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

Windows IS modular

[Ashcrow]

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

[qurk]

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

[PHPee]

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

[Chas2K]

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

[Kibo]

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.

Re:Windows IS modular

[Com2Kid]

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. :)

Re:Windows IS modular

[CoolVibe]

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

[Arker]

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.

Re:Windows IS modular

[spectecjr]

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

Re:Windows IS modular

[Arker]

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.

Re:Windows IS modular

[Arker]

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.

Re:Windows IS modular

[YellowElf]

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?

Re:Windows IS modular

[spectecjr]

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

Re:Windows IS modular

[Arker]

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.

Re:Windows IS modular

[Arker]

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.

Re:Windows IS modular

[Arker]

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.

Re:Windows IS modular

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

have that version...

[westcourt_monk]

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?

Re:have that version...

[Brian Kendig]

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...

[0x0d0a]

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.

Re:have that version...

[ClarkEvans]

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...

[CoolVibe]

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...

[mpe]

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...

[Com2Kid]

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.

Re:have that version...

[SecretAsianMan]

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.

Re:have that version...

[spectecjr]

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

Re:have that version...

[Brian Kendig]

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...

[Brian Kendig]

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...

[tshak]

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).

Re:have that version...

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:have that version...

[spectecjr]

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

Re:have that version...

[Brian Kendig]

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...

[Brian Kendig]

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...

[Kaiwen]

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...

[Kaiwen]

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...

[himi]

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

Re:have that version...

[tshak]

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).

Re:have that version...

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:have that version...

[Danse]

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.

Re:have that version...

[Danse]

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.

Re:have that version...

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:have that version...

[spectecjr]

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

Re:have that version...

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

Re:have that version...

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

Re:have that version...

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

Re:have that version...

[Ayende Rahien]

> 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.

Re:have that version...

[Ayende Rahien]

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

Re:have that version...

[Ayende Rahien]

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?

Microsoft would rather die.

[bogado]

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.

Re:Microsoft would rather die.

[jelle]

"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.

Isn't that what they said the first time around

[tzanger]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[macpeep]

"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

[arkanes]

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

[dimator]

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.

Design?

[russianspy]

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?

[jmb-d]

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.

Re:Design?

[WildBeast]

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?

[jejones]

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?

[p3d0]

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.)

Re:Design?

[JamesOfTheDesert]

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.

Re:Design?

[J. J. Ramsey]

"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?

[IDIIAMOTS]

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?

[tshak]

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).

Re:Design?

[letxa2000]

Do you actually code? My experience has been exactly the opposite. Anything but modular code is a maintenance nightmare.

Re:Design?

[TheConfusedOne]

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.

Re:Design?

[Some Dumbass...]

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?

[mpe]

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?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.)

Re:Design?

[Tony]

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.

Re:Design?

[TheConfusedOne]

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?

M$ bashing 101

[minusthink]

"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.

Not modular?

[Bloody Bastard]

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?

[crawling_chaos]

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.

Re:Not modular?

[mpe]

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.

This is complete BS

[Khalid]

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

[theCoder]

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.

So they are saying is "punishment hurts"?

[stripes]

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"?

[TandyMasterControl]

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?)

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:They don't have to rip it out 100%

[YU Nicks NE Way]

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%

[mjh]

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.

Re:They don't have to rip it out 100%

[mjh]

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.

Re:They don't have to rip it out 100%

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

Re:They don't have to rip it out 100%

[mjh]

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.

keep it in

[ericdano]

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.

A Possible Solution

[Alien54]

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.

Difference between Windows and Applications

[mtippett]

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

[Arker]

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.

Windows is Compact?

[nathanm]

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.

"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates

[Karl Cocknozzle]

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.

Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates

[sqlrob]

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

[CowbertPrime]

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

[TandyMasterControl]

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.

Re:"A Support Nightmare!" -- Bill Gates

[JordanH]

• 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

[sqlrob]

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

[JordanH]

• 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

[nathanh]

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

[sqlrob]

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

[JordanH]

• 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.

Not all that impossible

[jonathan_atkinson]

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

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.

Re:Not all that impossible

[gimpboy]

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.

Re:Not all that impossible

[Ogerman]

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.

The reason you can't remove those components

[TummyX]

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

[Ozan]

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

[Ozan]

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

[Some Dumbass...]

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

[gimpboy]

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.

Re:The reason you can't remove those components

[Tony-A]

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

[SilentStrike]

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

[dimator]

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.

Re:The reason you can't remove those components

[tswinzig]

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).

Re:The reason you can't remove those components

[SteveX]

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

[TummyX]

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

[Ozan]

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.

Huh?

[aallan]

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.

Re:Huh?

[caspper69]

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.

Vizualize this defense

[rknop]

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

Fine MS for every lie they tell....

[3seas]

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?"

So why do they have to be removed?

[JPriest]

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.

IEradicator for Windows 9x and 2000sr1

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It doesn't really matter

[rant-mode-on]

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

[JamesOfTheDesert]

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.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[spectecjr]

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

Re:It doesn't really matter

[spectecjr]

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

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.

I don't buy it.

[invenustus]

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.

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???

Re:Something called...

