that idea to something in that source im screwed.. I can't afford to fight them..

--
Personal Website

The proposed solution is evil and anti-consumer by GodSpiral · 2002-03-31 03:23 · Score: 2

From the consuemr perspective, no one would prefer a version of windows without features if its the same price as one with features. It will be the same price.

The solution will provide no consumer benefit whatsoever, so it is essentially retarded from that perspective.

So why are states pushing for this stupidity? Simply put, the corruption of democratic lobbying. The effort will give power to computer makers, AOL, and Real, and they are influencing political action targeting MS, but in the end, computer makers will be the only ones benefitting since MS will be part of the bidding war in penetrating desktops with their apps, and at present, they have a quality advantage, and controlling the base OS, gives them an abundance of tactics to keep the relative quality advantage.

Splitting up the company into an OS only group and other software group must be part of any such debundling plan, for it to serve any benefit to the software industry.

Re:The proposed solution is evil and anti-consumer by dmnic · 2002-03-31 05:06 · Score: 1

even though IE and WMP are free anyways??? so what if Windows is the same price with or without these programs. if you want them bad enough you can d/l them for free from Microsoft...

--
the history of the world
Re:The proposed solution is evil and anti-consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:20 · Score: 0

No, it wouldn't be the same price. Win would be commodified like any other part of the computer, and it would be interchangable. That way, it would be cheaper. And there would be more options as well. So the economy would boom when more companies get some of MS' action and more money goes to innovator's and less into the integrator's pockets. Did you really sleep the past decade or are you lying?

Win 98 Lite by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:24 · Score: 0

Can't the states prove their case by showing Windows 98 Lite http://www.98lite.net. The only problem is that when you actually use the microsoft Apps they all want each other. So IE wants Media Player and if you try to install Office (Newer than 97) you need IE 5.0+. So if Microsoft removed thier cross dependancies. It would seem as if it would be possible.

How would we know the difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 03:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

Im a Level 2 helpdesk specialist... whoooo has about 9 years worth of Linux experience (means nothing in a MS world)... They say that Windows would be hard to support if they removed components... My answer to that is, how would we know the difference?

How to remove system files for good by jonasj · 2002-03-31 03:45 · Score: 1

> It is like Ford saying "Here's your new car, it > comes with tires, but if you want another brand > of tires, you still have to keep these four tires > in your car otherwise it wont work..."

It's not impossible to delete the files MS has placed under Windows System File Protection or whatever they call it. If fact, it's very easy. You have of course tried to just select the file in Explorer and hit Delete, right? And noticed that it got deleted all right but 10 seconds later it was magically recreated? You can work around that. Just open your C:\winnt\system32\dllcache directory (or wherever you have installed your Windows). You'll find that this dir contains copies of all the files which are recreated. Just delete them from dllcache first, and then delete them from there normal location. Then they won't reappear.

I have successfully removed Outlook Express from my system in this way. :-)

--
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.

Re:How to remove system files for good by Anonymous Coward · 2002-04-03 17:44 · Score: 0

OR boot from tomsrbt then type
"mount /dev/hda1 /mnt"
"rm -r /mnt/*"
then install linux
presto all of your windows problems are over

Hey Gang This Is The Penalty Phase. by HiyaPower · 2002-03-31 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is the penalty phase of the thing. The courts have decided that Microsoft is guilty. I personally don't care how costly it will be for them to do what is necessary. If you are a bank robber, extortionist or other such malafactor, it is not a concern of the court that it will be inconvenient or expensive for you to spend the next several years in the slammer.

There are a number of reasons why you have a penalty phase: First it is to deter folks from doing something similar in the future. Secondly, they must make restitution to society for their crime. Both usually involve extraction of a degree of pain from the convicted.

If Judge Jackson's penalty had remained in force (as it should have), you would be amazed how fast Microsoft would have done what they contend that they can't.

Dont get me started on my school.... by j_stirk · 2002-03-31 03:47 · Score: 1

I havent done it, as I am a student, and my class mate would most likely have a whine at me for doing it, and my CISCO teacher (the Net Admin) will complain at me if I dont do my CISCO during CISCO... Despite the fact that whenever the Linux box needs something done to it, he instantly asks me, and then yells at me later for not doing CISCO... Our Net Admin is run of his feet with the 2K server that doesnt work, and profiles that dont work. And resetting the passwords for idiotic students who fail to listen to a week long of daily notices saying "All accounts have been reset on the network, please use your login name as usual and password as password for your first login, where you will then be asked to change it". Our Techo only comes in one day a week and even with his [sarcasm] oh so brilliant MCSE [/sarcasm] is having trouble with the 2K server, and the NT4 machines arround the school. But now that I know of it, I will do it at lunch... Thankyou... These are my excuses, and I am sticking to them =P

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:

Re:Dont get me started on my school.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 04:02 · Score: 0

"But now that I know of it, I will do it at lunch... Thankyou..."

No problem.

"These are my excuses, and I am sticking to them =P"

Ya it's hard dealing with people that outrank you and get paid even though they are seemingly idiots in an area that you feel you have more knowledge. It's also really hard for the vast majority of schools to deal with Windows administration. I've seen the worst of it so I can empathise.
Re:Dont get me started on my school.... by lazarius · 2002-03-31 15:20 · Score: 1

I wish that my school would move to a Linux (or, probably better, *BSD) fileserver, rather than the Windows connected by NetWare for Win that we currently have. I could set it up in a weekend (at most), and have all sorts of scripts where they just type in "newusers" and then follow onscreen instructions, rather than wiping it and starting over every year. It would have the added advantage of not going down for a week monthly. (might need a reboot in the summer, but no one's around to notice). If we did that, my cool Tic Tac Toe program would still exist.

And to think, me, a student, can fix windows computers better than most of the staff ... there's another guy or two like me; we're all hooked on Linux/Unix - one is currently on a Mdk or RedHat, I can't remember, but is moving to Debian, and the other has only one computer at home, that his parents need to use as well...

MIKE

--
Beware the JabberOrk.

I'm getting confused here.... by rkoot · 2002-03-31 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Last week, I read an article on slashdot about M$ beginning with a anti-unix campaign.
One of their arguments was (IIRC) that Unix was inflexible, not modular, needed an expert to handle it etc.
And now M$ says, windblows isn't modular as well. It would even be unmanagable/unsupportable if they stripped IE and WMP off Windows...
They used to tell different faerie tales....
Only a few years ago, one of M$'s campaigns claimed WinNT to be a better Unix than Unix.
How better ? being less modular and managable than un*x ? So how should I interprete these conflicting stories ?
Oh well, it's just another piece of FUD. Have a nice day.
R.

Re:I'm getting confused here.... by mother_superius · 2002-03-31 14:27 · Score: 1

Are you saying Microsoft could possibly be lying?

News to me.

Go ahead and mod me down by Pedrito · 2002-03-31 03:56 · Score: 1

In Microsoft's defense, I'm not really sure how they'd pull IE out of Windows 2000 or Windows XP. It really is fundamental part of the user interface. The desktop is "Explorer", and Explorer is IE, and IE is Explorer, in many ways.

The fact that I can go into IE and type: C:\ and all of a sudden browse my drive, or be in Explorer and type http://slashdot.org and it will take me to Slashdot, all of this, seamlessly, is frankly, a nice feature. The two are entirely integrated, and I don't think it could be separated without a fundamental redesign of the desktop user interface.

That said, I don't defend Microsoft's business practices. They have been predatory, but I think the government came after them at the wrong time and for the wrong things.

Integrating the browser into the OS was a good move and maybe not a "natural" evolutions as Microsoft would say, but it was a good evolution. The justice department should have gone after MS for things like pre-announcing products that hadn't even been started, just to keep people from buying competitors' products, or releasing software for free as loss leaders, just to grab up marketshare and put competition out of business.

For a monopoly, these things are blatently predatory and not what the government went after. I think everyone will agree that the government made a number of mistakes in pursuing this case.

Hell, the original judge even denied the justice department their first victory, saying that they weren't addressing enough of Microsoft's predatory practices. He wanted to see them go after more. What do they do? Drop the case and start over. Idiots.

Try opening explorer.exe and hitting delete... by j_stirk · 2002-03-31 03:58 · Score: 1

I would try it right now, but this isnt my computer, and so I'm not stupid enough to risk it... And even if it DOES delete, try rebooting... Im sure your Windows partition wont like you after that... Sure - IE, MSN, WMP, CAN be removed, but the average peon doesnt understand that you can do it, and hence, wont know to delete the cache first... That is the main problem with some of the /. community (and no, im not pointing the finger at you :P).. they dont realise that not every computer user is as competent as they are... ive seen kids entering the first year of the CCNA course who have asked what version of Windows is called Linux, or "what is that stupid skin for Windows XP?" (when I was using the console... WHAT THE HELL!?!?!?!) Kids who looked at Mozilla and asked where I got the skin for IE, or if it was IE6? One kid even told the instructor that a CD was broken, as it didnt automatically start when you put it in the drive!!! The moral of this long winded story : Yes, you can remove IE, WMP, MSN, etc... But its not easy, and the average shmuck/peon hasnt got a clue where to start...

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:

Re:Try opening explorer.exe and hitting delete... by jonasj · 2002-03-31 06:00 · Score: 1

I just tried removing explorer.exe from both dllcache and winnt. At lasted for about 20 seconds, then BOTH of them suddenly reappered. So Windows apparently store some secret alternative backup elsewhere, which is reserved for the truly necessary files (since Outlook Express isn't in it).

--
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Re:Try opening explorer.exe and hitting delete... by nahojd · 2002-03-31 09:59 · Score: 1

And why would "the average peon" have any interest in removing IE or WMP from his/her computer? If you don't like them (I hate windows media player), just don't use them. No one is forcing you! And hard disk space is cheap anyway, so it really doesn't bother me that WMP uses 20 MB or so of my hard drive. Stop whining!

Slower, less user friendly by Anne_Nonymous · 2002-03-31 04:05 · Score: 1

>> Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare.

I'm no Linux zealot, but WTF do you think Windows is now?

Wow by brandonsr · 2002-03-31 04:05 · Score: 1

Because the last thing in the world anyone would want is another useful OS. (referring to the part about not wanting windows to be modular)

Why could it ever be good to have that choice? by forgoil · 2002-03-31 04:08 · Score: 2

"So what IM do you have installed? Not ours? Sorry, I can't help you" etc etc. Microsoft Windows has one very big advantage. It's one package which is designed to work together. Mozilla doesn't work like a windows application, nor does Netscape or AIM. And they are not only designed to work together on a binary level, but at a userlevel.

For a second forget the fact that you will willingly put countless amounts of hours to change your system, compile and download odd pieces of software and patches. Think about someone who doesn't think computers are the most exciting thing in the world. Why would they want to buy a version of Windows without the applications they already, painstainkingly, have leared how to use in class, from friends, or from litrature? Why would they pay *MORE* in total to get what Windows normally offers? It's a bundle, it's meant to be good for the user, and it is.

A real choice would be MacOS X, Windows XP, and _ONE_ linux distro with _ONE_ desktop. We computer geeks can shout and scream, but we are no longer a majority. Be happy that Linux does exist so you can have it as a hobby (and some work with it), but don't go assuming what you want is the best for everyone.

Don't be afraid of Microsoft, they just wanna sell products. Be afraid of the companies that wants to control the media, to control the masses. They are scary, look at Berlusconi (no idea how it's spelled, sorry all Italians) and what he is doing in Europe right now. What AOL/Time Warning is doing in the states.

If you want to make a statement, make better software for !windows, use !windows, and the day there is a better OS for me than XP I will switch (and I will be the only one making that decision, I know far too much about computers to let anyone else do it. Just as you probably do. So I would be just as pissed if you told me to use Linux, as you would be if I told you to use XP).

If microsoft wasn't arrogant? by f00zbll · 2002-03-31 04:12 · Score: 1

I wonder if all of this would even matter, if steve balmer and bill gates didn't act like arrogant asses. As someone said, it's not that any particular system sucks, but the attitude of the business.

Think of it this way. No matter how smart or dumb a person is, it not a problem until the person acts like an arrogant ass. If the whole sales and support staff of microsoft was more friendly and acted more humble, this law suit wouldn't have ever occurred. Lets face reality here. Nothing is perfect. No OS or business can ever be perfect, but when a business stops trying to be nice to their customers, that's when people get pissed. Microsoft created the mess with their own arrogance and heavy hand. Rather than admit their error, they are continuing to act like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Windows XP embedded? by jspaleta · 2002-03-31 04:21 · Score: 2

I thought MS was offering a version of XP for the embedded markets...where you paid for a modular OS that came it nice little pieces to fit in yer embedded hardware?

I think I saw a comparison of embedded solutions from MS against linux embedded offerings recently...

If MS can offer a modular embedded product to compete in that space...then they sure as hell can design the desktop OS around the same modular ideas.

-jef

People want integration. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 04:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

Most people want integration. They don't know how the computer works, they just want a friendly, familiar interface. That's what Microsoft provides. Note that doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for abusive market practices like harangueing OEM's.

The problem is that there are all these computer people who remember what computing was like before it was super-popular, and therefore before it was susceptible to marketing flimflam that reduced power users' flexibility.

Call it a "fiat is utopia", but its never going away as long as there's money to be made. The market is for the generally unknowledgeable consumer, not you the slashdot reader. If you want a modular windows, work on the WINE project. It may never be able to keep up with microsoft and their changes, but that's the nature of competition. Besides, what does microsoft or their primary buyers care? You aren't making it for them anyway, and they're not using it.

By the way, having IE as a dll is REALLY useful, and has increased the usability and flexibility of windows IMMENSELY.

If this is flamebait, then I guess anything you don't agree with is flamebait. Cry me a river.

Re:Microsoft is being intentionally misleading... by carm$y$ · 2002-03-31 04:26 · Score: 1

I agree M$ hides "strategic" pieces of software and tries to make them hard or next-to-impossible to uninstall; even Outlook Express - which was previously removable via Add/remove software is nowdays "a vital part of the operating system" (and yes, you actually can get rid of it: here - also C't magazine had a HOWTO for this - in german).

But unfortunately what you say about companies caught lying in court is just wishful thinking: these days, the corporations have more rights than an individual.
Money talks, basicly. :(

--
-- No sig today

bullshit by AnimeFreak · 2002-03-31 04:27 · Score: 1

Lets see... Windows 95 didn't have all the bloated shit that Windows 98 had, as well as the shit in ME.
NT 4.0 didn't have all the bloated shit that 2000 and XP had.

Hmm..

98 Lite demonstrated that you could still run Windows 98 and Windows ME WITHOUT Internet Explorer. Personally, integrating an Operating System and a browser is a completely stupid thing seeing that exploit after exploit has been discovered for this browser making it able to write to files, change things, etc.

How would it limit the OS? Oh wait, Microsoft thinks every family out there really cares if they use Internet Explorer and not Netscape. If I remember correctly, Netscape was one of the only browsers for Windows 3.1 (along with Mosaic and a few others) and even the small majority of families out there didn't care much for it. I don't even recall seeing Windows NT relying on Internet Explorer. Why should it anyways? Isn't NT supposed to be an enterprise operating system? Why would a server need an Internet Browser to run?

I am not a Windows user, but I still think that Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95 are the only decent versions of their operating system (though Windows 2000 is decent itself). Yet when Microsoft released Internet Explorer and made it a "dependant" for the operating system, I began to hate Microsoft as a passion. Internet Explorer was ported to Solaris, HP-UX, and Mac OS and I don't recall seeing the browser causing operating system to be dependant on it.

Bullshit.

A new idea? by segfault7375 · 2002-03-31 04:28 · Score: 1

Something that I've never seen suggested before: Part of the reason that MS is so powerful is that most consumers don't know any different. (Linux? what's that?) So maybe instead of the states spending millions suing the pants off of MS, why not pour all that cash into Linux/UNIX/BSD/Whatever development, and most importantly, good MARKETING. Obviously, AOL didn't get millions of members by word of mouth. They advertised like crazy on TV, and carpet bombed the shit out of the country with free CDs. Perhaps we should do the same with Linux distros.

Just my 2 cents.

Segfault

declawing possible, sortof by azosx · 2002-03-31 04:28 · Score: 1

Below is an excerpt from:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_tip s.asp_,

showing how you can strip Windows 2000/XP of unwanted services and applications.

To dramatically expand the list of applications you can remove from Windows XP after installation, navigate to C:\WINDOWS\inf (substituting the correct drive letter for your version of Windows) and open the sysoc.inf file. Under Windows XP Professional Edition, this file will resemble the following by default:

[Version] Signature = "$Windows NT$" DriverVer=06/26/2001,5.1.2505.0

[Components]

NtComponents=ntoc.dll,NtOcSetupProc,,4
WBEM=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,wbemoc.inf,hide,7
Display=desk.cpl,DisplayOcSetupProc,,7
Fax=fxsocm.dll,FaxOcmSetupProc,fxsocm.inf,,7
NetOC=netoc.dll,NetOcSetupProc,netoc.inf,,7
iis=iis.dll,OcEntry,iis.inf,,7
com=comsetup.dll,OcEntry,comnt5.inf,hide,7
dtc=msdtcstp.dll,OcEntry,dtcnt5.inf,hide,7
IndexSrv_System=setupqry.dll,IndexSrv,setupqry.inf ,,7
TerminalServer=TsOc.dll, HydraOc, TsOc.inf,hide,2
msmq=msmqocm.dll,MsmqOcm,msmqocm.inf,,6
ims=imsinsnt.dll,OcEntry,ims.inf,,7
fp_extensions=fp40ext.dll,FrontPage4Extensions,fp4 0ext.inf,,7
AutoUpdate=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,au.inf,hide,7
msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7
msnexplr=ocmsn.dll,OcEntry,msnmsn.inf,,7
smarttgs=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,msnsl.inf,,7
RootAutoUpdate=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,rootau.inf,,7
Games=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,games.inf,,7
AccessUtil=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,accessor.inf,,7
CommApps=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,communic.inf,HIDE,7
MultiM=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,multimed.inf,HIDE,7
AccessOpt=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,optional.inf,HIDE,7
Pinball=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,pinball.inf,HIDE,7
MSWordPad=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,wordpad.inf,HIDE,7
ZoneGames=zoneoc.dll,ZoneSetupProc,igames.inf,,7

[Global] WindowTitle=%WindowTitle% WindowTitle.StandAlone="*"

The entries that include the text hide or HIDE will not show up in Add/Remove Windows Components by default. To fix this, do a global search and replace for ,hide and change each instance of this to , (a comma). Then, save the file, relaunch Add/Remove Windows Components, and tweak the installed applications to your heart's content.

