Slashdot Mirror
Gates Admits Stripped Down Windows Possible
ChristTrekker writes "The Financial Times reports that Bill Gates admitted a stripped-down Windows is possible after all." This kinda contradicts a lot of other
stuff he's been saying. There's a few bits in the article worth a read.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Don't Tread on Me
Finally, BillG blurts out the truth, but before he can take it back (and explain it was gas), it is recorded, filed, and sent into the public domain. Is anyone surprised by this revelation, or is it just more amazing that he acutally admitted it.... Microsoft is slipping....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
well duh!
I wonder if a stripped down version of the Windows OS would yeild better performance with the decreased overhead of the needless features...
:-)
If so, that would be great...you could then get Microsoft's patented "blue screen of death" in half the time!!!
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
pronoblem
And why don't perjury charges apply here?
They talked about this on NPR on my way to work this morning. Windows XP Embedded ("used for medical devices," amongst other things) is completely modular and can be customized for specific purposes. Gates admitted that he did not know how this might be adapted to x86 machines.
I think it's clear that XP embedded would not be what "the consumers" want for their desktops; but on the other hand, Microsoft clearly CAN engineer an OS on x86 that is modular and customizable for OEMs, as the sanctions seem to be calling for.
I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't WANT to expend the time, effort, and MONEY to develop such an OS; not that it isn't possible. They apparently think integration is their only key to stability.
Explain to me, then, all the various Linux distros for desktops that allow you pick and choose? And much of those components are developed by what Microsoft would consider "amateurs?"
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
"What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates. He said the proposals were "fantasies" that gave his business rivals "everything they ever dreamed of".
Sure, Microsoft needs to lose some power here, but I hope they don't swing the pendulum too far the other way. Are we really any better off if Sun or Oracle are given the power to choose the direction of Windows? I hope the decision makers stick to the principle of "What's good for the consumers," and not just "What's bad for Microsoft."
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I was scanning the article quickly, and read this: bank cash machines. I swear that I saw an 'r' somewhere in that sentence!
If they strip windows enought maybe people could discover that it is only DOS in disguise!!
We all know it can be done. Have you seen embedded XP lately? The contention here is whether or not the Government is within its rights to force Microsoft to "strip down" their product. I don't believe that this is the case - though the courts are the only ones with opinions that matter in this particular instance.
Either way why would you ship an Operating system without a web browser? Sure you could ship Windows with Netscape but isn't competition a good thing? The only reason Netscape 6 is somewhat of a decent product is because IE pushed it into overddrive. The fact that IE is shipped with Windows is no more a point of contention nowadays than X being shipped with any Linux distro. (Okay maybe not all of them... but you get the point)
Anyway I'll probably get modded down since I've dared make a comment that doesn't equate Microsoft to the Antichrist. Oh well sue me. I've still got my Linux box and my Windows XP box running side by side day by day. They seem to get along well enough, so why can't we?
J
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
MSFT is counting on the judge being completely ignorant of the technology.
Gates never showed any signs during the testimony of realizing that his company broke the law.
He doesn't want to realize or capitulize to the idea that a monopolist has to play by different rules.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Microsoft *can* manufacture a stripped-down version of Windows without all the unnecessary bells and whistles.
This new product is called 'DOS'.
;)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'd rather see a stripped down version of Mrs. Gates. At least that would be of some value to a linux user.
The question was regarding XP Embedded, where partners can select what portions of the OS they want to install and can also be assured that no third party apps will be installed later and cause unknown consequences. It's a very controlled environment running on a standardized platform.
Please, I beg you. Read the articles before spewing your hatred. It does nothing for your cause.
Mr Gates argued that the proposals allowed rivals to strip out anything they wanted and still call it Windows. "What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates.
Right, Windows that doesn't dictate everyone how to do web pages and music is not Windows! Also, it won't probably work too well... They'll see to it that the crash message box will read:
"Your program has performed an illegal operation and will be closed. This might have happened because your program needs Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 to run. Please contact the software manufacturer if the problem presists. To remedy the problem, you may also want to install MSIE 7.0 or later."
These, and other stories, covered in DUH Magazine.
Heh...sorry for the rant. This Microsoft "admission" is something that's so obvious to people in software development. I'm glad someone realized that was a point they could make against Microsoft.
The thing I find most amazing about this whole thing is Microsoft saying "Other companies want to see Microsoft destroyed" and similar things. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft has been doing to countless other companies for YEARS.
Newsforge is running a very good article summarizing some of Gates' testimony with a number of links to further info. The author makes some good points. There's a claim that Windows' code is too complicated to document and it's not at all modular. Any good software developer knows that modular design is important in large projects. Only a monopoly could claim their software is poorly designed without fearing loss of customers.
