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

[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

[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?

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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]"

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???

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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. :)
.

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.

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: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.