[plone]

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...

[D'Arque Bishop]

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...

[Julian352]

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...

[arkanes]

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...

[NineNine]

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...

[CoolVibe]

"...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.

Partly agree

[Otis_INF]

(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.

Re:Partly agree

[mpe]

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

[Ayende Rahien]

The problem isn't in the wrapping, it's that the states wants *all* of it removed.

Leave the support to the OEMs.

[man_ls]

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.

[ONU CS Geek]

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?

Re:I am confused...

[mjh]

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.

Windows isn't modular!

[mjh]

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?

Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about

[cyberlotnet]

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

Re:Everyone has forgetten what this is truly about

[dieMSdie]

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.

Re:I am confused...

[SmileyBen]

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...

The proposed solution is evil and anti-consumer

[GodSpiral]

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.

Hey Gang This Is The Penalty Phase.

[HiyaPower]

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.

I'm getting confused here....

[rkoot]

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.

Why could it ever be good to have that choice?

[forgoil]

"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).

Windows XP embedded?

[jspaleta]

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

Why have Microsoft do it?

[AnotherBlackHat]

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

[Dwonis]

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

[Picass0]

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

[virtigex]

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.

Re:I am confused...

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"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

What diff?

[oldstrat]

"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....

[Faust7]

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.

Re:Will this really work?

[skt]

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.

slower, much-less user friendly Windows

[Tri0de]

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

And this would be different from a typical new Windows version how?

Wonderful

[Sycraft-fu]

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

[mpe]

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...

How can it NOT be modular?

[hillct]

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

Re:How can it NOT be modular?

[CoolVibe]

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?

[himi]

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

Re:How can it NOT be modular?

[jmccay]

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.

Re:How can it NOT be modular?

[himi]

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

Re:Something called... MMC!

[TheBracket]

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.

Oh, removing its claws!

[sharkey]

Anybody else read that as "Deflawing Windows: Impossible"?

The Logic Escapes Me, Anyway.

[professorpoole]

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.

[Chris Johnson]

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.

Missing the point...

[alias]

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.

Almost already done - xfree86 cygwin port & x

[NZheretic]

... 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?

[crovira]

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.

Support Nightmare

[screwballicus]

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

[kindbud]

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?

Re:Support Nightmare

[screwballicus]

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.

Hmm. A declawed Windows...

[MadFarmAnimalz]

I think I have a good notion what that would look like. And I think some other people have had the same notion...

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. :)
.

OKay

[mindstrm]

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

[mindstrm]

Support should rest on the shoulders of the person selling the computer with windows pre-installed.

as opposed to what?

[discogravy]

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?

Assumming things could be modular

[Pinball Wizard]

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.

Re:Viewers are modular-use better modules!

[Carlk]

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!

Huh?

[MikeJ9919]

"...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

[Vicegrip]

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.

Code reuse stifles innovation

[kindbud]

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...

Re:Code reuse stifles innovation

[Reziac]

Why does what you're proposing sound so much like linux?? :)

Re:Code reuse stifles innovation

[kindbud]

Here's my impression of Steven (you know, the Dell Dude):

"Ummm...... Nooo...."

Not Modular?

[kindbud]

"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?

Windows is now gratutiously non-modular

[Animats]

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.

Replacement?

[yerricde]

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.

Re:Replacement?

[CoolVibe]

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.

If it's not modular..so what? They're still guilty

[Junior J. Junior III]

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...

Replacements

[Redking]

I removed Disk Defragementer and Scandisk. There are replacements that are better. Vopt for defragging and SpinRite for disk scanning.

w00t!

Glad to be a Mac user at this point...

[pressman]

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.

It's all a load of bollox

[rusty spoon]

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 ;-)

"We can't go back and fix the mistakes"

[stu42j]

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?

A Modular System

[Arandir]

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.

Re:A Modular System

[Tony]

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.

So...

[PhotoGuy]

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

Re:More importantly, why would somebody want a ser

[spectecjr]

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

The dumbest question I've ever heard

[Ilan Volow]

"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?"

Support Problem

[ruvreve]

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.

Dependency is not a legitimate issue because...

[hillct]

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

Re:Dependency is not a legitimate issue because...

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

Removing MSHTML, etc. vs. removing IE

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Kaiwen]

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

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

Who to blame?

[_Sprocket_]

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.

Web War Timeline

[_Sprocket_]

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

[quantaman]

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.

Re:I am confused...

[SmileyBen]

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.

Stripped Down Microsoft Program = Oxymoron

[Erratio]

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).

Removing `core' parts of the OS

[leonbrooks]

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...

technical nightmare -- lack of modularity

[mmusn]

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...

[rcs1000]

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

No no no...

[Danse]

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.

Huh?

[Danse]

Gecko renders pages to W3C specifications better than anything else out there, bar none. It does it fast too.

what better indication of incompetence?

[maxpublic]

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

And MS claims they aren't a monopoly?

[softsign]

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?

*sigh*

[himi]

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

Re:*sigh*

[Ayende Rahien]

> 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.

Re:*sigh*

[himi]

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

Re:*sigh*

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

Wrong

[Ayende Rahien]

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.

XP embedded?

[karlm]

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.