IE modular, Netscape 4.xx not modular by jlrowe · 2002-03-31 04:39 · Score: 1

I thought one reason IE had an advantage over Netscape 4.x (but not Mozilla) was that it *was* modular! So you mean they are saying IE is the only modular part of Windows??

I don't believe it.

What's wrong with Media Player? by Gridle · 2002-03-31 04:49 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Without taking any part in the debate of browser integration, I feel that it is an absolute necessity to speak out the facts about the Windows Media Player.

Basically, Media Player will play back any audio / video format for which a DirectShow filter is available. The API is completely published; anybody can go out and write their own DirectShow filter for any new audio / video format that (s)he might develop. It is also completely open in the other direction; anybody can go out and write their own media player that can take the full advantage of all the DirectShow filters installed on the system. Good examples are Zoom Player (good for crappy TV-out chips like in some Geforce2 MX cards), TMPGEnc (can read in any video format that is supported and write out MPEG-1 or 2) and AVISynth (virtualizes any DirectShow-supported video format into .avi that all video editing programs understand).

Additionally, Media Player 6.4 is the absolutely best media player program that there can be. It's light weight, fast, simple, easy to use and doesn't have any advertisements. It can also retrieve newly supported codecs automatically from a server in the Internet, although this feature hasn't been used much. Compared to RealPlayer and Quicktime Player, the superiority is obvious.

It looks more like Apple and Real are pissed off because they would lose precious advertising and branding revenues if any media player program could play back their files. As previously noted, *anybody* can write their own DirectShow filter so Apple and Real definitely have the technical abilities to make those, but don't want to do so. Of course, it would mean that anybody could use the DirectShow filters to re-encode the content from their proprietary formats to some open format like MPEG-1 or 2, and reduce Real's and Apple's exclusivity value. It would also mean that people wouldn't be limited to their crappy, ad- and spyware-ridden media player programs.

Incidentally, DivX was supported in Linux originally thanks to the DirectShow filters being available. It was relatively easy to hook them up to a media player in a completely different OS, even if the source code wasn't available. Not very surprisingly, neither the Realvideo/audio codecs nor the most common Quicktime codecs are supported in for example mplayer.

In other words, would you REALLY want to see the standard Media Player removed from Windows and have it replaced with RealPlayer and Quicktime Player that don't play half of the formats that Media Player does, and are slow, sluggish, difficult to use and filled with advertisements and spyware, and are basically dead-ends when it comes to video formats and video processing? I wouldn't.

Re:What's wrong with Media Player? by tachyon · 2002-03-31 06:45 · Score: 1

So make it a free download. I does not matter how "great" the thing is, it is not a part of the operating system.

--
99% of all statistics are made up on the spot. -- Bruce Karsh
Re:What's wrong with Media Player? by RevCheswollen · 2002-03-31 09:55 · Score: 1

Well, it totally subverts your system security for one thing. See the numerous Bugtraq postings on the subject; if you're running Windows Media Player you can be easily owned through malicious web sites or Email.

For another thing, it's spyware. It tracks what DVDs you play and reports back to the mother ship. Again, see the Bugtraq discussion.

And finally, I don't want to use a $2000 machine for a media player, so I don't feel a need to waste disk space on an item I'll never use. I'm sure blind and deaf people (increasingly marginalized by the de-textification of the Internet) feel the same way.

Incidentally, you got modded "flamebait" for this statement:
Additionally, Media Player 6.4 is the absolutely best media player program that there can be.
You can't make religious statements like that in this forum unless you are a member of one of the accepted cults, and M$ definitely does not qualify.

--The Rev

i thought we were against software restrictions... by Cenam · 2002-03-31 04:50 · Score: 0

if the goverment is allowed to make microsoft rip apart thier os then what prevents them from doing that to other software, i meen it is thier choice, if you don't like it don't buy it and don't code for it.

--

The Truth: There is no string:)

Why have Microsoft do it? by AnotherBlackHat · 2002-03-31 04:51 · Score: 2

Microsoft says it can't be done? Ok, then hire a competent firm of programmers. Give them the source to windows, a time limit (say, six months from receiving a version of the source that compiles to windows) and $5,000,000. If they can't do it, then Microsoft only has to pay the $5,000,000 in penalties. If they can, then Microsoft has to ship the version they come up with in those nine states.

-- Spam Wolf, the best spam blocking vaporware yet!

Tough shit by Dwonis · 2002-03-31 04:53 · Score: 2

If Microsoft's products are not modular, that's Microsoft's problem. Why should Sun, Netscape, Real, Apple or anyone else suffer because Microsoft can't cope?

Replace the shell by Picass0 · 2002-03-31 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sure this integration that M$ talks about, if it really is a full integration, is in the GUI, not the kernel.

Solution - new GUI.

It would be interesting to see the nine states put forward a solution to port Xfree86 to windows and make win API compatable, or to have M$ utilize Wine to make Apps work.

I know this last bit is just a pipe dream. But the GUI is the problem. How does M$ fix it?

Microsoft obviously lying here by virtigex · 2002-03-31 04:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Is there anybody with connection to people who have a voice in these proceedings? If so, the court should be aware of Microsoft's own instructions on how to make a customized version of XP. I'm not sure whether it's dishonesty or stupidity on Microsoft's part, but how come they are arguing against something that they themselved have a tailor made solution for?

The sad thing is that they will be caught lying again, stand corrected and we'll all just move on. Is there any penalty in these proceedings for lying to the court (usually a serious offence for you and I) or will they get just get their wrist slapped, like they did for the faked video.

apparently you havent used the new Real1 by dmnic · 2002-03-31 05:00 · Score: 1

on default install it can play *ANY* audio/video codec....wav, .vqf, .mp3, .mp2, .mpeg1-4, divx;-), quicktime5, etc...(hell it can even play Flash5 movies!).
while I do agree that Quicktime is very slow/sluggish. I have yet to see any ads from their ver. 5 player.
my main gripe about MediaPlayer is that you cant turn off cddb downloads/updates(talk about annoying)

--
the history of the world

What diff? by oldstrat · 2002-03-31 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare."

Really?!? If your going to tell a lie at least make it believable. No way it would be slower...
And support would have to exist before it could become a nightmare.

Microsoft Windows is a support nightmare period.
The closed API, the closed specs all across the board mean that error codes are simply, 'it's broke' indicators, not debugging information that can provide a fix.

Less MS windows means more reliability, and more support (from someone other than MS Non-Support).

Apparently the Maxim will have to change...
There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Microsoft P.R.

Hmm.... by Faust7 · 2002-03-31 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

While the users may think of buying a "Dell" or "Gateway", who do they bash when their machines become finicky? Why Microsoft of course.

Maybe those users who have just enough technical awareness to know that Microsoft is the company that made Windows... but in my experience, a good chunk of users, indeed the vast majority of the kind that buy computers off retail shelves, don't know even that. Over the four years I've been at college, I've actually asked several non-techie students if they knew who made Windows. Total blank. What about their compter? Dell, Gateway, etc.? "Um, I think it's a Gateway... I'd have to check." They're barely aware of the existence of who manufactured their hardware, let alone their OS. When their computer crashes, they blame either simply "my computer," or the one BIG word that's flashed in front of their faces when they turn on their computer: "Windows." The association they form in their minds is simple: "My computer = Windows," whatever mysterious entity this "Windows" is--they don't know it's an OS, because they don't know what an OS is. When they call me for help, they say one of two things: "My computer's messed up," or "Windows is messing up." And the first is much more common.

--
The coolest voice ever.

Re:Hmm.... by bmwm3nut · 2002-03-31 05:26 · Score: 1

actually my favorite problem is "my microsoft wont work". i've gotten that one more than once.
Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 14:14 · Score: 0

hehe, In the 12 or so years Ive been 'helping' family, friends, and the like. Thats a new one. Thanks for the chuckle.

It's not "punishment", it's "remedy" by FaithAndReason · 2002-03-31 05:10 · Score: 1

It's been rehashed on /. a thousand times, but some are apparently unclear on the law, so to reiterate:

US antitrust law is a strange beast. First of all, it's not illegal to have a monopoly. That's hardly surprising, since it's essentially the goal of every business to completely dominate its particular market segment. What is illegal is for an established monopoly to use that monopoly power to extend its business into a new market segment, because that would reduce the ability of other competitors to enter that market segment.

To emphasize: the direct purpose of antitrust legislation is to benefit competitors, not consumers. It was taken as an article of faith by the authors of the antitrust legislation that increased competition would provide a benefit to consumers (cf. Adam Smith.)

Thus, the purpose of an antitrust action can't be to harm the illegal monopolist (since that would have the effect of reducing competition), but to provide a "level playing field" -- in other words, remedy whatever the monopolist did to make the field "un-level", and make sure it doesn't happen again. That's why it's called the "remedy" phase and not the "punishment" phase.

Now, the simplest and most effective way to level the field is a "structural" remedy, i.e. break up the monopolist in some way. For a "non-interventionist" (a euphemism for pro-big-business) US Administration (and I mean the previous as well as the current one), breaking up MS would actually have been the best possible remedy, because the only other option is to have continuous, detailed, "interventionist" micromanagement of MS's business practices.

Unfortunately, by all accounts, the DOJ badly mishandled its case. It couldn't even take advantage of Microsoft's, er, "lapses in judgement" (outright fabrications.) A good deal of that may be due to the fact that they chose in the beginning to pursue the wrong target - IE bundling instead of Office lock-in. But at any rate, since the DOJ couldn't convince the courts to apply a structural remedy, right now it looks like they're just going to give up on pursuing any meaningful remedy at all.

It Does Not Matter by linuxislandsucks · 2002-03-31 05:18 · Score: 1

Hello All,

One important point to point out..

It does not matter whether MS wins or loses this course cse in the final effort to win Developers to windows and the .NET platform..

The biggest Battle MS has to win here is the Public and PR stuff with developers..

Why?

Because the largest target market for the next 5 years in both mobile devices and enterprise systesm..not home PC desktops!

So it becomes very important for MS to win over developrs using this Court case..so that is why it fashions the objections the way it does..

However they forgot to factor in the high intelligence of independent devlopers..Whoops I guess Bill Gates was wrong when he said only the elite programmers work for MS!

MS has already lost the war in wining over developrs its just a matter of itme bfore they admit defat..Hoever I don't think they will do it in this court case..will be another 7 years though before this is untangled..

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

No, it's the remedy phase. by FaithAndReason · 2002-03-31 05:28 · Score: 1

As I said in another comment here, it's not the penalty phase, it's the remedy phase. It may sound very strange, but the purpose of an antitrust suit is not to punish a company, no matter how much we may want to, but to prevent it from abusing its monopoly while still allowing it to conduct business.

That's why Microsoft is playing this game of brinksmanship by saying "oh no, Your Honor, don't do that - it would make Windows(tm) an unsupportable product." They know perfectly well that if they can convince the judge that the proposed remedy would hurt the market for PCs (the "ecosystem" as MS puts it), the judge might throw out that proposal.

The fact that their line of reasoning simply demonstrates that Windows is a poorly designed product, and also directly contradicts their own marketing push with regard to XP Embedded ("It's Modular!!"), doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest. After all, everybody "knows" that Windows is already a support nightmare, yet they keep buying it anyway...

Re:No, it's the remedy phase. by stu42j · 2002-03-31 08:52 · Score: 1

But what about punishment for blatantly disobeying court orders?

slower, much-less user friendly Windows by Tri0de · 2002-03-31 05:28 · Score: 2

.....slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare.

And this would be different from a typical new Windows version how?

--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

We have hardware to play audio and video!?!?! =P by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 05:35 · Score: 0

We have hardware to play audio and video today, bumblefuck.

Really? I would never have guessed... But since when has playing audio and video been neccesary for a computer to operate, and hence be a neccesary part of the Opperating System??? So now, all of a sudden, just to boot your computer you have to view a 30 second long audio and visual extravigansa designed to blow your mind, and without it, your computer wont run... I see now... So thats why XP wont run on my 133... It hasnt got a sound card... Silly me... Looks like there's two of us bumblefucks in the world... Maybe we could start breeding or something!?!? Now that would be scary... Some one with a clue... Thats over a half a clue more than you!!!

Ah, nuts. by higuy48 · 2002-03-31 05:36 · Score: 1

Nice read. I wish that major computer vendors could offer other options as a result of a stripped down version of Windows. I also have one comment: I sent this in to. That makes 6 rejected stories for me and none accepted. Is that a record? Is anybody in the 10s? 100s?

--
And now, for a sig that's a complete copout.

Enough is Enough by wiredlogic · 2002-03-31 05:37 · Score: 1

What I'm going to say will not be popular with the Slashdot crowd but ehough is enough.

Let me first say that I'm am no fan of Microsoft's blatently illegal practices such as their monopolistic OEM licensing. So, no, I'm not an all-around supporter of MS. I'm not a shareholder. I'm just tired of the collective /. and DOJ anti-MS sentiment that has no basis in an objective analysis of reality

That said, I think the entire "browser bundling" issue is blown way out of proportion. I don't believe that Microsoft is doing anything wrong by packaging IE with Windows, giving away free upgrades, and insisting that OEMs have IE installed on their Windows based systems. Many people seem to use the argument that IE isn't an essential component of Windows and, therefore, it should be easily removable. The anti-Microsoft FUD wants everyone to believe that mandatory IE integration is part of some insidious MS plot to take over the world. There is some belief that if MS is allowed to gain a dominant market share of browsers they will permanently co-opt the web for their own corporate greed. I think some of this thinking stems from the days when the doomed "push" technology was being over hyped. There was maybe a fear that MS was going to slam their propietary technologies down our throats and there would be no viable competition. This is also an extension of the general misconception that the web is the internet and any possibility of co-opting the sacred web is a direct attack on the entire internet. Views such as these are exacerbated by government officials that are generally confined to the AOLer stage of computer knowledge and understanding.

Folks, It's JUST a web browser.

More specifically, the IE application is a thin shell around a reusable COM object that provides support for HTML rendering in other applications. MS has seen fit to do innovative things like reuse the IE component as the basis for the new Windows HTML help system, Outlook HTML mail, integrated web browsing functionality in the ordinary file Explorer, and many other aspects of the Windows products. Are these inherently bad things? Is Notepad.exe bad too? I'm far more afraid of MS Passport as a future vehicle for "Embrace-and-Extend" than IE.

On another note, everyone seems to forget the other proprietary internet applications that have been historically been bundled with the operating systems of MS competitors. IBM had WebExplorer in OS/2 and Apple had CyberDog. Here's a good description of CyberDog (emphasis mine):

Cyberdog is a Macintosh Internet access tool (browser, email, news, etc.). It is used with OpenDoc, an Apple component technology which integrates Cyberdog into the operating system. Integration enables users to drag and drop files from the Internet to the desktop. Cyberdog supports nearly all of the same features as Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator. A major advantage to Cyberdog over these two browsers is that it requires less memory.

That's interesting. CyberDog was an internet application suite integrated into the underlying OS services for OpenDoc. This is very much like IE today. A major sticking point some people have is that IE is a mandatory installation (whereas WebExplorer and CyberDog aren't). It is mandatory because Microsoft wants to guarante a minimal level of functionality that is standard in their operating systems. COMCTL32.DLL isn't mandatory to run the modern (post 3.1) Windows OS kernels but I doubt you could get run the Explorer shell without it. Surely, by bundling the Explorer shell into their newer Windows products, MS has made made an unfair attempt to lock out competition such as Norton Desktop. This argument is obviously absurd so why do people continue to use the same to attack IE?. Microsoft as a right to improve their products as they see fit. It that means mandatory installation of IE components then so be it. You are still allowed to install the browser of your choice and, nowadays, they all play nice with each other. If you don't like the extra bloat of IE then consider using another OS.

IE is currently the number one broswer because MS has continually improved the product and transformed it into the best mainstream browser (the general public doesn't know about Opera, Konq, etc.). Remember that IE 1 and 2 were complete garbage as are most early version MS products. They did what they do best, though, and transformed their product into a well designed tool. Netscape, unfortunately, let their product stagnate at 4.x as an unstable pile of crap. Things should hopefully change for Netscape with the Mozilla redesign. It's only a matter of time before Netscape becomes the integrated browser in AOL and IE wil gradually begin to lose market share. Until then happy browsing.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Re:Enough is Enough by michael_cain · 2002-03-31 06:31 · Score: 1

We have entered a interesting period in the maturation of software as a product-- it's so big and so important that we have to decide how the legal rules for products apply. Not only antitrust rules, but patents and copyrights and (I hope fairly soon) warrantee and liability.
Microsoft has a broad view of what makes up an operating system. Not just the kernel (memory management, scheduling, etc) and device drivers, but a wide range of services that can be used by applications. Thus complete HTML rendering is part of the OS, as is complete media playback and recording services. Even though such concepts started out as applications, MS's view is that as such "services" mature, it is appropriate to move them into the OS with the necessary APIs so that other apps can make use of them easily.
Absent any conflict with the legal rules that restrict capitalism in this country, such decisions might be entirely reasonable. I believe that the heart of the current case is not about bundling (and the appeals court remanded the bundling part of the decision), but about integration (and the appeals court upheld the code mingling part). If MS indeed holds a monopoly on desktop operating systems (and what forms a monopoly from a legal perspective may seem non-common-sense), then their decisions to integrate what was formerly an app into the OS may well be illegal. If so, they should be required to redesign and rewrite in a legal fashion.
Personally, if I had been in Bill's shoes, I would probably have taken the original Jackson decision. I would have gotten the app side of the business, with the freedom to create whatever middleware I wanted (HTML rendering, media playback, etc), and to build apps on top of that. I would have ported my middleware to every OS in sight, and rewritten my apps to require that middleware, and used my dominance in the app space to get the middleware installed almost everywhere, and done my best to put MS the OS company out of business with MS-apps-on-Linux, MS-apps-on-Mac, etc.
Re:Enough is Enough by praktike · 2002-03-31 17:22 · Score: 1

That said, I think the entire "browser bundling" issue is blown way out of proportion. I don't believe that Microsoft is doing anything wrong by packaging IE with Windows, giving away free upgrades, and insisting that OEMs have IE installed on their Windows based systems.
Amen. It's about time someone brought this up. As a web designer and developer, I think IE 6 is far and away the best browser. I believe this because it is fast, gives you excellent control over privacy, and, most importantly, renders pages as you expect them to look. I don't want to hear about open standards compliance, either. The fact is, Mozilla/Netscape does all sorts of weird little things to your designs, such as arbitrarily changing the width of textboxes, frames, etc. I also think the IE 5 object model is great. I would have no problem w/ other browsers if they were just predictable.
That said, I do believe IE caught up to Netscape because they basically could outspend them. IANAL, so I have no opinion on whether giving a product away for free is illegal.
OTOH, boy am I glad I don't have to pay Netscape money in order to view web pages.