Developers: We can use your help.
Hmmm...is it slashdotted already? Here's what I had from my cache:
Gates admits stripped-down Windows possible
By Paul Abrahams in Washington
Published: April 24 2002 18:52 | Last Updated: April 24 2002 22:00
In what was probably his final day of testimony at the Microsoft antitrust remedy hearings Bill Gates (pictured), chairman and co-founder, admitted on Wednesday that it might be possible to create a stripped-down version of Windows for personal computers that use one of its existing products.
The admission was important because Mr Gates had previously argued that it was not feasible to create such a version of Windows, while maintaining the performance of the world's dominant PC operating system.
The nine litigating states want the software giant to provide a basic version of Windows, without applications such as the browser Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, so that computer makers can install rivals' software.
Mr Gates admitted that Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows used in products such as bank cash machines, allowed programmers to pick and chose which functions they wanted. However, Mr Gates pointed out that Windows XP Embedded required considerable testing after the options had been selected, and would not allow third-party software to be subsequently added.
Mr Gates has argued during three days of testimony that the states' proposals were cobbled together by its corporate rivals, and that the states have not thought through the proposals' feasibility or implications. He has used a number of examples in an attempt to show that reasonable business behaviour would be banned under the states' remedies, and that consumers would suffer. Throughout his testimony, Mr Gates remained calm and relaxed, in contrast to his performance during the original antitrust trial two years ago.
Through cross-examination, Steven Kuney, the states' lawyer, has tried to show that Microsoft is concerned that the remedies would create competition. He has also tried to demonstrate that Mr Gates' reading of the proposals are extreme and unreasonable.
Mr Gates argued that the proposals allowed rivals to strip out anything they wanted and still call it Windows. "What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates. He said the proposals were "fantasies" that gave his business rivals "everything they ever dreamed of".
Mr Gates also said that the discounts that Microsoft would have to offer under the proposals for stripped-down versions of Windows would lead to savings for computer makers worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr Gates said his group's sales to computer manufacturers were worth between $6bn-$7bn a year, and that the discounts could reach 25 per cent of those revenues.
The nine litigating states believe that the proposed settlement between the company and the nine other states and the Justice Department is too lax. Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, a decision that was upheld at appeal. The current hearings, which may last until the middle of May, are to decide what conditions should be imposed on its future behaviour. Either side could appeal the judge's ruling.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
love the .sig
Burt "Out of my mind back in 5 minutes"
Cnet's news.com has an interesting story Here.
It includes some interesting tidbits although nothing unexpected.
Planetes
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
Mr Gates pointed out that Windows XP Embedded required considerable testing after the options had been selected, and would not allow third-party software to be subsequently added.
Since they included everything but the kitchen sink....
The sky is blue, the earth is round, and Microsoft is still a monopoly. I wish computer makers would offer me a choice between actual operating systems, not just which useless crap I want removed from Windows.
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs."
The modularity of their embedded OS has never been questioned, just the desktop OS.
Windows XP Embedded ("used for medical devices," amongst other things)
Giving new meaning to the "Blue Screen of Death". I hore I die before I end up on medical gear controled by Winblows.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
I thought it was fairly obvious that if you can delete "iexplore.exe" and "wmplayer.exe" from Windows and it still worked that those were obviously not essential to its operation.
Mr Gates has argued during three days of testimony that the states' proposals were cobbled together by its corporate rivals...
I thought Monopolies didn't have rivals.
Mr Gates admitted that Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows used in products such as bank cash machines...
Does anyone know the brand of cash machine that uses XP embedded? I'd like to be sure to avoid using these.
Of course no one believed that in 1998.
But today another Guy from Microsoft (also called Bill Gates) states that Windows is not modular and everyone does not believe this again?
Gee, that guy from 1998 does also look similar, just a little bit younger.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-206304.html?legacy=c net
Of course 98Lite user know removing IE is possible and makes Windows 98 much faster, and have been doing it for a long time.
Oh, no! Really?! You're telling me that the very people you've pushed around for a decade or so might actually see some benefits when you finally get caught and punished? Wow!
Imagine that, Microsoft's punishment for its unfair stranglehold on the computing industry is a lessening of that stranglehold!
I'm cryin' here...
he said "technicly" possable BUT it would destroy the computer market by maing it near impossable for a programmer to know what a person had and did not have on their his or her computer.
though this is just a lie since MS can keep DLLs on the system to provide the resources that their applications add.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Now come on, really, these guys aren't stupid. If it were possible to strip down Windows, they would have done it already and would be spending lots of money trying to dominate new markets.
