Declawing Windows: Impossible?

hyrdra writes: "This story on CNN seems to indicate the intentions of the nine remaining states in the ongoing anti-trust case against Microsoft: 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. While this may not be news, Microsoft's defense is. 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."

Comments

They don't have to rip it out 100%

[Brento]

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.

Re:Not all that impossible

[teamhasnoi]

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.

Microsoft is being intentionally misleading...

[Munelight]

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.

Something called...

[j_stirk]

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???

Ironically

[A_Non_Moose]

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. :)
.