--
-------- -praktike

Wonderful by Sycraft-fu · 2002-03-31 05:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

And that would then proceed to break compatibility with 90% of the software I use. All my professional AV software relies on DirectX, ActiveMovie (a part of DirectX if you really get down to it) and such. My games need DirectX as well. Removing ICM profiles kills the functionality of the colour synch stuff I have, and I'm fairly sure Visio needs data access components to run. Finally I have a few peices of software that rely on the HTML rendering provided by IE in one form or another.

I mean if you're pulling apart all teh things that maek Windows useful, why stop there? Start doing this with Windows 2000, you can totally take out the Win32 subsystem if you were creative. You'd loose compatiblity with just about every app and the GUI too, but hell, you don't technically NEED those.

I just fail to see what all the whining is about. So MS wants to include lots of things in their OS. Great, I say, makes life easier for me. You don't HAVE to use the components they provide. You don't like DirectX? Fine, use OpenGl for graphics and ASIO for sound, my sound and graphics card support both. Or make your own API like 3dfx did with Glide. Don't like IE? Download Mozilla, it runs great on Windows (better than Netscape does, that's for sure).

The bundled components just make life easier on developers and users. If I am writing software for Windows 2000/XP and I need to render HTML in it, I can just setup calls to IE instead of writing my own engine since I know it is present in all copies. Saves me lots of time and effort. That doesn't mean you as a user have to use IE, Mozilla, Opera or whatever else you liek run perfectly happily, it just means that if you run software that makes use of HTML rendering (Napster is a good example), you have the engine available.

Re:Wonderful by seann · 2002-03-31 06:18 · Score: 1

quick comparision.

mozilla = fast
netscape = slow

mozilla = fast because they don't pretty it up with useless garbage when they turn it into

netscape = slow because of the useless garbage.

windowsXP lite = quick and painless
windowsxp = bloated and torture

--
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Re:Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yes... and this is why the states want Windows to be *modular*. Therefore people can keep in, for example, the IE rendering engine ... or they can replace it with a Mozilla rendering engine. Both IE and Mozilla are then on a level playing field in terms of start-up time and integration with other applications.

What the states are proposing really wouldn't affect you if you want to keep all the MS options... but those of us that don't like the MS stuff cluttering up their hard drives and constantly trying to take over and telling us what it thinks we should do (MSN Messenger prompts in XP?) would be rid of it :)

I finally made the switch to Linux on my desktop because I installed XP and was so disgusted with how it was limiting me from doing what I want to do and how every time I booted up it would come up with new prompts/crap telling me what happened to my icons and asking me if I wanted voice recognition etc. Hell... when I installed it, there wasn't even an option to install to anywhere other than a "Windows" directory. Ugh!

Now I use linux for my development work and writing of documents etc... I kept the XP partition just to play games.

However, if there was a modular version of Windows, where I could have just taken out all the crap I didn't need, I would have stayed in Windows and just replaced some of the MS stuff with alternatives. I think the modular OS would actually help MS keep market share in the end. So I'm not quite sure why all the linux crazies on here are so gung-ho about it. :)
Re:Wonderful by mpe · 2002-03-31 07:37 · Score: 2

And that would then proceed to break compatibility with 90% of the software I use. All my professional AV software relies on DirectX, ActiveMovie (a part of DirectX if you really get down to it) and such. My games need DirectX as well.

Plenty of people using Windows have no need these types of software.
e.g. the stereotypical office worker who needs a wordprocessor and email...

Oh come on... by AndyMouse+GoHard · 2002-03-31 05:39 · Score: 1

You guys all think you're great software engineers but can't seem to understand that!"

TummyX... read the other posts. People are removing (read this as *not replacing* with something else) IE with 98lite. Are you such a great engineer now that you can make the above statement?

If M$ is worried about components getting replaced with ones they do not want to be associated then why did they make it modular? Why are they lying about this in court?

Bill

--
Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.

Re:Oh come on... by TummyX · 2002-03-31 05:54 · Score: 1

TummyX... read the other posts. People are removing (read this as *not replacing* with something else) IE with 98lite.

Uh. 98lite cripples the OS. Parts of the OS will NOT work properly after you apply 98lite. This has nothing to do with it anyway. I was trying to point out that modularity builds many dependencies. If IE was not a component that could be embedded into other applications, those applications wouldn't be crippled with the removal of IE.

If M$ is worried about components getting replaced with ones they do not want to be associated then why did they make it modular? Why are they lying about this in court?

Um, because modularity and componentisation are a good way to write software! It (amongst other thigns) allows you to develop and debug components individually. Look at Microsoft; They've been doing this for ages. COM had it's roots in 1990.
Re:Oh come on... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:33 · Score: 0

Nah, bit's of the removed components are still littered throughout the OS - there are bits you can't remove or it will fall over. I could run through my Windows directory now and remove every exe that's in there and it would still work - no Mediaplayer.exe etc. etc. when you get down to arsing around with the dll's, that's where you have the problem. For instance, I could remove core dll's for mediaplayer, but I guarantee I couldn't embed a movie in Word anymore. And that's the problem, full modularity means that many products rely on others being installed, eitehr to give more features or take advantage of hardware etc. (you can't embed audio on a machine with no soundcard for example).
Anyhows, I don't really see what everyone's bitching about - if you want to fire broadsides at an OS, pick the Mac - let me see, out of the box movie maker, audio ripping and playing... Quicktime... word processing... shit, and we pick on M$? How long until Apple make an IM client? Who knows? Who cares?
The baseline is - people chose what they want to use. There will always be stupid people who use what's plonked in front of them. Ironically, by removing the extras from Windows, we're actually removing their choices - the choice not to use it. You really think that Windows wil lever ship with no media playing stuff? No, it'll just be someone else's. It's their fscking OS, an to be honest Mediaplayer and Messenger are better than any Realmedia or ICQ/AOL crap.
Re:Oh come on... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 08:05 · Score: 0

>> Uh. 98lite cripples the OS. Parts of the OS will NOT work properly after you apply 98lite.

Okay.. start listing them then. (And "Web Browser" doesn't count.)
Re:Oh come on... by AndyMouse+GoHard · 2002-03-31 09:11 · Score: 1

You did not answer at all why they lie about this in court. Could it be that if they said "it's modular, so you can replace IE with another browser/set of web libraries" that they might be asked to allow it?

My point was: if it is modular (I believe it is) why are they denying this?

Bill

--
Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
Re:Oh come on... by TummyX · 2002-03-31 15:03 · Score: 1

Windows Media Player
Explorer "web view"
Windows Update
Active Desktop
Outlook Express

Many 3rd part apps such as: Neoplanet, Winamp, Encarta, Grollia Encyclopedia, ICQ, Office, RealOne and many many more.

If there are soo many 3rd party apps that require a certain library - wouldn't it make sense to include it in the OS? Considering the OS needs it too...

How can it NOT be modular? by hillct · 2002-03-31 05:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Recently I've looked at a number of extremely complex software development projects. What I've seen - and this should be blatently obvious to any software development project manager - is that it is impossible to successfully develop complex software systems without making them modular.

Not only is modular structure required for design by a large development staff, but it is also required in order to facilitate future patching and upgrades.

Also, consider for a moment, the wording used my microsoft atourneys:

[Windows] was not designed to be modular

The question is not the design intent. The question is Is It In Fact Modular? I maintain that it could not have been written in a way that is not modular. While it might be possible to intentionally obfuscate it's mosularity, from a software design and loadbuild perspective, there is no way it could possibly function if it were not modular.

This does not preclude the possibility that from a consumer perspective the system does not appear modular. In order to meet the demands of the ramaining states in the antitrust case, Microsoft may have to replace vertain functions with stubs to facilitate the consumer-side modularity. This should be a trivial matter for a software development organization capable of producing such a vast system.

--CTH

--

--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line

Re:How can it NOT be modular? by jdh28 · 2002-03-31 06:50 · Score: 1

The problem for Microsoft is not that Windows isn't modular, but that so many things depend on IE. Displaying the standard Windows help files (.chm files) depends on IE for instance.
john
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-31 07:10 · Score: 1

There are various levels of modularity. Take Mozilla and plug-ins for instance. That is one type of modularity. Then you have modularity between libraries. To replace a library module you practically have to rewrite the complete API which is an enormous task (ask the guys who did Mesa's OpenGL compatible lib about that). Source code modularity, which you are talking about, has been done since computers have been around. It is always done in a program bigger than, say "cat." And even then I'm fairly certain there are well seperated data structures, which could be considered modular. That does not mean the interface between programs is always going to be "modular."

I wouldn't say Microsoft is distorting the truth. Many things probably do depend on IE and removing it is probably no easy task. And if it was possible, do they not deserve the right to define what their OS is capable of or what consists of their OS? It is _theirs_ afterall. It's not a government owned tax-payer funded highway, which people can have a say in the matter. They should be allowed to make the OS anything they want it to be.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by CoolVibe · 2002-03-31 07:47 · Score: 2

Well, it's all COM and OLE, so one could write an alternative viewer for those files. I heard somewhere that .chm files are basically HTML files. Mozilla's Gecko renderer can be used as a COM object for this as a result. The guys from NeoPlanet did this once IIRC with their browser.
So their argument that MSIE is an essential part of the "operating system" is plain BS.
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 10:04 · Score: 0

"I maintain that it could not have been written in a way that is not modular."

I think you're confusing a few things.
You're equating modular with lack of dependency.

Is Windows modular from the development point of view? Of course.
Pratically everything in Windows is COM based. COM by it's design has to be modular (ie., you publish the interface, while hiding the implementation).

Does this mean you can suddenly remove components from the system and have it functional? Nope.

What the states are proposing is to completely remove IE from Windows. 98Lite does NOT remove IE from Windows. It hides IE from the user. If 98Lite actually went along and removed the components that made up IE, Windows as you know it wouldn't be the same. You would be looking at a blank desktop with just CMD.EXE as your only shell to the kernel since Explorer would be removed as well--and that's just the tip of the changes. I won't bother to list out every dependency (since I honestly don't think I know all of them), but just the UI change alone should be obvious to everyone.

Incidentally, I like the fact that 98Lite.com's web site boasts of "safe" removable of IE since it uses the Windows Installer database (the Add/Remove Programs function). The irony is that Windows Installer database uses components that are part of IE. :)

You can have an architecture where everything is very modular, but as layers get built ontop of each other, there's a level of dependency that is part of the architecture. You cannot remove this level of dependency without a radical re-arch of the system.
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by himi · 2002-03-31 16:56 · Score: 2

To replace a library module, all you have to do is reimplement that library's API and/or ABI. If the library is well documented, this is actually relatively easy - the major design decisions have already been made, all you have to do is write code.

The development of Mesa was hard because it's a hard problem space - the API was and is extremely well documented. Replacing MSHTML would be extremely hard, not because of the difficulty of the problem space (gecko does the same thing, as does KDE's html engine, and several others), but because the API is badly documented, and incompletely documented, and the actual implementation is badly modularised.

The kind of modularity people are talking about here /should/ make replacement simply a matter of reimplementing an API. Thanks to MS' tricks, there's more to it than that - the code implementing 'modules' is actually spread throughout multiple dlls, so that replacing an implementation takes much more than just overwriting one dll.

Make no mistake: MS has gone to a /lot/ of trouble to make the dependencies within their OS as complicated as possible, specifically to make replacement of their products as hard as possible. Ever wondered why installing Office replaces large chunks of the system dlls? Or why installing most software requires a reboot? It's all those dependencies catching you.

That kind of crap is all well and good when you're not a monoply (though it's /always/ bad software engineering), but MS /is/, and that kind of thing involves abuse of their monopoly power. That's illegal, and they should be slapped down /hard/ for it.

himi

--

My very own DeCSS mirror.
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-31 18:03 · Score: 1

Make no mistake: MS has gone to a /lot/ of trouble to make the dependencies within their OS as complicated as possible
I seriously doubt that. Software engineering is a complex task as it is. I do not believe anyone would make it more complex on purpose, when complexity comes naturally. Look no further than GNOME as an example.

ldd `which gnome-help-browser`
libgnomeui.so.32 => /usr/lib/libgnomeui.so.32 (0x40022000) libart_lgpl.so.2 => /usr/lib/libart_lgpl.so.2 (0x400ec000) libgdk_imlib.so.1 => /usr/lib/libgdk_imlib.so.1 (0x400fb000) libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x40120000) libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x40129000) libgtk-1.2.so.0 => /opt/gtk/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0 (0x4013f000) libgdk-1.2.so.0 => /opt/gtk/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0 (0x40255000) libgmodule-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 (0x40286000) libXi.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x40289000) libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x40291000) libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x4029e000) libgnome.so.32 => /usr/lib/libgnome.so.32 (0x40361000) libgnomesupport.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgnomesupport.so.0 (0x40378000) libesd.so.0 => /usr/lib/libesd.so.0 (0x4037e000) libaudiofile.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaudiofile.so.0 (0x40385000) libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x40397000) libdb.so.2 => /lib/libdb.so.2 (0x403ba000) libglib-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0 (0x403c7000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x403ea000) libgnorba.so.27 => /usr/lib/libgnorba.so.27 (0x403ef000) libORBitCosNaming.so.0 => /usr/lib/libORBitCosNaming.so.0 (0x403fb000) libORBit.so.0 => /usr/lib/libORBit.so.0 (0x40404000) libIIOP.so.0 => /usr/lib/libIIOP.so.0 (0x40445000) libORBitutil.so.0 => /usr/lib/libORBitutil.so.0 (0x40454000) libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x40456000) libgtkxmhtml.so.1 => /usr/lib/libgtkxmhtml.so.1 (0x4046c000) libXpm.so.4 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0x404c7000) libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x404d5000) libpng.so.2 => /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 (0x404f4000) libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x4051b000) libbz2.so.0 => not found libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4052a000) libgmodule-1.3.so.0 => /opt/glib/lib/libgmodule-1.3.so.0 (0x40650000) libglib-1.3.so.0 => /opt/glib/lib/libglib-1.3.so.0 (0x40653000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

Or, if you prefer KDE:

ldd `which kdehelp`
libkfile.so.2 => /opt/kde/lib/libkfile.so.2 (0x40017000) libkfm.so.2 => /opt/kde/lib/libkfm.so.2 (0x4005e000) libkdecore.so.2 => /opt/kde/lib/libkdecore.so.2 (0x4006d000) libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x400f6000) libqt.so.1 => /usr/lib/libqt.so.1 (0x4010e000) libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x402cd000) libkdeui.so.2 => /opt/kde/lib/libkdeui.so.2 (0x4038f000) libkhtmlw.so.2 => /opt/kde/lib/libkhtmlw.so.2 (0x40469000) libkimgio.so.2 => /opt/kde/lib/libkimgio.so.2 (0x404ec000) libjpeg.so.6 => /opt/kde/lib/libjpeg.so.6 (0x404f3000) libtiff.so.3 => /usr/lib/libtiff.so.3 (0x40512000) libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x4053e000) libpng.so.2 => /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 (0x4054d000) libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x40574000) libjscript.so.2 => /opt/kde/lib/libjscript.so.2 (0x40597000) libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2 => /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2 (0x405ae000) libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x405f0000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
On top of this you can expect various other methods of communication and dependency. Shared memory, CORBA calls, etc. Why should MS be forced to provide a stable third-party software atmosphere for modifying and using _their_ operating system? Aren't they allowed to define what their operating system is? Telling them that they cannot call their abstractions what they want is a little too Orwellian for me. If you tell them explicitly what a "module" is and what it must consist of, what is the difference between that and the Thought Police?
That kind of crap is all well and good when you're not a monoply (though it's /always/ bad software engineering), but MS /is/, and that kind of thing involves abuse of their monopoly power. That's illegal, and they should be slapped down /hard/ for it.
What Microsoft is being held for is basically a thoughtcrime. Software is intellectual property. To define Microsoft's definition of "Operating System" is to infringe on their right to freedom of thought.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 21:26 · Score: 0

your ignorance begs insult for the obvious fact that 98lite does indeed replace explorer.exe. Perhaps you should speak when you have something to say.
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by jmccay · 2002-04-01 02:12 · Score: 2

You are forgetting something. A program can be modular, but that doesn't mean that parts can be easily interchanged. A couple of things are being confused here. As a programmer, I tend to break down problems, ideas, etc. into groupings that make sense. I think what you are thinking of are the modules, or broken down parts, but don't forget that even though a system is modular (or broken down into parts) it does not mean the modules are interchangeable with other modules. That must be designed into the project for it work smoothly.

--
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by buggered · 2002-04-01 07:46 · Score: 1

I know for a fact that Windows NT was modular, because Microsoft sold an Embedded Version in which you could pick and choose whatever features you wanted and then just link it together. They could easily make a stripped down version without IE, Media Player and all that crap. I've also heard that there is an Embedded XP and I'll bet it is the same where you pick the modules you want and leave out what you don't. If XP wasn't modular, they couldn't even do the Embedded version. It's just more lies from Redmond.
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by corey_lawson · 2002-04-01 09:28 · Score: 1

Yes, it is MS's OS to do with what they want. But "I don't want your thing to work on mine, so I'll make it look like yours will work, but secretly mine will be faster" eventually catches up to you. Imagine if you had snobbish friends and the way they outed you (i.e., kicked you out of the click) because you licked your fingers after eating Cheetos was by only conversing in French with you after that, and refusing to parlez Anglais with you. Or the one kid everyone starts to depend on for bringing the soccerball to school decides it's not a soccerball anymore, and won't let y'all play soccer with it (but he and a couple of his toadies play...futbol (yes, the spanish spelling of it)...off in the corner of the schoolyard), and somehow manages to get everyone else to want to play futbol instead of soccer, but he only lets certain people play, and has some sort of power over the kids who've stopped playing with you, even though they don't play futbol much.
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by himi · 2002-04-01 15:39 · Score: 2

Each one of those library dependencies provides a single module, with a single well defined (though quite possibly baroque) interface. Reimplement the interface, and you can replace the library completely. That's good software engineering, even though it can end up looking hideous when you see the number of different dependencies involved.