Why can't IIIIII get a story accepted? oh well. I'm just glad it happened. . .
You are not the customer.
Personally, I think a more modular Windows - where DiectX, IE, Media Player, Et All, would be a Good Thing allaround. It would make it much like OS X - a system where the core API and commands (cut, paste) are controlled in one place, and the apps simply using the OS for basic i/o needs - so it doesn't matter which browser/media player you use - it just talks to the OS for what it needs. The way it Should Be.
But lets not forget MS's past. Suppose they shipped XP Lite (say $30 to the consumer, $15 to OEM's, and other components could be downloded for a price). You put on Mozilla, and set it to be the default app for HTML.
Any bets that MS would simply make their help files - which should be HTML based - so non-HTML standard that Mozilla can't display them correctly? Then they can say on their tech support line "Oh, help files won't display? It's because your computer seller sold you a non-standards compliant browser - buy IE for $5, and next time, only buy a computers from a vendor that isn't trying to rip you off with cheap open source software."
They do the same for media files (excusive contracts with artists, who don't get anything from the RIAA anyway) to make their online music only Windows Media. Or who knows what else - remember the DR DOS issue? They've done t once, and like a fomer priest defrocked priest running a day care, they'll do t again.
The point is MS could make windows modular - and we would still have to watch them like a hawk to keep them from using their old tricks.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Back when it was Embedded NT. At the time, it was little more than a toy. Although, installing NT onto a Disk On Chip and running it in a totally diskless environment was cool. However, configuration was a royal pain (even when using disk based installs), and getting any app. to work was so close to impossible that you might as well have gone for a full blown NT install. Long story short...yes, Embedded exists...but I wonder how functional it would be, real world, without MS browser being FULLY integrated. Keep tryin' Bill!!
To the Microsoft-flame mobile!
Ready the pro-linux comments! FIRE AT WILL!
While I could probably reach the person who had this.. but, for now: has anyone else seen this install of windows: the stripped version. Name of "windows light" or "winlight" or "winlite"?
Move faster
After putting all Redmond on a month-long deathmarch to correct their security problems, the result is a stripped-down Windows?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I sincerely doubt that window's current closed and 'un-modular' structure was an engineering decision. No self respecting programmer would build anything this complicated without segmenting off varios functionalities, at the very least for simplicity and stability. Object Oriented design anyone? You'd think the creators of C# would follow their own dogma?? And it is especially sad coming from microsoft, who (lets face it) buys up some of the brightest programmers there are.
To be a stereotipical slashdotter: Linux does everything MS Windows does and is fully modular.
Its not a engineering decision, but a business decision. Make it seem like the lack of IE would cripple the system (hey, you won't be able to browse the internet from Windows Explorer!), non-techies would accept it, world domination assured.
Now, though, it is getting ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why, for example, MSN Messenger needed to be integrated into XP.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30866&cid=3317 924
Make sure you strip that space in 3317924 when you paste that link into your browser.
Each and every one of those games are transiently installed and they are all largely "3rd party apps" with the notable exceptions of things from Bungie. In all honesty, MS could install a version of XP Embedded as a personal/server OS and very probably achieve the stability they keep touting (and missing for the most part) for their other platforms. Part of where the stability problems come in is from all the "integration" and the fact that thier apps and a lot of other apps change key pieces of the system (like each and every one of the runtime libs...).
Believe me when I say I DO understand what I'm talking about and it doesn't matter whether or not it's XP Embedded or not- they COULD make a modular OS that doesn't have half the problems that their current "consumer" or "professional" editions have.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Wait a second, is there a single slashdot reader who wouldn't agree that writing modular software is a good thing? Is there a single person who passed Computer Science 101 who wouldn't agree that modular software, with clearly defined interfaces isn't easier to debug and maintain?
If Microsoft's software is not modular, it is not for technical reasons. Its monolithic nature is not an attempt to "serve the consumer". The monolithic nature of microsoft software has proven extremely costly to consumers. Gates cites "reasonable business behaviour"? Translation: "Screw the consumer. Hook 'em. Gut 'em. Hang 'em up to dry. And tell them to like it."
Let's examine some of Microsoft's design decisions.
MS-DOS, MS-Windows 3.x, orginal Windows 95, did not initiate a fsck, or its DOS equivalent. How come? I am sure slashdot readers who are old enough have had the same experience that I had back then. Naive computer users who ask for our help, because "they have been hit by a virus". What makes them think they have been hit by a virus? Some of their files have become corrupted, or disappeared. Initiate a scandisk, and what did you find? Dozens or hundreds of file fragments, leftover and never repaired from when Windows crashed on them. How much has all this disk corruption cost consumers? My estimate? At least ten billion dollars.
