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

Re:Tried and failed already

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:keep it in

[tomstdenis]

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

Re:I am confused...

[Prior Restraint]

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:It doesn't really matter

[WildBeast]

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:have that version...

[tshak]

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.