What Microsoft does is different: they don't put a single module in a seperate file, instead they spread the module's implementation around through various files, creating false dependencies. Replacing a particular module in /that/ system requires replacing all the files that implement parts of the module, and since there are other unrelated modules implemented in those files, you have to replace /those/ too. The end result is that you have to reimplement /everything/ in order to replace anything.

Why should MS be forced to provide a stable third-party software atmosphere for modifying and using _their_ operating system? Aren't they allowed to define what their operating system is?

Microsoft is a company. They produce a product which many many other companies rely upon. Microsoft also competes directly with many of those companies.

Microsoft's position as the producer of a fundamental dependency as well as a competitor is the source of the problem: they are in a position where they can make use of their control of one area to compete in other areas.

All of that is simply fact - you can't argue with it, it's just a simple statement of the situation.

Now, in the world we live in, competition in the market place is considered a Good Thing. Unfair competition is considered bad. There's plenty of evidence to back this up in most situations - monopolys almost always lead to inefficiencies, inequity, and prices that don't reflect costs in any way.

Since unfair competition is considered bad, governments generally go to some effort to ensure that competition /is/ fair. In this case, the idea is to put limits on what Microsoft can do in order to ensure that they can't use their control of Windows to take control of other unrelated markets.

Microsoft is coming up with a definition of what their operating system is that conveniently includes applications of theirs that are competing with alternatives. The definitions aren't technical, they're tactical - Microsoft is doing it in order to make use of it's operating system power to compete in other areas.

Microsoft wants to claim that a browser is part of the operating system? Then why can I use any one of about half a dozen different ones, that have no ties to the OS other than the published interfaces? The linkage has nothing to do with the requirements of the operating system, and everything to do with Microsoft's competition with Netscape.

That's why people want to put limits on Microsoft's "freedom of thought" - they're using their freedom of thought to gain an unfair advantage. And yes, that is a crime, particularly when it's done by a company with as much power as Microsoft has.

himi

--

My very own DeCSS mirror.
Re:How can it NOT be modular? by reflective+recursion · 2002-04-01 17:46 · Score: 1

Microsoft's position as the producer of a fundamental dependency as well as a competitor is the source of the problem: they are in a position where they can make use of their control of one area to compete in other areas.
Name one. Let's use something other than Netscape. Tell me _exactly_ how Microsoft is putting Real Player and Apple's QuickTime out of business with Windows Media Player, but using _just_ Windows (not money, advertising, etc., but the thing that brings them this control over everything). I just now gave you an easy example. Windows Media Player comes with Windows. Tell me how they are using any power to kill off competitors.
Microsoft is coming up with a definition of what their operating system is that conveniently includes applications of theirs that are competing with alternatives. The definitions aren't technical, they're tactical - Microsoft is doing it in order to make use of it's operating system power to compete in other areas.
Oh, please. This argument is so distorted. Look closely at what Windows includes and what it does not and look at what markets Microsoft "owns." Microsoft has a finance program, Microsoft Money, which attempted to gain a foothold against Quicken. It _failed_. They did not attempt to graft a finance program into Windows--even though nearly everyone using Windows has a need in this domain (personal finance). Why? Because finance is _not_ a Windows' goal or vision. Integrating IE with Windows fits perfectly their vision for .NET.
Microsoft wants to claim that a browser is part of the operating system? Then why can I use any one of about half a dozen different ones, that have no ties to the OS other than the published interfaces? The linkage has nothing to do with the requirements of the operating system, and everything to do with Microsoft's competition with Netscape.
And what about Netscape integrating Java into Navigator? They are essentially taking Windows functionality and putting it into a web browser. How can you be so blind to this? Microsoft has no power other than 1.) power of wealth which anyone has and 2.) power of modifying their product.
Microsoft wants to claim that a browser is part of the operating system? Then why can I use any one of about half a dozen different ones, that have no ties to the OS other than the published interfaces? The linkage has nothing to do with the requirements of the operating system, and everything to do with Microsoft's competition with Netscape.
You just proved that Microsoft can not stop competition with using their OS alone. Netscape still runs fine. If people want to use Netscape they can. You know what I hear? Netscape _sucks_. You know what I heard before IE became a part of Windows? Netscape _sucks_. People didn't just jump ship to IE because it was a part of Windows. They moved from crappy bloated garbage to something that was better.
they're using their freedom of thought to gain an unfair advantage
Oh my God! No way! Welcome to reality. Business is war, and there are _no_ unfair advantages. Infact, I dare you to think of one "fair" advantage anywhere. It's impossible. Think the better product wins? Think again. Marketing wins consumers. Product quality, functionality, etc. wins loyalty. The "unfair" advantage here is that the company had enough to spend on advertising and the product--they win. Consumers are hurt everyday like this. How many times do you buy a brand name rather than a no-name with quality that can not be determined? More than you are probably aware (as most people do). This hurts you when you do this, because the less-advertised product could be superior _and_ cheaper. But you would never know it because ads cost and the company could not afford them. Most likely you bought the well-advertised, but cheap quality product--at an expensive price.

If you really want to complain about monopolistic power, please talk about Coke and Pepsi and their mini-monopolies. Some days I would like to just go to Disney and not have to pay $2 for a can of Coke, when right outside the park they are $0.50. I mean, what if I even wanted a Pepsi? Such inconsiderate bastards, I swear.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead

Here's an experiment to try by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2002-03-31 05:40 · Score: 1

XP loaded with LiteStep or some other shell replacement, the non-IE Explorer.exe(You'd probably have to hack it to make XP think it's the correct version), and see if it breaks. I'm guessing no way in hell.

OH well, to stray abit away from the subject, this is where the justice department went wrong! They should've gone after the boot loader...

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

Re:Something called... MMC! by TheBracket · 2002-03-31 05:41 · Score: 2

It comes with .NET Messenger (MSN Messenger), we cannot work out any way to remove this, and every day, we find some shmuck trying to use it.

The solution to this is REALLY straightforward if you have XP Professional (not sure about Home - but Home is too crippled to be worth installing in a lab anyway), you just have to learn to use the tools you were given. Look at the group policy editor; under "user configuration"->"Administrative templates"->"Windows components"->"Windows messenger" you have a simple on-off switch to not permit users access to Windows messenger. You can change a whole boatload of Windows settings this way. If you have a domain setup, you can do it per-user for the whole network; if you don't have a domain, you will have to do it on each computer (although you won't have to leave your seat to do it!).

In case you are one of the 80% of Windows "administrators" I've bumped into who don't know how to find the Group Policy Editor, it is simple: run mmc, and add it as a snap-in. You can then save your MMC configuration for easy access.

--
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net

Oh, removing its claws! by sharkey · 2002-03-31 05:41 · Score: 2

Anybody else read that as "Deflawing Windows: Impossible"?

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Re:Oh, removing its claws! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:44 · Score: 0

No. All other /. readers have mastered rudimentary reading skills and are now on to learning the hard stuff.

The Logic Escapes Me, Anyway. by professorpoole · 2002-03-31 05:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, Microsoft *has* tried the, "IE is part of Windows!" thingie and yes, it *has* already been addressed in court.

But go back a bit further. Microsoft's original claim was that, by including IE (and dozens of other packages that used to be sold separately), they had made computing easier and cheaper.

By analogy, suppose I'm a cattle farmer. I raise lots of cattle. I have so many cattle that they're spilling into my neighbor's lands. I ignore their complaints, tie them up in court when they sue me, buy their properties at fire-sale prices, you name it.

In the supermarkets, I make questionable agreements: buy my beef, and my beef only, and I'll give you a discount. But sell my competitor, and I'll charge more.

I slowly drive my competitors out of business.

Someone else invents heat-and-eat prepared beef. This threatens my position, so I use my dominance to squash him; I introduce heat-and-eat beef myself, but sell it below cost to drive him out of business.

Years pass. Finally, the government gets involved; a massive multi-state lawsuit if filed. But by that time, I've cornered the beef market!

Think of the arguments I can make: I'm more efficient. Consumers like me. My beef is standardized; everyone's familiar with it. It's pre-packaged, heat-and-eat, no fuss, no mess.

Why, the marketplace would devolve into dozens of confusing choices for the consumer if I was stopped!

If I were to raise that defense, I would be laughed out of court.

The issue -- the ONLY issue -- is whether I had acted in an illegal manner in establishing my market dominance.

If the answer is "yes," then a remedy has to be proposed which punishes me for that behavior. I may be a popular hero, but if I kill someone, I'm guilty of murder. The fact that I'm popular and loveable has no bearing on the facts of the case.

When the ATT breakup occurred, lots of people complained. I remember Howard K. Smith on ABC doing an editorial about it being one of the "ten dumbest decisions" he'd ever heard.

But the *initial* confusion (and stock crash at ATT!) was eventually replaced by a much better marketplace with better choices for consumers. The end result was improvement in the long run.

Re:The Logic Escapes Me, Anyway. by mother_superius · 2002-03-31 14:36 · Score: 1

Your overall point is correct, but the AT&T deal is wrong. There is still a monopoly in Minneapolis. You buy phone service from Qwest, or you don't buy phone service. The fact that I get a different monopoly traveling to Boston doesn't really help me out. I need better service.
Re:The Logic Escapes Me, Anyway. by Chris+Johnson · 2002-03-31 18:44 · Score: 2

The thing is, Microsoft are just as geeky as the Slashdot crowd. This could be their downfall. They honestly believe that they can have as much bad faith as you could imagine, scorn the legal system and say 'HA! You didn't say Simon Says!' and get away with absolutely anything.
This is not quite true. It'll work up to a point, but then stop working. They nearly got nailed for this with Judge Jackson, but he vented his feelings outside the courtroom and they got to go HA! again. Now they feel that's a law of nature. They are mistaken.
My own favorite bit was when, after years of legal problems beginning with the per-CPU licensing, they are now using the terms of the 'Seattlement' to force the OEMs into- per-PC licensing. Literally, the OEM pays for Windows on every PC whether they include it or not. And Microsoft considers this perfectly fine, because to them the issue is IE, or modularity, or ANYTHING other than a consideration of their patterns of behavior.
They really can't keep doing that forever. The rest of the world are not geeks, to believe themselves stymied on a technicality. The rest of the world is inclined to give them a spanking.

Re:DAY 5 OF SLASHDOT ROTO BLACKOUT by SirRichardPumpaloaf · 2002-03-31 05:45 · Score: 1

I just looked at the license, which contains this text:

You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the Software. However, this right does not grant you a license to any of Microsoft's copyrights or patents for anything you might create using such information.

It seems to me that this should put your irrational fears of being "tainted" to rest.

Missing the point... by alias · 2002-03-31 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think /.'ers are missing the point here. Nowhere in the article did Microsoft say that Windows was not designed to be modular, in fact, it was an analyst who said that:

"The product was not designed to be modular," said Rob Enderle, an analyst with Giga Information Group.

The Microsoft quote is:

"From an engineering standpoint, No. 1, we cannot remove software code for multiple functionalities without degrading other functionalities of the operating system," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "You just can't yank Internet Explorer out."

"The proposal would require "a complete redesign" that would cost millions of hours to build and test, Desler said.

Which is significantly different. Microsoft is saying that, while it could be technically possible to remove certain components from the operating system, doing so would break other areas that depend on that component. For example, ripping out IE is going to break HTML Help.

Even more importantly is the second sentance is the second sentance, it "would cost millions of hours to build and test." So it should be possible to replace IE with Netscape, or Opera, and HTML Help could use it. Now you go and make is possible to replace all sorts of other components: IE, Messenger, Media Player, Data Access Components, System Information, DirectX, Scandisk, MS Cryptography, MS Help Files. Each time you replace a component there are tons of different replacements to choose from so the eventual number of configurations you have to test becomes astronomical.

As if that weren't enough, you still have versions of Windows with all of the Microsoft components in them. What if a user chooses to upgrade their fully ripped apart and replaced version of Windows 2000 with Windows XP, but gets the version of Windows XP with everything in it. How do you choose what to replace and what not to replace? Does the user want everything replaced with Microsoft programs because they were fed up with the ripped apart version? Or did they just not know any better and got the wrong version? If you upgrade a component, like MS Help, does it still have to be backwards compatible with whatever version of Opera the user is using as a web browser? Again, the amount of testing on this new setup would be completely unfeasable and impossible. This is Microsoft's argument.

Furthermore, the company said customer support could be prohibitively expensive because experts would have to be knowledgeable about as many as 4,000 different Windows configurations.

Re:Missing the point... by 0x0d0a · 2002-03-31 05:57 · Score: 1

A complete redesign?

Okaaay...wasn't that what MS was enthusiastically billing 2k as? A clean rewrite?

Also, this "4000 configurations" thing is bullshit, unless you buy the MS propoganda that everyone should run their OS, their office apps, and nothing else. They're just counting all combinations of components...there are far, far more combinations of applications than that, and some applications *do* have compatibility issues with each other. I don't see there being a huge issue.

--
May we never see th
Re:Missing the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:26 · Score: 0

"Okaaay...wasn't that what MS was enthusiastically billing 2k as? A clean rewrite"

What? It says "Built on NT Technology" on the fucking bootscreen. It was never billed as a rewrite (wouldn't exactly be considered a "feature" in the corporate markets).
Re:Missing the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:23 · Score: 0

No. Win2K's early title was NT5.

Why are you getting so defensive - the poster you replied to hit the nail on the head. What's up? Was the typical anti-MS /. bias showing a little too much so you're on damage control?

Open your mind - everything he stated is absolutely 100% correct. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean that you can make them disappear simply by wishing it.
Re:Missing the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 14:12 · Score: 0

So what if it breaks HTML help,
1. it's bloody useless anyway and
2. Microsoft should have used open standards not proprietry ones when implementing it so that if someone wants to rip out IE and replace it with Mozilla or Opera then those browsers become the help display medium.

Also, why can't I have the choice to pull out Movie Maker, Messenger, Front Page, Outlook, and Media Player from Windows XP?????

I definately would not want to use at least some of these components yet I can't even rip them out from the Program Files folder as MS has written dependecies all over the bloody place.

I want to have the capacity to strip my OS down for performance so I can get the most out of my hardware for what I use my computer for. MS made their bed with all this dependency and non Open Standards crap, now they can go and lie in it.

Piers

MOD UP PARENT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 05:53 · Score: 0

Someone PLEASE mod this up! This is golden!

All MS needs to do is take their embedded version of XP and flesh it out and they have the modular version of XP the States want.

Hell, *I* want a copy of this! I have a laptop which is stuck running Windows 95a with service packs because it has a 133MHz Pentium and only 40MB of RAM! This embedded XP would be PERFECT for this machine.

Hope this hasn't been mentioned by Myuu · 2002-03-31 05:53 · Score: 1

To be completely honest, I am not quit sure how this works, but this company has some software related to this story.

One is IEradicator that declaws IE from Win9x, 2k,and ME. Its freeware, try it in a VMWare virtual partition and watch windows die.

Another is 98 lite which can install 98 w/o IE

I am surprise these guys haven't see legal action from a vealous M$ trying to cover up some stuff...anyway, someone should try it and report back.

--

forget it.

So would you say that... by j_stirk · 2002-03-31 05:54 · Score: 1

Windows IS modularised, but instead of modularising the code in nice small bundles (eg. functions and routines, etc.) it uses whole aplications as modules??? (eg. OLE (???) or WMP in IE, etc)

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:

Really just proven lies from MS by miffo.swe · 2002-03-31 05:55 · Score: 1

I have used win98lite on windows 98 and 2000 and they both works just fine without IE. The same is for MediaPlayer since its biggest involvement with the OS is just the mimetypes associated with mediafiles. Stripping out IE, WMA and Messenger is a nobrainer since there are Windows os capable of handling most apps availiable today without the latest IE, WMA or messenger. Windows 95 handles most apps that do not fiddle with the most inner workings of a specifik windows os (osutilities). Microsoft will have a very hard time convincing the judge that it cannot be done easily since it is alredy done in the past. Pure lies from the redmond camp as always.

--
HTTP/1.1 400

Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:00 · Score: 0

Perjury is punishable by 7 years in jail.

Considering that Yahoo Messenger, AIM, and RealPlayer, and Netscape have always worked just fine, this seems like a pretty flat-faced lie.

Almost already done - xfree86 cygwin port & x by NZheretic · 2002-03-31 06:00 · Score: 2

... port Xfree86 to windows ...
http://xfree86.cygwin.com/

... and make win API compatable.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/xwinx/

Gotta love 'em. Who else change you more for less? by crovira · 2002-03-31 06:06 · Score: 2

Only M$ could come up with the excuse that the consumers would have to pay __more__ for getting what they want instead of what ever competition busting crapola M$ wants to shovel their way.

That displays the kind of arrogant blustering ''bull dada'' I've come to expect from 'em. That's the reason I use Macs and Linux.

Pardon the wiki style but i --love__ 'em. They __persist__. This wioll be gone by tomorrow.

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

Support Nightmare by screwballicus · 2002-03-31 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well here's the one concession to Microsoft's defence. The more 3rd parties are able to modify the layout and content of Windows, the more it will be a support nightmare. It's just a fact that, at my workplace, one quarter or so of windows users calling tech support don't know what version of Windows they're running and wouldn't know how to determine said version. It's also a fact that around one half of this category, when asked to right-click 'My Computer' on their desktop, will deny that such at icon exists. At this point, they must be told that this icon does in fact exist and that they are a moron. What do we do when the users are using Dell Windows XP, Micron Windows XP or (God help us) Circuit City Windows XP? Trying to support an OS the layout of which may be modified at all is a pain (Windows XP's minimally modifiable GUI is a big enough one), but trying to support an OS stripped apart and reassembled by the OEM to have their logo in every nook and cranny could be the nightmare Microsoft mentioned. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a maximally modular OS, I just think my users should have to take an IQ test before they're allowed to use one.

Re:Support Nightmare by kindbud · 2002-03-31 06:48 · Score: 2

The more 3rd parties are able to modify the layout and content of Windows, the more it will be a support nightmare. It's just a fact that, at my workplace, one quarter or so of windows users calling tech support don't know what version of Windows they're running and wouldn't know how to determine said version.

So you're saying that allowing Windows to be modularized by OEMs would make an already impossible situation.... more impossible?

At this point, they must be told that this icon does in fact exist and that they are a moron.