Or consider macro viruses? People used to ask, "can I get a virus through e-mail?" And we used to be able to tell them "no", unless they chose to open an executable attachment. E-mail macro viruses, Word macro viruses, are only possible due to really stupid design decisions on the part of Microsoft. How costly has that been?
If Windows truly isn't modular, I would love to hear an in depth explanation on how in the hell they manage the code. I can hear it now:
Upper level project manager: "We need to make the windows do this funky thing while closing them."
Coders: "Ok, give us the next three months to figure out where in this mass mess of code to insert that."
The issue has never been modularity. Windows is highly modular. The problem is dependencies between those modules. Pull one out and others may fail.
Which translates into a big thing- they can't spin it away so easily now. They HAVE to own up to it, because it's the Chairman of the Board that said it under oath.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That's impossible... the rich never lie.
He was only mistaken 2 years ago...
He was confused with all the technology talk...
He didn't understand the judge's Dialect...
He couldn't hear correctly as he was overly upset hearing about a possible bug in windows...
He couldnt sleep the night before worried that he was overpricing windows and wasn't thinking clearly..
He spend the night before helping homeless children learn linux, so he didnt think clearly...
I can make up tons of other excuses for him...
I am sure that Billy only has our best interests in mind.. he makes his products only for the good of all humanity...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Mr Gates admitted that Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows used in products such as bank cash machines, allowed programmers to pick and chose which functions they wanted."
oh phew, and i thought my wife's been cheating on me....
so where DID the money go?
my blog
Here it is.
Thought I would still prefer the breaking m$ in 5 pieces
and force open the APIs solution.
-><- no
it's all about the money...
Mr Gates said his group's sales to computer manufacturers were worth between $6bn-$7bn a year, and that the discounts could reach 25 per cent of those revenues.
What is wrong with stripping down windows to bring back competition? Why not have a Windows XP Lite? When prices for these versions are lower than the rest it's probably drawing more people to buy the OS instead of looking to cheaper alternatives as Linux. This would allow MS to have inroads at different kind of systems. The cheaper the OS the cheaper the box can be?
Don't get me wrong here, i use Open Source at home (except for the system of my daughter who really needs Windows for school).
from the article...
Either side could appeal the judge's ruling.
...and either side will.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
Why can't they include IE as a separate process? Explorer.exe is just a SHELL! The core of Windows XP remains unchanged. Hell, they could still make explorer look like and function like a web browswer without integrating IE into it. They could make explorer look like a giant Cod fish with glowing eyes and cool buttons if they wanted to.
Remember IE 3.0? Seemed to work just frickin fine without ActiveDesktop or "push technology" to me!
So the cold facts are that IE doesn't have to be integrated so tightly with explorer. That's a given. BUT... here's what erks me, stupid arguments such as thus:
"The nine litigating states want the software giant to provide a basic version of Windows, without applications such as the browser Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, so that computer makers can install rivals' software."
Really? I have to uninstall IE and WMP before I can install very cool competetive software? OMG!
What OEM (who doesn't have very specific prohibitive contracts with vendors) hasn't been able to install competitive software? Really, who? If they want to add Mozilla as the default browswer they can. In fact the damn thing asks you so when it first runs. And WMP is only there because what the hell else are you gonna use on a fresh install? Install PowerDVD, install DivxPlayer (still DirectShow, I know...), install Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing 2003 - for god sakes, get over it.
If bundling some software with your OS is a crime, then Mandrake and Suse executives are going to prison for 99 consecutive life sentences.
...has tons of stuff laying out the fact that Gates is quoted as saying the he does not believe that MS can compete selling non-os software products unless they are tied to Windows in ways that the competition can not replicate - presumably because they DO NOT HAVE THE OS SOURCE. It's in the book in black and white...a friggin quote from Gates himself. MS business strategy is to exploit their monopoly. So they are guilty of that. Now we are hearing the "Monopolists Defense" that this is a natural monopoly and that their monopoly is a good thing. This is amusing as it is EXACTLY what Marx said Capitalism would lead to.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
You should find the following article from CNN MONEY interesting. It discusses a certain aspect of Microsoft balance sheet.
"No other nonfinancial firm has more liquid money at its disposal, and only a handful of banks do. It's more cash than Ford, ExxonMobil and Wal-Mart have combined, and nearly four times as much as Intel, the tech company with the next largest cash balance.