How do you know that icon exists? Did you or your staff install Windows on their machine? How come YOU don't know what version YOU installed?

What do we do when the users are using Dell Windows XP, Micron Windows XP or ... Circuit City Windows XP?

Umm, put a bullet to your head for being incompetent? What IT shop allows users to install their own version of Windows? Sounds like self-inflicted sorrow to me.

Trying to support an OS the layout of which may be modified at all is a pain ...

Oooo, a swipe at Linux distros....

...but trying to support an OS stripped apart and reassembled by the OEM to have their logo in every nook and cranny could be the nightmare Microsoft mentioned.

How so? No one can alter the binaries. Microsoft still possesses the source code to all the parts. They hold all the cards. If it's a support nightmare, it's because Microsoft made it so.

No operating system is as monolithic as Microsoft claims Windows is. If it runs in userland, it can be easily separated. The fact that you can install new programs that were't built by Microsoft proves it is not that monolithic. Are they next going to claim that Word and Excel are inseparable from Windows?

Furthermore, the assertion Microsoft is making is testable. There is source code, it can be examined, a determination of the facts can be made. Doesn't the court have a duty to verify Microsoft's claim of indivisibility?

--
Edith Keeler Must Die
Re:Support Nightmare by screwballicus · 2002-03-31 07:12 · Score: 2

Good sir troll,

How do you know that icon exists? Did you or your staff install Windows on their machine? How come YOU don't know what version YOU installed?

Does this warrant answering? For that matter, have you ever done tech? Users will frequently deny the existence of that which is right in front of their face. Sure, when a user denies the existence, of My Computer, it's possible they're running Win3.x, but I've only encountered one Windows 3.x user in the last 6 months and NEVER once has it been the explanation for a user denying the existence of My Computer. It's also possible they've renamed 'My Computer' 'poopypants'. Unlikely, and never happened before, but possible. And we're an ISP, we didn't install their OS.

What IT shop allows users to install their own version of Windows?

Again, ISP.

Oooo, a swipe at Linux distros....

Swipe? Not really. But I would agree that if all my entry-level users were to sporadically install Linux distros at random, I'd probably be driven to suicide.
Re:Support Nightmare by Nameles · 2002-03-31 13:48 · Score: 1

Because for us small computer shops, we can make our own Whatever XP and sell it because:
1) People want XP
2) We want stability, and reliability, so we don't have to deal with hyperactive customers.

Happy medium now is 2000, but not everyone wants to buy 2000 (especially with it costing more than XP now...).

Hmm. A declawed Windows... by MadFarmAnimalz · 2002-03-31 06:10 · Score: 2

I think I have a good notion what that would look like. And I think some other people have had the same notion...

--
Blearf. Blearf, I say.

Ironically by A_Non_Moose · 2002-03-31 06:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

I recall saying that the exclusive/secret OEM contracts should be the first to go, as a penalty.

True to form, this comment was ignored. No big deal.

Recently, when Gateway's CEO spoke up on this very issue, I saw my comment on abolishing OEM contracts "paraphrased verbatim"...including the 10 year moratorium I'd suggested.

I found this amusing, but it also got me thinking of how this could be improved.

Well, frequently invoked or ignored is the "grandma/joe6pack" arguement and could best be brought to the attention of those it affects the most:
1) No exclusive/secret contracts between ms and oems, period, for 10 years.
2) No OEM preinstalls/rescue disks on/for machines for those 10 years.
3) force ms to *support* all its OS's (9x/NT) for 10 years after release (this will decrease the upgrade treadmill, I think)
4) If windows is to be put on a machine (as per #2): The customer will have to purchase it directly from MS (thus getting rid of the EULA loophole where refunds can't be give because you did not "buy it *directly* from MS" and make people aware of the actual *cost* of the software).
5) and finally: Bugs/Features/security holes should be *fixed* in a timely manner.
By this I mean; if I don't want Outlook/OE, IE, WMP, .NET, IM, IIS, PWS or anything else (I, or another customer requests be removed) MS *must* provide the tools to remove it, without "crippling the os".

I'm sure the 98lite team would be perfect for providing insight on how to do it, if they need help. :)
.

--
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)

Nightmare indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:15 · Score: 0

Microsoft wins both ways. They'll continue to have a monopoly if their components are the only ones that run in Windows, and their OS will be strengthened if it is made modular. Either way, it is evil.

Windows and Microsoft need to be abolished. There simply is no other solution.

OKay by mindstrm · 2002-03-31 06:25 · Score: 2

Really, we just need to not have MS bullying vendors into not messing with windows. If a vendor licenses windows for it's product (computers), it should be able to modify it in whichever way they want in order to produce their product.

THAT is where MS power comes from.

Re:OKay by soulhuntre · 2002-03-31 18:32 · Score: 1

" If a vendor licenses windows for it's product (computers), it should be able to modify it in whichever way they want in order to produce their product."

So JoBlowPC on the corner "modifies" Windows, messes it up and isntalls it on all these machines. Microsoft gets the support nightmare AND the reputation problem because some dimwit "modified" their system?

This is supposed to be reasonable?

--
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
Re:OKay by mindstrm · 2002-04-04 06:10 · Score: 2

Support should rest on the shoulders of the person selling the computer with windows pre-installed.

as opposed to what? by discogravy · 2002-03-31 06:25 · Score: 2

Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare."

as opposed to what? the fast and easy windows systems we have now?

--
FreeBSD for the impatient.

Microsoft NOW sells modular Windows XP!!! by tz · 2002-03-31 06:25 · Score: 1

This is from their embedded group. They don't seem to have any difficulty.

Someone should clue in the media or states. Windows XP Embedded is touted to be from the same codebase, as for the rest, Microsoft says it all itself:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/xp/tec hi nfo/develop/training.asp

Which says:

Choose the features and functionality required in your run-time image.

Unlike system setup, where you are given a small number of choices about which features to include, embedded platforms offer a vast array of features to choose from. For example, in Windows XP Embedded you can choose to include low-level system features such as FAT or NTFS as well applications like Windows Media(TM) Player or Internet Explorer.

Windose is Mud-ular by Carlk · 2002-03-31 06:27 · Score: 1

Don't muddy the waters! Windose 95 came with a subset of INSO's QuickView file viewers. I purchased QuickView Plus and it installed adjacent to the OEM stuff. OnTrack's PowerDesk also has ~215 QuickViewers.

NT5/2000 Windows Explorer shows thumbnails of files. This trivial functionality is provided by the viewers in InternetExploder. 98Lite yanking IE would lose that viewing route; so does choosing the "Traditional View" option.

A much more versatile approach is PowerDesk + QuickView. They will display non graphics too: .xls, .124, aimipro, .wav, as well as psp, gif, tiff, pict & spiffy!

Eschew obfuscatory argot!

good news for those who want to choose by Stalcair · 2002-03-31 06:27 · Score: 1

by admiting that, many system integrators and developers will now move on to greater things. As an integrator myself, we often come across problems of vendors who sell solutions that they claim "use open and published standards." However, the method in which they actually interface with various components (web server, shared library like functionality, OS, messaging, etc.) is very much proprietary and unpublished. What we then see is a system that embeds these components not integrates with them. We are then forced by simple necessity to move on to other vendors.

Microsoft by admitting this, just said to the world that they are not making an Operating System, as much as they are making an embedded solution. This reminds me of remote controlled cars, which I dabbled with many moons ago. You could buy plans for cars (really just guidelines) and any of the individual parts you wanted. There was a defacto standard for interconnections: batteries, radio parts, servos, electronics, gears, etc. While not everyone stuck to this, it became quickly obvious what hobbiests wanted, that being a standard. It was then easier and cheaper to get parts that you could interchange in your RC car.

Now then we had Radio Shack and others like them selling these 'wanna be's' that while they looked like the real deal, they were obviously embedded parts and not integrated. No ability therefore existed to interchange (i.e. customize and upgrade) parts, much less replace damaged and broken parts. This apparently did not go unnoticed, as eventually there were less of these fake rc cars, and more that followed the standard. This was indeed a good thing for them. You could buy these pre-fab cars, and you could have various degrees of customizability in them.

Microsoft is like those cheapo (except in price) Radio Shack cars. Many users wanted the same customizability but didn't want to bother with building from scratch. Microsoft shows here that they either can or do not produce operating systems that give the user the power to decide. By saying that those components are integral to the OS, tells us that besides the anticompetitive nature of that design, that you introduce more unneeded complexity, bloat and the stability and security issues that go along with it.

I therefore think we should just nod silently and let nature take its course. If these lawsuits interfere with that, then it will mess that natural order up, and could most likely cause a shielding of MS from the market and the consumer choice.

--

I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.

We can't go back... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 06:31 · Score: 0

The worst quote has to be this : "We can't go back and fix the mistakes of the past". He goes on to say that instead MS should be prevented from stealing away potential future markets through their monopoly. But isn't the point of the trial to punish their past behavior, and aren't the States having trouble even bringing in evidence dealing with MS's anticompetitiveness in the present, let alone the future? I think Mr. Martin Reynolds wants to be much too easy on them. Almost as bad as the DOJ's solution.

Assumming things could be modular by Pinball+Wizard · 2002-03-31 06:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

you might have a very high bar raised for those who would write core Windows components. For example, Netscape would have to be written in such a way as not to break the thousands of applications that have been written that make use of IE's low-level components. For example, I wrote an intranet application that uses the address bar, back & forward buttons, etc. You can't tell that IE is part of it, but it is.

This program WOULD NOT RUN if you stripped IE out of Windows. I think it would be neat if you could just drop in another browser and have everything work. But are the 3rd party players going to be willing to support all the functions, features, etc to create drop-in replacements? They just might be getting into more than they bargained for.

--

No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

Re:Assumming things could be modular by cdn-programmer · 2002-03-31 07:57 · Score: 1

For example, I wrote an intranet application that uses the address bar, back & forward buttons, etc. You can't tell that IE is part of it, but it is.

You are an idiot to do this. The next version of IE will probably break your app!

Re:Viewers are modular-use better modules! by Carlk · 2002-03-31 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Viewers are modular. Windose 95 came with a subset of INSO's QuickView file viewers. I purchased INSO's QuickView Plus and it installed adjacent to the OEM stuff. OnTrack's PowerDesk also has ~215 QuickViewers.

NT5/2000 Windows Explorer shows thumbnails of files. This trivial functionality is provided by the viewers in InternetExploder. Choosing the "Traditional View" option would lose that viewing route. So does 98Lite yanking IE.

A much more versatile approach is PowerDesk + QuickView. They will display non graphics too: .xls, .124, aimipro, .wav, as well as psp, gif, tiff, pict & spiffy stuff!

Eschew obfuscatory argot!

Removing Components Slows Windows down?!? by speedfreak_5 · 2002-03-31 06:40 · Score: 1

"From an engineering standpoint, No. 1, we cannot remove software code for multiple functionalities without degrading other functionalities of the operating system"

Which is why they're in court. It can be done, they just don't want to admit it. If anything it should make Windows faster (IE > 20 MB RAM, Opera 10 MB RAM).

"Furthermore, the company said customer support could be prohibitively expensive because experts would have to be knowledgeable about as many as 4,000 different Windows configurations."

WTF? Point and click is universal among every version of Windows. Always will be. You would think they might find some way to develop 4,000 versions of point and click (laughing nervously...). Linux has more than 4,000 different versions out there if we go by M$ terms (plugins are part of the OS). What solved their problems? $, # and many universal commands.

The core system will still be there. It's stupid when they think that just because the installer will have a choice (there's that much hated word in the monopolistic world today) for used plugins that Windows will be crippled beyond repair. No it wont. My win2K box isn't crippled because I use Opera, Winamp and the DivX Playa. If anything it's faster and more "robust" because I don't use MS middleware. Just because it isn't tied into some browser and isn't usable from a sidebar doesn't mean it's going to slow you down.

It just means that MS gets less marketing info from me because WMP8 doesn't phone home. :)

--
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!

Re:Microsoft is being intentionally misleading... by caspper69 · 2002-03-31 06:41 · Score: 1

MSN Messenger ships with WIndows XP and likes bothering you to register a passport account. This is a pain in the ass, and it doesn't appear in the add/remove programs list. Luckily if you edit the sysoc.inf files you can find the msmsgs line and remove the 'hidden' option from it. Then you CAN remove it through add/remove programs. It seems to me that Microsoft is being intentionally misleading about what parts of their operating system can be safely removed and which can't.

I'm sick of reading this stupid shit. You consider yourself a computer user? I had the same problem, and went straight to MS's knowledge base. I ran a search on 'disable messenger XP' and was immeidately pointed to article Q302089 entitled "How to Prevent Windows Messenger from Running on an XP Based Computers." 3 Ways to do it, none of which take more than 3 minutes. Pretty fucking hard. Cry me a damn river.

Meanwhile, 3GB worth of installation, seven hours of work, FAQ's, forums, etc. and my RAID card still won't work under RedHat 7.2. Show me a database of issues as complete and comprehensive as the MS Knowledge base (where they often disclose issues and solutions and reasoning behind issues well before the press gets ahold of them) for Linux and I'll be a happy man.

How to build interdependence... by rusty0101 · 2002-03-31 06:45 · Score: 1

Before I get started, I am not a fan of Microsoft, I don't expect to be asked to present evidence in trial, and I am not an expert at either software design, or the windows source code.

Let's just take Windows Media Player as an example. It is designed to do two things. Work with Audio, and work with Video. Let's say I am working on the component that plays audio. For some reason every time I go to play a sample audio file, the system bogs down and there is a three second delay in playback. To see if the problem is the system calls to load the file, or the system call to actually manipulate the audio out, I decide to write a new interface to audio out. With the new interface to audio out, playback improves tremendously. So I save it as a DLL, and go on with my work. That DLL is part of the Windows Media Player.

Someone over in the OS division trying to optimize the OS to perform better finds out that there is a sound module in the Windows Media Player that performs better than the equivalent module that has been in Windows since 3.0, and says to himself "The new module is smaller, faster, and really does the job better. Let's just redirect system calls to play sounds to that module."

So now the OS requires Windows Media Player to play audio files. Taking Windows Media Player out of the system would require either building a new audio out module, or re-using the old audio out module. Since an audio out module does already exist, MS can rightfully note that the system would be slowed down by pulling WMP out of the OS, and since the old audio out was slower, (and possibly buggier) it would be harder to support.

This can be extrapolated across the rest of the Windows platform for WMP and IE. IE requires access to the TCP/IP stack. Parts of that are not as clean as they could be, so the IE team re-writes those parts in a DLL of their own, and the OS team starts using those calls instead of the original calls.

WMP needs faster access to the screen for video, so writes their own interface. That interface starts getting used by IE for output of their page rendering, and Notepad uses the IE page rendering code so that output to the screen is faster.

As a result of code re-use, windows is smaller than it would have to be without the re-used code. Which is the real intention of using DLL's in the first place. Yet as a result of the various DLLs belonging to IE and WMP, IE and WMP become core parts of the OS, and removing them becomes nearly imposible. Sure you can remove the executable for IE and WMP, but that's a program that calls initialization code from one of the libraries and waits for the library to report that the application is done. All of the actual application is in the DLLs.

If you ask a hundred different developers if this is a good idea for development, you will probably get a nice spectrum of yes and no resposnes with qualifications to those responses.

In the Open Software development world, if you find a faster way to play an audio file, you feed that code into the development tree for the Audio playback toolkit. If your code or patch is adopted, great, if part of it is, and the entire system performs better, that's great too. But the entire OS does not become dependent upon the application you were developing at the time you wrote the improved code. That code could even be use in an entirely different OS kernel.

I happen to like the latter development model better, but I am not in the process of developing a system that is designed to keep others out of what I percieve as my market.

-Rusty

--
You never know...

Redefining Operating Systems by crivens · 2002-03-31 06:46 · Score: 1

I think educational institutions should be very worried about how Microsoft is redifining what an Operating System is.

Windows 2005, now includes Quake 6 technology! Oh it also has a browser, a video player, a CD player, a word processor, spreadsheet and database, a financial package (of which core functions are built into the operating system and can't be separated) ........ and so the list goes on.

Huh? by MikeJ9919 · 2002-03-31 06:51 · Score: 2, Funny

"...a slower, much less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare."

How would that change things? Sounds like Windows to me.

More importantly, why would somebody want a server by Vicegrip · 2002-03-31 06:58 · Score: 2

OS from a company that thinks that the media player is a core part of the system that cannot be removed?
I never realized Microsoft thought the ability to play mp3 music should be an integral part of any server functionality-- maybe that's why Windows Datacenter isn't selling very well.

--
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.

don't worry by jonestor · 2002-03-31 06:58 · Score: 1

Microsoft defends the solution by remarking Windows was not designed to be a modular system, and the current operating system is highly dependant on core technologies like IE and Windows Media Player. Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare.

Shouldn't they let the groups that want to distrubute it worry about that?

Code reuse stifles innovation by kindbud · 2002-03-31 07:04 · Score: 2

You seem to be implying that code reuse stifles innovation. Why should anyone invent a new way to interact with the web, when the OS supplies The Way and makes it easy to use, and hard to adopt a different method? Why support a new codec when no one complains and revenue is not affected if I just support the ones that come with Windows?

This program WOULD NOT RUN if you stripped IE out of Windows.

Perhaps what is needed is a dependency resolver routine. What if there was a gigantic index of software available that could be searched in detail, and from the results you could fetch a component which would be transferred to your machine, so you could install it and resolve the dependency right there? Or maybe if you relied on third party software, the 3rd party might have some way of making their stuff available at any time, in case your customers didn't have it. I know, it's just a pipe dream...

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

Re:Code reuse stifles innovation by Reziac · 2002-03-31 17:40 · Score: 2

Why does what you're proposing sound so much like linux?? :)

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Code reuse stifles innovation by kindbud · 2002-04-01 04:15 · Score: 2

Here's my impression of Steven (you know, the Dell Dude):

"Ummm...... Nooo...."

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

Not Modular? by kindbud · 2002-03-31 07:13 · Score: 2

"The product was not designed to be modular," said Rob Enderle, an analyst with Giga Information Group.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say the product was designed to be not modular.

It is interesting that IEradicator supports Windows 2000 up to SR1, but no further. Is SR2 the update where Microsoft added non-modularity as a "feature"? That would have occurred during the trial, am I right?

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

DOH! by kindbud · 2002-03-31 07:15 · Score: 1

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

Windows is now gratutiously non-modular by Animats · 2002-03-31 07:19 · Score: 2

Windows is a lot less modular than it used to be. Merely opening up a "file open" box from your own application, even without using MFC, starts up most of Internet Explorer. It's scary to watch this in a debugger. Three extra threads start up when my app invokes a file open dialog, doing things I don't want done. They don't exit when it closes. And there's no obvious way to prevent this. Even setting the "no network opens" flag for the dialog doesn't prevent it from bringing up the heavy Internet machinery.

I beleive M$ on 1 point here... by packeteer · 2002-03-31 07:27 · Score: 1

... it WOULD be a support NIGHTMARE...

i kow many people who work in or have worked in support and they can ALL give you horror stories about how people call them telling about how some 3rd party product messed them up...

they call or email or sometimes even show up at their office screaming about how when they click on their AOL icon now something is wrong and they want a refund or something like this...

remember that M$ sells to a different group than Linux... they people who buy M$ WANT a giant monopoly OS... they WANTeverything pre configured...

they can hardly understand what to do when everything IS already installed and trhats how Dell, Compaq, Gateway and many others survive but most of their service agreements have restrictions on what you can do with your own puter...

so i believe that the core OS probably CANT be stripped out anyway because outfits like Linux have made it a requirment to be able to insert and remove a core os...

...the point is please think about M$ a little harder... i dont defend what they are doing but i beleive that at least they got some of it right...

--
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep

Ma Bell again by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:32 · Score: 0

I don't think I like this idea all that much in some respects. It makes me think of what happened with the phone companies in a lot of ways.

Lets say that the states make Microsoft produce a version of windows that is lean and all of the extra compents get added on later, so that you can have third party compents. Well, I bet our systems with what we have by default will cost about 3 times as much in software.

I say this because I doubt the states would allow Microsoft to let people add on these other components for free to people because that would be anti-competitive if other companies are trying to sell the same product. They would probally be accussed of dumping the product on consumers. So in the end people will be paying for this.

I wish I had a better solution or idea, but I don't.

Replacement? by yerricde · 2002-03-31 07:42 · Score: 2

The main components of Windows are modular. Meaning, you can upgrade IE, WMP, and MSN Messenger just fine.

However, does Microsoft document the specific COM interfaces necessary to replace MSHTML (IE's HTML rendering engine) with a third-party renderer such as Gecko (Mozilla's rendering engine), or MSN Messenger with Jabber? If so, I couldn't find it on MSDN.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 07:57 · Score: 0

Look at the TypeLibraries. IE is just a COM object and with OLEViewer, you can look it all up.
Re:Replacement? by CoolVibe · 2002-03-31 08:09 · Score: 2

About the MSHTML replacing thing, I believe these guys once did it with their browser. Basically their was a skinnable UI with the MS HTML renderer in it. But they had a "technology preview" version once with which you could switch between the MS renderer and the Gecko renderer. Don't know if those guys still do that, but AFAICR, they gave the source to replace the MSHTML renderer with the Gecko one back to the Mozilla project.
Re:Replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 08:18 · Score: 0

The problem isn't the COM interfaces (which are public as the other AC points out) -- it's the internal function of library. Take a look at the "HTML" used in the Windows shell and the help files. Bleck.

mozilla.org has some info and a newsgroup about embedding if you aren't just being rhetorical.

If it's not modular..so what? They're still guilty by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2002-03-31 07:55 · Score: 2

If a murderer tried to defend himself with the argument that murdering is an intergral part of who he is, and that he cannot be expected to conform to the law, that wouldn't work. The court would laugh at the defense and lock the murderer up for life, or administer capital punishment.

Is this what Microsoft wants for itself? It would certainly seem as though they're attempting to make a case that they cannot possibly be reformed...

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Replacements by Redking · 2002-03-31 08:02 · Score: 2

I removed Disk Defragementer and Scandisk. There are replacements that are better. Vopt for defragging and SpinRite for disk scanning.

w00t!

--
Rangers Lead the Way!

Re:DAY 5 OF SLASHDOT ROTO BLACKOUT by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 08:04 · Score: 0

Source is USELESS [if] you can't use it.

You are one profound motherfucker.

Glad to be a Mac user at this point... by pressman · 2002-03-31 08:20 · Score: 2

Ok, I'm a graphic designer. It's a major reason why I go with a Mac.

It's really hard for me to imagine a software platform that would require me to have IE and WMP installed in order to run programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Flash, etc. Just what in the hell would IE and WMP have to do with the basic operation of my design tools? IE and WMP are taking up RAM that could be better allocated to my design tools.

I'll stick to my MacOS thankyouverymuch where IE eats up RAM only when I launch the app and not at boot time.

--
Pooty tweet

Re:Glad to be a Mac user at this point... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2002-03-31 12:40 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what OS X would be like if you ripped quicktime out of it, or removed the finder. It probably wouldn't work to well.
I don't see why IE should be removed. WMP on the otherhand, I have yet to see how that is a core part of the OS, maybe that's what the movie and MP3 preview things in Explorer uses.

Shortcuts by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 08:33 · Score: 0

According to my contact in Microsoft's Windows Sustained Engineering dept. (the department responsible for maintaining Windows after it ships), the only change that will be made to Windows is the visibility of the icons. IE's components will still be there, but IE's desktop shortcut will be gone.

Typical Microsoft.

It's all a load of bollox by rusty+spoon · 2002-03-31 08:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's all bollox. Code can be broken apart, their only challenge is the size of the problem, nothing more...and they have more than enough resources for the problem.

Of course it's modular, of course it can be seperated. If not then they have no business building such important tools in the first place.

All of that IE crap, 'coolbars', HTML help and the other crud that has been shipped 'with windows' in the form of IE is just a red herring.

I don't need IE if I wish to use 'HTML style' help, I don't need WMP to listen to MP3. Cut the crap guys.

They made the mess they're in and they can fix it. If not then I'm available for contract work ;-)

MS already ships what the states want by Tjp($)pjT · 2002-03-31 08:57 · Score: 1

Just repackage the base Windows NT / 200 / XP embedded product with none of the options. Voila. Then, just like plus pack was a separate product, have the free download for the enhancement packs. Bundle all the required cruft needed by office on office, etc. By the time you install Office with all the trimmings (the unfortunate predetermined choice of most businesses and hence mass market consumers) you'll be right back to where you are now, only without the anti-trust implications. I mean, office needing the browser is sort of obvious with Frontpage there, and IE needs / can use the media player guts legitimately, etc.) The states have lost and just don't know it. There are so many creative ways around any potential ruling. What they need is to have the individual companies that were legitimately wronged by the use of monopoly power to get realistic settlements / damages. The states just want to line their pockets in the same manner as the RIAA (what artist sees any of the awards from court cases). Quick question for our Canadian friends. Do any artists get any of the fees placed on recordable media up there, or is it just the 'music industry' companies that share the loot like it is here?

--
- Tjp

I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

"We can't go back and fix the mistakes" by stu42j · 2002-03-31 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

From the article:
Martin Reynolds, a Garner fellow who researches the market for personal computers, said a modular Windows would have made sense years ago to help avert Microsoft's domination over Netscape in the market for Web browsers.

"We can't go back and fix the mistakes of the past," Reynolds said.

The courts tried to fix this problem years ago but Microsoft just ignored them and bundled IE anyway. When does Microsoft get punished for that?

Re:Microsoft is being intentionally misleading... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 08:59 · Score: 0

And looking up was obviously the first thing to do!

B'lox.
1) You have to know that is *might* be doable
2) you have to get access to the knowledgebase (Passport account now required?)

Oh, nad pike to the manufacturer of the RAID card about their lack of support, NOT the bloody kernel developers.

Mug.

XP Embedded by Voivod · 2002-03-31 09:05 · Score: 1

Okay, this one would be over in five seconds if the states would send someone to the Microsoft Embedded presentation in Mountain view on April 9th, stand up, and say, "I want to use XP Embedded in my industrial control application. Can I remove components like IE and the GUI so it'll fit on a 32Mb flash disk?" Microsoft technical sales people will gush for hours about how easy this is. "Of course, just uncheck the box! You can take out that media player too! It just works! Totally stable! XP is completely modularized!" The embedded industry gets a very different message from Microsoft than they say in the courts. It's all such a laughable farce...

A Modular System by Arandir · 2002-03-31 09:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft has made a big push towards component architectures. Everywhere you look in the Microsoft world they are pushing components of some kind. Talking with some Windows fans at work, they have convinced me that components (if done right) are an excellent idea.

Fine. Then why not make Windows a component/modular system? If it's not possible to remove IE from the base system, then it's not modular. Making Windows into a truly modular system would be a very good thing for the quality of the OS, as well as injecting some bits of competition back into the equation.

Unix is already a very modular system, particularly the Free unices. Use a different file system. Use a different desktop. Use a different MTA. Etc. At the risk of sounding like I support Microsoft, I think a true componentized Windows would be a good thing.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:A Modular System by Tony · 2002-03-31 11:57 · Score: 2

I think a true componentized Windows would be a good thing.

Good for users. Not good for Microsoft. MS has made MS-Windows *less* modular in the past, simply for product tie-in. That's what the states are complaining about.

Not that they'll win. Microsoft has the public confused, the politicians either purchased or bamboozled, and the money to push any agenda they desire.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

So... by PhotoGuy · 2002-03-31 09:44 · Score: 2

If it *is* less modular, that is solely because they knew that there would be regulatory attempts to separate it in the future, and they *intentionally* made it hard to separate.

It's common sense knowledge that modular design and programming is indeed the best way to design things. With their resources, talent, and money, if they couldn't design it in a modular fashion, it was because they decided to do it that way for political reasons.

So the fact it may be difficult is moot. That's a demon of their own creation, that they should be forced to deal with.

-me

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.

Re:More importantly, why would somebody want a ser by spectecjr · 2002-03-31 09:46 · Score: 2

OS from a company that thinks that the media player is a core part of the system that cannot be removed?
I never realized Microsoft thought the ability to play mp3 music should be an integral part of any server functionality-- maybe that's why Windows Datacenter isn't selling very well.

Try streaming live video on a server without something that encodes that video. You won't get very far. Windows Media Player covers this.

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Doesn't make any sense. They NEED to be punished. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 09:51 · Score: 0

Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare.

They should have thought of this when they started monopolizing their market. Now they have to pay the price. Spend billions on revamping the OS, and spend tens of billions more to support them. They are, in fact, guilty of a monopoly. Do they think they wont get punished? They're lucky they're still around! Fine them $50 billion and split them already. Sheesh. Why are we pussyfooting around a monopoly? The case is OVER, now PLEASE bend them over and SHOW NO MERCY. That's what the courts are there for.

Of course they can ship an OS without all the crap by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 09:52 · Score: 0

Just look at the Xbox, which uses a modified win2000 kernel and no browsers or media player. MS is spewing FUD again.

Nightmare by ehiris · 2002-03-31 09:56 · Score: 1

"Removing them would result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare"

You can only have a nightmare when you sleep. ;)

The dumbest question I've ever heard by Ilan+Volow · 2002-03-31 09:56 · Score: 2, Funny

"How should state/federal governments, you know, the guys with all those billions of dollars of purchasing power who probably make up 60% of microsoft's entire user base, punish microsoft? There must be some way that these people, with billions upon billions of dollars and a public obligation to go with the lowest bidder, reduce Windows' dominance, but oh whatever can it be?"

--
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!

yyeeaaaaa by Transcendent · 2002-03-31 10:02 · Score: 1

yes... windows media player and IE really speed up my computers performance... removing them would horribly hinder my experience on the computer....

Re:XP Embedded - on their own website they admit by tz · 2002-03-31 10:19 · Score: 1

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/xp/techi nfo/develop/training.asp

This is about 1/2 way down the page:

Choose the features and functionality required in your run-time image.

Unlike system setup, where you are given a small number of choices about which features to include, embedded platforms offer a vast array of features to choose from. For example, in Windows XP Embedded you can choose to include low-level system features such as FAT or NTFS as well applications like Windows Media(TM) Player or Internet Explorer.

Re:Microsoft is being intentionally misleading... by caspper69 · 2002-03-31 10:20 · Score: 1

Access to the knowledgebase is free, and does not require passport to my knowledge. And no, I wasn't bashing the kernel developers, I was merely pointing out that there is no single repository of information on Linux that is as good. There are many that are better in a specific context, but over a broad spectrum, it's hard to beat MS's. And Highpoint provides a pretty detailed installation guide for use with RedHat 7.2, but it still doesn't work right (I get kernel panic during startup). It could be due to my lack of knowledge (in fact, I'm betting on it), but it would be nice to see info from others who have had the same problem in a single, convenient place.

Microsoft knows it would disappear by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 10:35 · Score: 0

I run linux at home and at work, with an older win95 machine. I find an abundance of neat software available, of good and getting better quality. I just do an apt-get install foo.

What I did this week showed me how dependant MS is on their exclusive distribution deals. I downloaded an excel spreadsheet. It had a few embedded word pages, and some graphic stuff. Gnumeric loaded the cells, but couldn't get the text boxes, graphics etc. I don't have excel on any of my machines. The laptop came with Microsoft Works, which couldn't read the file.

To fix this was either going to cost money or alittle time. I used our neighbor's machine to read the excel and change the components to something I could read. Wrote it on floppies, and done. I loaded it all on my linux and window's machines.

Two years (even 1 year) ago, I would have had no choice except to get excel from somewhere. Now I could make do with Linux. If excel and all isn't part of the preloads, nobody will spend the money to buy them.

So very simply, MS needs to control the preloads not only of the OS, but of the applications. Otherwise it will lose the lock it has on the user market.

An OEM choosing between a stripped down Windows and having to pay another 2-300 bucks for apps, and a complete linux distro, who would win? I think enough would choose the linux side to really really hurt MS.

This is what the states know, MS knows. Fight to the death.

Derek

Support Problem by ruvreve · 2002-03-31 10:47 · Score: 2

that would be a support nightmare."

HAHA and how is that different from the current version of windows? User: I installed something. Tech Support: Please insert your Quick Restore and follow the instructions.

How modular it is by ricardo2c · 2002-03-31 10:53 · Score: 1

So, they can't remove IE and MP, but they can replace the filesystem with a OO-DB-like engine? Oh yeah, that's much easier!!! Because IE and MP is so needed by the OS because without it HOW COULD YOU DISPLAY YOUR FOLDERS AS WEB PAGES??? And play movies from them? Can't do! Can't be! The deal is not whether or not they have it in Windows, it's whether or not they'll make it available to other apps, to be reused...

--
--Drake 2c

If they wrote it... by ricardo2c · 2002-03-31 11:02 · Score: 1

...they can rewrite it. Maybe better, this time... But, truly... any programmer in this world can tell that either the code is modifiable to fit any need, or it is a complete piece of cr*p over which you have no control and you don't know sh*t about what's written in it... You have the code, you can modify it as you wish. Easy as that. If they can't do it, open the source and the comunity will.

--
--Drake 2c

Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by hillct · 2002-03-31 11:19 · Score: 2

While dependency is a problem, if the states insist on their original proposal, it is much more reasonable to require that it must be simple to substitute one module in place of another, provided the two modules utilize the same interface. Quite simple, this is already possible. The issue then becomes requiring Microsoft to publish the COM object interfaces found throughout Windows, as well as insure the interfaces are not needlesly complex, such that it ramains possible to write a subtitute module for given windows componants.

--CTH

--

--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line

Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-31 14:44 · Score: 1

You must not be a programmer, else you would not talk about modules in this way. What consists of a "module?" At what point does an entire system become a module? Microsoft claims IE is an integral part of the OS. OK, let's examine the situation if Microsoft publishes the interface between what constitutes "IE" and what constitutes "Windows." If Microsoft published a snapshot of the interface from Windows to IE, this would only be good for one version of IE. Until Microsoft decides to add a function to "IE" and decides to use that function from "Windows." Then the interface breaks. There is no vendor in the entire world that could keep up with this, nor would they want to. Microsoft has decided that _their_ product, Windows, relies heavily on IE (which is not really a seperate product at all, since they don't sell it). They have every right to include IE with Windows because that is _their_ invention. It is nothing more than putting a GUI ontop of MS-DOS and calling it part of an OS. Who in their right mind would have argued that a GUI does not belong with the OS? _Plenty_ did. And you know what? They were wrong. GUI with the OS makes perfect sense today. It creates coherency and a focal point, or direction. Tomorrow an OS without a web browser will seem utterly foolish (and who today would argue that, even?).

The problem with computer software is terminology and abstraction. What you define as one thing is not always going to be what others are thinking of. No one owns abstractions. Microsoft has no obligation to keep the metaphor of "programs" around either, yet they do. What law forces a company to pander to third-party addons? That is basically what an "application" is. A third-party modification to a software system. More food for thought: PC manufacturers do not have to pander to Microsoft. Many times they break standards, etc. and Microsoft must deal accordingly. Hardware manufacturers are allowed to define what their product can and will do. You don't see Microsoft bitching because they aren't able to place their OS on network computers, or Sony Playstations, or network "drives." You see where I'm going? People are holding expectations of Microsoft that are not held for anyone else; as if they alone are responsible for holding software order. They are _not_ a government facility. They are a free entity just like anyone else. What they invent and call a product is just as valid as what you and I invent and call a product.

Think of Windows as _the_ product. Think of Photoshop, Quicken, Acrobat, etc. as "modifications" to that system. It makes much more sense this way because for one thing, those applications only work _for_ Windows. Just like Java applications work only for Java. They claim "write once run anywhere," but what they forget to tell you is that Java _is_ a platform. It _is_ Windows, but under a different name. You can _not_ remove Java.

Just as Windows is to x86, Java is to Java Virtual Machine. JVM gets ported to a variety of hardware, but you are still using the Java Virtual _Machine_.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-31 14:57 · Score: 1

I'd also like to add..

Please note that this whole issue started when Netscape bitched about IE bundling. Sun and Netscape were in on this together. They tried to create a virtual OS, using the network and Java. You will never hear either talk of it that way, though. They use myths like "write once, run anywhere" to fool people into believing this is somehow different in functionality than what an OS does--it is not. Think of Java as the actual loader program and interface (think DOS interrupts, Linux libc, or what have you) of an OS, and Netscape as the component that manages the resources and permissions. If you think of it like this then it is easier to see why Microsoft would have claimed IE is a part of their OS.

What would the difference between a Sun Microsystems computer running Java code _native_ via a browser such as Netscape, and a x86 PC running Windows code _native_ via a browser such as IE.

Sun Microsystems _was selling computers_. This was why they were in it with Netscape. There is no true innovation, just a redefinition of terms. The only benefit this had on anyone is it brought the internet (and a global hypertext system) to the masses.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 18:55 · Score: 0

"If Microsoft published a snapshot of the interface from Windows to IE, this would only be good for one version of IE. Until Microsoft decides to add a function to "IE" and decides to use that function from "Windows." Then the interface breaks. There is no vendor in the entire world that could keep up with this, nor would they want to."

It doesn't work this way.
COM interfaces cannot be changed once it's been published. It's part of the "rules" of COM. You change the inteface, it better be a new interface, end of discussion.

This is why when you look at the all the interfaces published for the various IE components (and yes, they are all documented and available to anyone that wants to write to it or write their own version of it), you'll see interfaces like IHTMLDocument, IHTMLDocument2, IHTMLDocument3, etc...

This is how MS has always handled "changes to API". They don't go back and break an old API (unless it's something that was required due to architectural changes and these have been extremely rare given the number of APIs published to date). They simply introduce a new one (usually with Ex or a number after it) and depreciate the old one (ie., recommend in the API documentation that new code be written to the new APIs whenever possible).
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by Godwin+O'Hitler · 2002-03-31 20:48 · Score: 1

Think of Windows as _the_ product. Think of Photoshop, Quicken, Acrobat, etc. as "modifications" to that system.

Last I heard, people bought computers to run tasks, not to run operating systems. Which part of the operating system do Photoshop, Quicken, or Acrobat replace? How come Acrobat works on other platforms too?

--
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by reflective+recursion · 2002-04-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Every third-part application adds functionality to the software system. Applications have to know about the system and the system has to know about the applications. They are not completely independent entities, even if this metaphor has been around since pre-DOS days. Third-parties can replace certain things the manufacture lets them (or makes it easy for them).

Think about cars. You can add modifications like an alarm, or replacements like tires and things. If you try replacing the body it will be a major task and once you are done the car will not be the same type of car it was.

Acrobat works on other platforms because that product was created for other platforms. It will not work on _every_ platform, even if it were ported to Java. Therefore, Acrobat is _dependent_ upon Windows and each system each port was written for. A Linux Acrobat will _not_ work in Windows.

People don't buy computers to run hard drives and refresh memory, but those tasks must come with the computer. Some manufacturers try to hide the fact that they have an OS by placing it in ROM chips or read-only drives. This makes it impossible for MS to gain a foothold in these devices. You don't hear the public crying to make the OS mutable/replaceable, do you? You can not even have applications on things like network computers (i.e. the now defunct Netpliance's iOpener, or WebTV). And somehow people think Microsoft is wrong for defining an OS how they want. They have no obligation to make IE replaceable. I really don't see why there would be a desire to replace it either. The web is supposed to be _standard_. It's not supposed to be the hodgepodge of pseudo-standards like JavaScript, which Netscape is responsible for doing. There should be no competition in the browser market. And if you don't like IE you can _still_ use whatever browser you want. Who really cares if things like the help system are still using IE? I don't see what the big deal is.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by reflective+recursion · 2002-04-01 05:37 · Score: 1

This is why when you look at the all the interfaces published for the various IE components (and yes, they are all documented and available to anyone that wants to write to it or write their own version of it), you'll see interfaces like IHTMLDocument, IHTMLDocument2, IHTMLDocument3, etc...
And the big fuss about IE is what exactly.. ? If it's all available and replaceable then there should be no fuss.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by kinch54321 · 2002-04-01 08:42 · Score: 1

I don't agree. I think the point was that most people use their operating system as a vehicle for their applications so they can accomplish certain tasks. They don't turn on Windows to use Windows functionality--at least not directly--they turn on Windows to do listen to a song or type a document. I'm sure there's a large segment of the population that only uses Windows because of Office. And unless you're going to argue that Office is part of Windows, that's hardly just a "modification"--it's the reason for the season. The car analogy would be better if you said that Johnny bought a killer stereo system for his car so he could get laid this weekend.
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by Godwin+O'Hitler · 2002-04-01 09:05 · Score: 1

A car seems to me to be pretty much a dedicated device for getting from A to B. I imagine few people buy cars because it's a great place to use an alarm.
If a boiler has an OS in a ROM chip and the boiler gives users a full and rewarding water-heating experience, you're right, they won't cry out for it to be replaceable. Why should they -- the boiler's doing everything they expect it to (I've yet to hear of anyone wanting to browse the web on a boiler).
But when people buy personal computers, they expect (or ought to expect) them to do a whole variety of things -- maybe things that no one ehas even thought of yet. Yes, some of these things might be kindly provided by the OS supplier. So what's the OS supplier selling then? A product that turn bits of electrified silicon into a web-browsing home entertainment center (which just happens to be able to do word processing and search for extraterrestrial life if you modify it)? or into the all purpose machine it's supposed to be and which just happens to browse the web and play music?

--
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by reflective+recursion · 2002-04-01 16:20 · Score: 1

But it is not anyone's right, or freedom to define this _for_ Microsoft. If they call their invention an OS, then it is an OS. It may not be what you believe it to be, or work how you would like. It is Microsoft's freedom to choose what it consists of. They can very well toss in Office or what have you and still call it an "OS." They don't because the goals of Office are not the same as Windows. "Paint" is one example of what you would consider application territory, but has become part of the OS.

People are really _really_ too late to start bickering about IE being part of Windows. Before Microsoft built a GUI into DOS would have been a better time. It was arguable that a GUI is not needed for "OS" functions (and this _was_ argued). Now noone cares--everyone does it. Every application besides Microsoft's was running under regular DOS. Now even Linux has things like frame buffers and GGI which are built into the kernel. I imagine very few Linux users would use Linux if there was no X. I doubt very few would use Linux if there was no web browser either. Microsoft is _allowing_ other browsers such as Netscape to run. They are only _depending_ on IE, though.

Say you have some program in Linux which depends on lynx's text-output (say, the -dump flag). Now imagine that many other programs use this same feature of lynx and _depend_ on it. That does not mean you can't use Netscape. It simply means that you need lynx for those other programs to work correctly. And this is true for Linux already. To have most things work correctly you need 'bash'. Otherwise things break tremendously. You could probably form an argument that because of bash, other shells can not compete because bash's functionality is so depended on and almost a part of Linux. No one in their right mind would argue that shell programs need to be "modular," or have an interface which is exactly like each other's. Then there would truely be no difference. One would be an exact copy of the other, just implemented slightly different. The argument that removing IE would allow consumer choice is a load of bullshit. Anyone who writes a browser would then _have_ to conform to IE's interface methods and could _not_ add features. They would simply be clones of IE. Not much good to anyone.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by reflective+recursion · 2002-04-01 16:49 · Score: 1

Ok, then how does this argument translate into forcing Microsoft to "open" their operating system?

The reason I brought up WebTV, is because Microsoft owns WebTV. You want to know what WebTV is? It is an OS that has a web-browser built-in and all functionality built-in. There is _no_ third-party modifications possible (software-based anyhow). To demand that Microsoft remove their web browser from Windows, but not from WebTV is contradictory.

You have no right and the government has no right to demand Microsoft to change their view of what Windows consists of.
they turn on Windows to do listen to a song or type a document
And in what way is Microsoft breaking the law by giving you this functionality with an OS, but also making it possible to use third-party functionality which is the same? How are they false advertising in a way that makes you believe this functionality is possible under Windows, but is not in reality?
unless you're going to argue that Office is part of Windows, that's hardly just a "modification"
_Technically_, it is a modification. You click on install.exe and _Windows_ executes it. Then Office install program tells _Windows_ where it needs files copied, registry modified, etc. Windows is now modified by Office to use Office. Your view of applications is way too narrow. Stop thinking in terms of seperate programs like DOS days (where everything resided in a small directory and did not depend on the OS for much other than loading and basic I/O). The "operating system" is not a seperate entity like you still believe. I don't care what you plan on doing with your computer. My point is that there is only _one_ software system on any computer. This system has traditionally been seperated into "applications" and "operating system." This does _not_ have to be so, but this metaphor has worked in dividing functionality into useful segments. Noone but Microsoft, owner of the lowest dependency (Windows), has the right to define how functionality should be divided.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because... by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 19:56 · Score: 2

There shouldn't be a big fuss, if you want to replace IE, you need to re-implement the interfaces, and then you would change a couple of fields in the registry, and that would be *all*.

The problem is that MS can't support this configuration, and many applications may break if there is even just a subtle change in the way it works.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Removing MSHTML, etc. vs. removing IE by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 11:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is the difference between removing IE and removing the IE components.

When most people say "remove the browser" they're talking about removing the icon, the IEXPLORER.exe, and the intergration with the file Explorer. This is trivial, and has been proven trivial.

Netscape wants Microsoft to remove ALL TRACES of Microsoft's HTML technology. They see it as a barrier to entry for other HTML renderers, and therefore should be removed. This is difficult. Even IEradicator leaves the MS HTML components because removing them would break too many things.

Again: removing all traces of IE is NOT TRIVIAL.

When Microsoft talks about removing IE, they're talking about Netscape's definition. Which would be very difficult, especially for Windows XP, which has half of its dialog boxes (even ones that look fairly normal), all the "task panes", help, and a whole bunch of other stuff based on MSHTML. It would break a whole bunch of things.

But no one says clearly what they mean when they say "remove IE". And Microsoft, of course, exagerates and adds to the confusion by grouping everything together. There's absolutely no reason why the whole Windows Media Player UI (just like the IE UI) is required.

Although, if I was writing a media player application for Windows, I'd expect the Media Player components to be there, so I wouldn't have to write my own MP3 decoder - the same way I wouldn't want to write my own HTML renderer. Of course, that's exactly what Netscape is protesting against - the fact that developers can count on these features being there. Netscape would, essentially, like to make life difficult for developers by making them develop and test with multiple HTML renderers/browser components, or make them package and install renderers whenever they distribute their software, on the hope that developers would use Netscape rather crappy browser components instead of Microsoft's, which have been clearly superior (and componentized, unlike Netscape's) since IE4.

Maybe Netscape is catching up now with Mozilla, but anyone who thinks Netscape had software in any way competitive with Microsoft's for the last five years is wrong. Monopoly or no monopoly.

Re:Removing MSHTML, etc. vs. removing IE by Kaiwen · 2002-03-31 13:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Again: removing all traces of IE is NOT TRIVIAL.
It's non-trivial only because MS made it so. And that was one of the points of the trial, that there was no necessity for MS to integrate IE in the manner it did -- mixed haphazardly with all sorts of non-browser functionality such that removal of IE-related DLLs also broke other OS components. MS could just as easily have isolated the browser and HTML-rendering in separate DLLs without adverse effect on the OS; that it chose not to was for monopolistic, not technical, reasons. I hope the courts grant the states' request and order MS to modularize the OS. MS made its bed, maybe the courts will make Gates sleep in it.
There is no technical reason why MS couldn't have designed its OSes with greater modularity -- and in fact for maintenance and upgrade purposes it would have been better had it done so. MS's purpose seems to be to make IE unremovable simply so that it can claim IE is unremovable. If Microsoft can get away with bolting the browser to the OS, then Media Player is next (goodbye RealPlayer; nice knowin' ya Quicktime), followed by text-to-speech renderers (so sorry ViaVoice), online financial transacting functionality (adios, Quicken, hello MS tax), MS-TCP/IP (good riddance, Internet), ad nauseum.
if I was writing a media player application for Windows, I'd expect the Media Player components to be there
But does it have to be Microsoft's DLLs? Modularity, couple with a published API, would assure developers of the presence of standardized multimedia functionality, but would give end-users free choice.
Netscape would, essentially, like to make life difficult for developers by making them develop and test with multiple HTML renderers/browser components
Assuming all renderers complied with an industry standard (say, W3C), what does the developer care whose renderer is being invoked? There is a lot MS could do to play nice with the rest of the industry, unless Redmond is admitting its programmers are incapable of solving whatever technical hurdles might lie in the way of such a goal.
Re:Removing MSHTML, etc. vs. removing IE by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 18:53 · Score: 2

No, it doesn't have to be Microsoft Dlls, and even now, you can replace it quite easily.
Let's assume that Mozilla correctly implements all of IWebBrowser interfaces.
What does it takes to replace IE with mozilla?
Change several keys in the registry, and that is all.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Who to blame? by _Sprocket_ · 2002-03-31 11:34 · Score: 2

While the users may think of buying a "Dell" or "Gateway", who do they bash when their machines become finicky? Why Microsoft of course. There's a single point of blame in the industry.

So a user is working on a report in Microsoft Word. They're running Word on Microsoft Windows. Their Dell-branded machine consists of hardware supported my Microsoft Certified drivers. The system crashes. They loose their work. And you're saying they should then blame Dell?

It has taken a long while. But users are very slowly realizing that it is not normal for computers to crash. No longer is the "computer" to blame... but those who sell the software for their computers. More and more often, that is Microsoft.

Took long enough, assclown. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 11:43 · Score: 0

Slashdot 1e6/klerck 5

COM wrapper by isolation · 2002-03-31 11:44 · Score: 0

This was somthing we discussed a little for ReactOS and wine. Rather then having to deal with the pain of rewriting IE I would like to just be able to drop mozilla in.

Once OpenOffice/GNOME/Mozilla and KDE can figure out what ORB will work for all of them then cross platform wont be a issue at all for any project.

Of course I doubt that will ever happen.
.

--
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com

Web War Timeline by _Sprocket_ · 2002-03-31 12:05 · Score: 2

IE was way more popular then Netscape way before this whole integration crap came about (NSCommunicator sucked anyway). Opera wasn't around to really compete, and Mozilla wasn't that active either.

According to my memory, you're placing things a bit late in the time line.

The "whole integration crap" happened with IE4.

Up to that point, Netscape still held the market pretty firmly. IE3 was the first decent browser to come from Microsoft. But Navigator still provided a very competant alternative. So it was no suprise Netscape was able to maintain a large (if slightly slipping) share.

Then came be big fanfare for IE4 (even to the point of trying to syphon off hype from the current favorite Hollywood blockbuster Independance Day (ID4)). IE4 was more than a browser. It was an integrated environment. It was a download for Win95. It was a part of Win98.

Netscape still had Navigator. But Navigator4 was a part of a new "suite" called Communicator. Yes. It was proof that something bad was happening at Netscape. They had stumbled.

What about Opera and Mozilla? Well. I'm not entirely sure... but I believe Opera showed up sometime after this. And Mozilla? Well - the writing was on the wall. Netscape did something amazing (and probably more than a little desperate). It went open source. And thus the Mozilla project was spawned. And after some time wrestling with Navigator5 code, they took another gutsy step and scrapped it all and started fresh.

I wonder by quantaman · 2002-03-31 12:14 · Score: 2

If they are made to offer modularized windows I wonder if they might use this as an excuse so they could set it up so that any distribution other than the full package would "result in a slower, much-less user friendly Windows that would be a support nightmare." resulting in no one touching the stripped down versions with a ten foot pole.

--
I stole this Sig

Actually, this is great by DarkFyre · 2002-03-31 12:29 · Score: 1

I don't care how slow it is, or how unstable it is. I won't be using it. I want a stripped version of Windows so that I can purchase a pre-built system without shelling out $179 for Windows Foo.

If this new version of Windows sells (OEM) for $99, that's $80 in my pocket. Now that's benefit to the consumer.

It would be better if they could force Microsoft to abandon exclusionary licensing contracts, but since that won't happen, I'll be happy with this.

A solution by Shadow51 · 2002-03-31 12:31 · Score: 1

Well what the goverment should do instead of fighting Microsoft is simply say they will no longer protect Microsoft under Copyright laws (violate our laws and the laws dont proctect you)... That will keep them quiet... And since most of the stuff is stolen anyways I dont see how this would be wrong.

We arn't attacking in the right way... this is how by Shadow51 · 2002-03-31 12:43 · Score: 1

Well what the goverment should do instead of fighting Microsoft is simply vote a law that says they will no longer protect products under Copyright laws that violate our laws... And since most of the stuff is stolen anyways on top of being a total monopoly I dont see how this would be wrong. And as is mentioned else where.. Windows IS!!!!!!!!! Modular !! and can work without IE , Explorer , Media Player etc... Look at Windows XP Embedded..! In Other words violate Anti-Trust laws ! and your product becomes free...

Stripped Down Microsoft Program = Oxymoron by Erratio · 2002-03-31 13:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

There was interview posted here a while ago with a former project manager at Microsoft (a link would be appreciated by someone not too lazy to find it) about the business of programming and so forth. One of the things that struck me about it later was the way that he said that rewriting code is bad from both a business standpoint and because every line of code is there for a reason. In my (albeit limited) experience a large number of patches and changes to code are made to accomodate initial errors in logic or lack of foresight for such things as scalability, and with major changes a rewrite allows you to most cleanly adjust for either of those things, and quite possibly improve the code with other techniques learned since the original writing. Microsoft is obviously a heavily business-oriented company, so they've probably seen quick hacks as a less time-consuming, more profitable solution than restructuring their design, which would explain why every MS product seems just like the one before it but with a couple more features and system requirements :). A fully modular operating system with the technologies that have been integrated into Windows probably would not have been as appealing to them as just building off what they already had.

Why I took Windows 2000 off my home computer (quick true story)
I was trying to get Routing and Remote Access set up with NAT so I could plug my laptop into my desktop (something I've done several times on other computers). First I was getting an error becuase File and Print Sharing wasn't set-up (which is of course a key component to any type of routing).

--
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think

Re:Stripped Down Microsoft Program = Oxymoron by jjohnson · 2002-03-31 16:45 · Score: 1

The interview is with Joel Spolsky, a former project manager on Excel. His argument is that rewriting something from scratch is not only uneconomical, but dangerous because it eliminates the collective knowledge built into the code through bugfixes and such.

Spolsky does, however, favor extensive refactoring when time and money are available--he's not saying that you shouldn't fix old code, only that refactoring is pretty much always preferable to a clean sheet rewrite.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Stripped Down MS Program = Oxymoron by Erratio · 2002-03-31 13:17 · Score: 1

There was interview posted here a while ago with a former project manager at Microsoft (a link would be appreciated by someone not too lazy to find it) about the business of programming and so forth. One of the things that struck me about it later was the way that he said that rewriting code is bad from both a business standpoint and because every line of code is there for a reason. In my (albeit limited) experience a large number of patches and changes to code are made to accomodate initial errors in logic or lack of foresight for such things as scalability, and with major changes a rewrite allows you to most cleanly adjust for either of those things, and quite possibly improve the code with other techniques learned since the original writing. Microsoft is obviously a heavily business-oriented company, so they've probably seen quick hacks as a less time-consuming, more profitable solution than restructuring their design, which would explain why every MS product seems just like the one before it but with a couple more features and system requirements :). A fully modular operating system with the technologies that have been integrated into Windows probably would not have been as appealing to them as just building off what they already had. Why I took Windows 2000 off my home computer (quick true story) I was trying to get Routing and Remote Access set up with NAT so I could plug my laptop into my desktop (something I've done several times on other computers). First I was getting an error becuase File and Print Sharing wasn't set-up (which is of course a key component to any type of routing). Then the RRAS became locked in an utterly useless state where it said it needed to be configured (which was good because had never configured it), but that it already was configured and it wouldn't let me configure it...or remove it...or anything but look at the little icon and wonder at the fact that the way to fix the problem was by using the program that wouldn't work because it seemed that no matter what I did with it the service apparantly seemed to be in the exact opposite state it needed to be in to do it, magically changing from one state to another without my apparently ever managing to communicate with it at all. But then again if File Sharing was causing me problems who knows what else could have been...maybe it was Media Player.

--
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think

Doh! that's what happens when you don't preview by Erratio · 2002-03-31 13:19 · Score: 1

Shouldn't have been HTML formatted. Sorry...cut and pasted and didn't pay attention.

--
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think

That's IT!!! by Dave_bsr · 2002-03-31 13:48 · Score: 1

Sell windows 98 - (IE, media player, etc) and call it "windows stripped down edition" and there you go. it does what you want and its a peice of crap. ha ha ha... : |

--

Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?

Declawing Windwows by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 13:52 · Score: 0

It is simple no OS company should be allowed to make applications.

May the best OS win...

Removing `core' parts of the OS by leonbrooks · 2002-03-31 14:04 · Score: 2

You can remove core parts of the OS and the OS has no problem.
I was about to say, `WMP and MSN aren't core parts of Windows' and then it suddenly hit me: they are core parts of the Windows business. This is like discussing theology with a Mormon: you and they are saying the same words, agreeing with each other, and meaning completely different things.

The consequences are obvious: the plaintiffs are asking Microsoft to remove - or at least make obviously optional - certain components which are clearly not vital to the functioning of the OS as an OS. The Microserfs are seeing the plaintiffs asking them to remove components which are clearly vital to their business model (embrace and extend: the spiderweb gambit). The plaintiffs have no feel for why the Microserfs are so upset (because from their POV the components are non-essential), and the Microserfs think the plaintiffs are only trying to put them out of business (because from their POV the components are essential).

Anyway... from a pragmatic POV, WMP, MSN and even Exploder are not core parts of the OS. Replacing Exploder with Konqueror and showing that to the judge would be good clean fun.

The core parts of the OS that I most like to remove are WIN.COM and COMMAND.COM; the application that I like to uninstall them with is diskdrake.

All MS has to do is add these things to the Remove Windows Components.

In my case, that involves shipping an X server and enough of a POSIX environment to run diskdrake. Microsoft may balk at this. (-:

The easiest way to achieve that is to require their OEMs to ship with both Windows and a recent version of Mandrake installed. Words like `choke', `apoplexy' and `freak out' don't even begin to describe what Ballmer and Gates would do in response to that as a proposal...

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

new ability to incorporate 3rd party software eh? by una-b · 2002-03-31 14:23 · Score: 1

"...to produce a stripped down version of Windows that will allow 3rd party vendors to insert components such as browsers, media players, and IM clients."

Hmm... Seems to me that this has already been accomplished. Winamp anybody? How about Mozilla? And for those that want full stripped GUI and everything, just go see our friends over at Litestep.

-----------------

--
-----------------------------------
-"Kill one... to warn a hundred..."

IP Death Penalty by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 14:38 · Score: 0

Oh, it's not necessary to kill Microsoft.

But to make them behave and not hide stuff, the penalty of Microsoft violating the rules should be loss of Intellectual Property. If a piece is found to be in violation, MAKE IT PUBLIC DOMAIN.

So if the rules say that the interfaces must be fully defined so others can use MS components or replace them, but one part is found to not be doing that then everyone can see how it actually works. Better yet, as it is public domain and not GPL then everyone can use the code however they want.

For example, if the network file sharing interface is found to be not working then the judge would appoint someone to investigate -- both MS memos and the actual source code. If a violation is found, all the file sharing interface code becomes public.

What they abuse, they lose.

Re:Windows IS modular:error in your comment by Passacaglia · 2002-03-31 14:40 · Score: 1

The states are not, in fact, seeking any damages other than reimbursement of their legal costs in pursuing this case.

Re:Widening Slashdot: Quite Possible! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 15:00 · Score: 0

awesome, velcome back!

Re:Microsoft is being intentionally misleading... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 15:08 · Score: 0

Okay - but why include and enable it by default? Okay, most users are dumb. Granted - but why make it hidden so it doesn't show up in add/remove programs? It just adds an extra step to removing an entirely superfluous component.

The point is not that it's hard - but that there's no reason to integrate things like this. Perhaps in the next version of Windows the ability to remove it will be entirely removed, as it was with IE.

What does this mean for Embedded WinXP? by beck001 · 2002-03-31 15:08 · Score: 1

If windows is this hard to pair down, then how can anyone seriously consider embedded XP for a project that does not require a web browser? MS's argument is just too weak here, they are playing on lawyers and Government officials unfamiliarity with Software development.

"A monopoly will leverage their monopoly to protect their monopoly"
Lawrence Lessig

technical nightmare -- lack of modularity by mmusn · 2002-03-31 15:40 · Score: 2

Microsoft insists a modular Windows would be a technical nightmare: Removing parts of the operating system could cripple the rest of it.

Microsoft is probably right: Windows is incredibly poorly designed. Everything can just call everything else, willy nilly. Driver installation programs may assume that they can just pop up IE if they feel like it, scanner drivers invoke user interface components, etc.

The states are right to insist on this, though. It is entirely reasonable to demand that the market-leading OS satisfies minimal modularity requirements. If Microsoft can't hack this, they deserve to go out of business. If they comply and fix Windows, we'll all be better off.

I'm hardly an MS fan but... by rcs1000 · 2002-03-31 16:01 · Score: 2

Choices are a wonderful thing. Like standards, we have way too many.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between 'uninstall' and simply 'not using'.

I love Opera, it's fast, efficient (and dare I say it, European). 90% of the time I use it for my browsing, and the other 10% I curse the site I am using for their short-sightness. (Plus, being stupid enough to think FrontPage is a worthwhile HTML editing suite.)

But: if I want to use Opera I can. Just as, if I am a Mac user I could use... well, whatever the equivilant Mac package is.

Unistalling is a complete red herring. Why would I want to uninstall something that doesn't harm me (and in some cases is actually benficial)?

We must all ask ourselves what we want MSFT to be. And if we want MSFT to be no more, we must vote with our dollars. Everytime a /. user uses Office because (heck) its got this great spreadsheet we are supporting Redmond and Bill Gates. It's like complaining about the press while buying The Washington Post and subscribing to cable. How can we possibly claim to belive what we write while our dollars tell a different story?

*r

*r

--
--- My dad's political betting

Windows 95, anyone? by MetalMorph · 2002-03-31 16:15 · Score: 1

They want a "stripped-down" version of Windows? It already exists.

--
My words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

"Experience"? by theolein · 2002-03-31 16:23 · Score: 0

Why is it that every time someone uses the word "experience" with respect to windows that a little red flag goes up in my mind with the phrase "MS Troll" on it?

Re:DAY 5 OF SLASHDOT ROTO BLACKOUT by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 16:27 · Score: 0

Do you wear a foil hat?

Why in the hell would M$ care what *you* are thinking or doing?

MS is BSing and we know it. by Viceice · 2002-03-31 16:34 · Score: 1

A stripped down version of windows is simple. It's just Win95 with the updates and patches to make it support USB and other new tech and enhancements to suports current hardware like SSE2 and 3DNOW!2 and so on WITHOUT the fancy IE, Media Player, MSN and all that web-enabled crap and fancy desktop. If Win95 could be made to just support all current tech, i'd revert to it in a heartbeat. Doesn't take up so much overhead just to keep a fancy GUI and stuff i don't need runing.

--
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.

Ahhh.... by blitz77 · 2002-03-31 16:35 · Score: 1

Won't trying to see whether windows can be stripped down actually make Microsoft in the future make its components even more integrated into windows? Then it'll be even harder to use other programs for other countries....

You can replace the finder by theolein · 2002-03-31 16:35 · Score: 0

For that matter you can replace quicktime as well. They are not critical to the functioning of Mac OSX. The finder in OSX is just another application.

There is a little hack that has been around for a while now for OSX whereby you write a 2 line script and after logging into the console from the login window by entering >console, you start the script which starts the window manager and the terminal and Voila! No finder, no dock, no desktop, just a terminal window. You can start any programme you like from the terminal. It's great. It saves memory and takes away needless nitty gritty.

A little empathy... by theolein · 2002-03-31 16:42 · Score: 0

with your users would get you much further more quickly. If you do user support you should know what your customers are running and should be able to realise that for many people the world consists of more than just computers.

No no no... by Danse · 2002-03-31 17:05 · Score: 2

You technically can already do this. Assuming of course you can find the documentation you need. I haven't looked for it, so I don't know how complete (or incomplete as the case may be) it is. The real problem is that even though Compaq could technically do this, Microsoft won't let them. That is one of the issues that should be addressed by the court. Lawyers should not be redesigning Windows. They should be removing Microsoft's ability to leverage its OS and Office monopolies to extort and coerce OEMs. They should be made to document all of their APIs, protocols, and file formats completely and make that information available in a very timely manner. Once you fix the leveraging and the interoperability problems, Microsoft will have largely been de-clawed. That's what they should be doing, not wasting everyone's time and making a joke of this case by trying to rewrite Windows.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Huh? by Danse · 2002-03-31 17:11 · Score: 2

Gecko renders pages to W3C specifications better than anything else out there, bar none. It does it fast too.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Whatever M$ by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-31 17:13 · Score: 0

Whatever can be made, can be unmade.

what better indication of incompetence? by maxpublic · 2002-03-31 17:50 · Score: 2

So either MS rewrote the OS between Win98 and Win2000/XP to foil court orders to remove formerly modular components (as IE was proven to be in Win98), or the decision makers at MS are complete fuckwits.

Either conclusion doesn't do much for the reputation of the company.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?

They've done it already by mph_sd · 2002-03-31 20:52 · Score: 1

I don't know if anyone has listened to the stream from Dr. Dobb's technetcast: http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_stream.html?stream_ id=666 Listen to about the first 3 minutes: MS stripped all the middleware out (W2K kernel in this case) in a very short time for XBox. I guess it's not "impossible."

Doesn't the real solution... by Fakir · 2002-03-31 21:17 · Score: 1

lay in keeping Microsoft from strongarming vendors into selling windows to their customers?

How about this for a solution? Let Microsoft sell whatever version of Windows they want, but let consumers buy whatever OS they want with the hardware they want. Seems a lot easier than 48 different versions of Windows (which Microsoft admits to being non-modular, something I want out of my OS -I also like a lot of threads though-).

Does it mean that since the focus has turned away from illegal business practices and focused on the structure of the OS, that Microsoft has already won against the charges of unfair competition?

--
---------- Hot Rats!

And MS claims they aren't a monopoly? by softsign · 2002-04-01 03:43 · Score: 2

Under a proposed settlement that Microsoft reached with the Department of Justice and the nine other states suing it, the company already would give computer makers unprecedented freedom to distribute non-Microsoft products.

This is the problem. Why is MS in a position where it can dictate what sorts of freedom its customers are to be allowed?

I do believe that MS's whole story... by doppleganger871 · 2002-04-01 04:13 · Score: 1

...is utter bullshit. -- Period.

That is all.

--
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Re:Microsoft is being intentionally misleading... by shrikel · 2002-04-01 09:10 · Score: 1

If it's discovered that they've lied in court I think the company should be dissolved for a period of time not less than what an individual caught lying in court would be sentenced to. It's time that corporations enjoyed some of the responsibilities of being considered 'individuals' as well as the rights and priveleges.

Any individual caught lying in court might spend time incarcerated, but even during that time, he/she could have a trustee continue running his business. Putting the corporation in jail (and that's hard to do. :) ) would not prevent the people who are currently running its business from running its business. Just my $.02

--
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.

Microsoft by Windows+Me · 2002-04-01 09:19 · Score: 1

Make them open source to everybody not just third parties then we can make windows how we want it!

--
This was written to use up your time hahahssa alaahsdhaj asdjfkjafjkfsd gsdd.dsgfsg gf.fs dsf dfdfds gffgfd

*sigh* by himi · 2002-04-01 18:49 · Score: 2

Microsoft has the power to cease licensing people windows. They have the power to tie their software closely to windows, gaining a significant performance advantage. They have the power to change the interfaces that other software uses, forcing the developers of that software to update their products to work with newer versions of windows. They have the power to fail to document large parts of their interfaces. They have the power to make their code so obfuscated that replacing it is downright impossible. They have the power to tie the core operating system to various optional extras that they produce, and which compete with third party products.

Microsoft has been seen to do all of those things. In Microsoft's position (it /has/ been legally judged a monopoly, so arguing about whether or not it is one is moot), those things are considered abuses of monopoly power, and are illegal. End of story.

It's that simple, my partisan friend - they were found guilty, and the remedy phase is in full swing. Controlling their actions is one proposed remedy. The reasons for it being proposed are what I outlined in my previous post. Your arguments about whether or not they're a monopoly are moot, and most of them are really rather naive. Get over it, please.

himi

--

My very own DeCSS mirror.

Re:*sigh* by reflective+recursion · 2002-04-02 05:13 · Score: 1

And what I'm saying is there is no possible remedy because there is no monopoly in the first place. Say IE did not exist. What would we be left with? Navigator. The inferior product. Let's say there was no Microsoft Office. What then? Word Perfect? Lotus SmartSuite? If you talk about features, then these programs are nowhere near that of MS Office. You cannot say this is because of closer integration with Windows. If you take a look at StarOffice on Linux you will see it is nowhere near what MS Office is. Now look at MS Money and Intuit Quicken. I'm willing to bet that MS Money is nothing compared to Quicken, in terms of features.

At some point people need to give Microsoft some credit for actual creating quality software. Occasionally they bomb, occasionally they succeed. I have MS QuickC version 1.0. Now that was a bomb. On the other hand, QuickBASIC v4.x was a superior product at the time (the first BASIC compiler that I know of)--which led to Visual Basic. MS Bob? Bomb. MS Flight Simulator? The best. Windows 1.x? Utter garbage. Windows 3.x? Amazing. And this isn't because MS is buying software out from others. IE was nothing when SpyGlass owned it (nor was DOS for that matter). It was MS that really made it what it is today.

If you look past this image of instability and poor quality that comes from Windows95/98 you will see that Microsoft makes some very good software and much of the competition's is crap.

We will soon find out how much of a monopoly MS really has when restrictions are placed on them and no quality software emerges.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:*sigh* by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 19:42 · Score: 2

> They have the power to change the interfaces that other software uses, forcing the developers of that software to update their products to work with newer versions of windows

*Big time false*.
MS is *excellent* at backward compatability. If it worked on earlier version of Windows, than there is little chance that it would break on a newer version.

The only excepetion is beta API, which you shouldn't rely upon anyway.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:*sigh* by himi · 2002-04-02 21:32 · Score: 2

Generally speaking, they /have/ to be - they'd get screamed at insanely if they weren't. However, I'll point at various incidents like the NT service pack that caused Lotus Notes to stop working, and their skullduggery about windows 3.1 on DR-DOS. But yes, in their current position they're limited by the weight of software that they need to support, so there's a limit to what they can change.

I believe changing the OS interfaces so that Navigator wouldn't run anymore was one of the things they considered when they first looked at killing Netscape. I'm not sure if they decided they couldn't do that without breaking other things, though.

My other points stand unaltered. Microsoft /does/ have monopoly power, and it /does/ abuse it in various ways. Arguing otherwise is just plain stupid (or, in the case of Mr Reflection here, trolling).

himi

--

My very own DeCSS mirror.
Re:*sigh* by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-03 07:32 · Score: 2

NT-SP6 & Lotus Notes:
Lotus fucked up really back in conforming to the way that they should've implemented it, and got away with it because of a hole in NT that SP6 fixed.
It was out only a few days when SP6a came out with a version that wouldn't break Lotus' faulty implementation.

DR-DOS & Win3.11:
Are you talking about using a system on an unsupported product? That *is* likely to cause problems.
Or are you talking about the beta's message box?

Name *one* proven instance when MS changed the OS interface to harm Netscape. Just one, and then prove it.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Flexibility of Use by Kryptic+Knight · 2002-04-01 22:07 · Score: 1

I want to be able to type a URL in a "explorer" or "my computer" or "internet explorer" or even the "run-command prompt" and have the OS do the work.

Thats the entire basis of the flexibility of the whole windows ethos. You don't have to be in the appropriate application.

--
--- This meme is memory intensive

You are a big Microsoft Fan. by raahul_da_man · 2002-04-02 00:29 · Score: 1

I haven't read such sheer unadulterated nonsense in a long time.

Unistalling is a complete red herring. Why would I want to uninstall something that doesn't harm me (and in some cases is actually benficial)?

Why should I pay for the development of IE? IE takes up valuable space, slows down the processor, and makes windows install slower. This is quite a huge set of disadvantages. It is not for Microsoft to decide what kind of OS I run. Everything else in Windows can be removed/added. I see no need for clearly optional components like IE/Media player.

Wrong by Ayende+Rahien · 2002-04-02 15:33 · Score: 2

Windows lend itself very well for this type of behaviour.
All you need is to re-implement the COM components, and install them in the GUIDs of IE, WMP, etc, and it will work correctly.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

XP embedded? by karlm · 2002-04-03 05:00 · Score: 2

Can't they actually make support cheaper by making a new desktop OS based on XP embedded?

It's supposedly a stripped down version of XP, right? Couldn't they just add a bunch of modules to XP Embedded to make it a desktop OS. THis would probably also make it lighter on its feet. It would also probably reduce the codebase they ned to support. It should also make it easier to get that EAL4 security rating they're after.

--
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.

Slashdot Mirror

Declawing Windows: Impossible?

599 comments