It is enough to buy the entire airline industry -- twice. Or all the gold in Fort Knox, four times over. It is enough to buy 23 space shuttles or every major professional baseball, basketball, football and hockey team in America. It is an enviable stash. Who wouldn't love to have a bank account like that?"
Some food for thought.
"The admission was important because Mr Gates had previously argued that it was not feasible to create such a version of Windows, while maintaining the performance of the world's dominant PC operating system."
Mr. Gates has realized that if the bloatware is stripped out two things will happen the will foster a public backlash on MS:
- The OS will WAY faster. This fact will hit the media; people will be pissed that unnecessary bloatware was slowing down their computers (I have no idea yet HOW the media would dumb this down to the average public's ability to understand it, but you know it will happen in some form or another).
- Spyware will be harder/impossible. Windows Update is too obvious a chioce, and too closely and easily watched. With a stripped down distro, and chatter becomes highly suspicious. How will they do their "marketing"?
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
If Gates openly admits that he's a pathological liar, then how do you know if he's telling the truth about that.
well since some time there has been this product called "98lite" that demonstrates that it is possible to run ur own stripped down version of windows, it even makes it runs faster and smoother then when u only stick to the original...
I have a stripped down version of Windows without Internet Explorer. It's called Windows 95, and it works faster and better than each of these new I.E. ridden incarnations of the OS.
Gates: It'll break Windows if we remove IE.
Me: Innovate, Mntherfncker! INNOVATE!
Why does no one mention in the case that Windows is this way because they made it this way. They can unmake it. Of course they can... everyone here knows this. Seems like they're hiding under a technical excuse; they really, really don't want to take IE out. The 'heart' of the system? Puh-leeze. What about the kernal?
I also still think it's odd that IE for Mac doesn't get mentioned, too. There's your completely independent 'application' in action. Remove it by dragging the big shiny icon to the trash.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
If you are, as I am a liscenced MS OEM Reseller, You get a CD called OPK (Oem Preintall) Tools for XP, what this CD contains is a BOOTABLE (Yes even Graphic enviroment to setup windows installs from, it runs ONLY off the CD, if you reburn it and edit the registries (as ms says you should to meet your OEM needs) You can run anything under it you want, explorer, netscape, winamp, you name it, Now it is lacking certain vid and sound drivers by default but you can put them in the directories on the new CD you are buring, make the reg edits and run live off a CDROM Only, no hard drive needed, networking via DHCP is even on by defalut, I have CD Here that I can boot and surf any office computer here with.
It runs a little slow ( it has no swap remeber)
But it runs at about 70% of the speed of the system should feel like. I sent all this information to the AG of CT, one of the original dissenters.....
It already friggin exists if you know what you are looking for, no not XP imbedded, its based on it I belive, lacks explorer by default and will run on any x86 even detects what HW and Networking you need, looks like a good start to me, but then again Ive already dont it using this CD
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Enron admits it wasn't the most conservative business on the planet.
George W. Bush admits to being not the sharpest pencil in the box.
The Catholic Church admits some priests need a new vocation, or at least a bit more self-restraint.
CmdrTaco admits spelling, grammar, and typing aren't his strong suits.
Linux advocates admit to being more interested in bashing MS and playing politics than in helping real-world users get the most out of their computers.
Very good question. I've been a developer for a number of years and upon reading the article I wondered exactly the same thing: why make it a point to the court that use of Windows XP Embedded "requires considerable testing," which subsequently makes it sound like their other OSs don't need as much testing? Granted he didn't say it that way, but if I make 5 products and point out that one needs considerable testing, it almost implies the other 4 don't.
As for why he makes this claim, I can only think of a few reasons.
1. It's a very new product (as compared to OSs older than XP)
2. It's intended for embedded use, which no one will tolerate crashing. If an ATM OS crashes, the OS manufacturer is definitely losing a customer. If a home PC or workstation crashes, the user gets annoyed, but reboots and keeps working and usually won't make a big attempt to change OSs, while the embedded market has significant competition. It's scary enough that they claim XP use on ATMs, but that's a rant I'll save for later...
3. He's exaggerating to an ignorant court. He's done it with other topics, so he may be trying to draw sympathy from the court for his company's potential situation.
Maybe someone can come up with another deeper explanation, but that's what I'm thinking about his testimony.
Developers: We can use your help.
So what? /. homepage. Hmm.. I'm fresh outa witty slam Microsoft comments.
OHH, I get it!
It's another chance to put the BORG-GATES on
Anyone?
Borrriinngg.
"Failure of Windows operating systems is extremely rare. If it happens, it is usually due to operating system file c
reg add HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon /f /v Shell /t REG_SZ /d "c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe"
appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
"What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates
Is this Microsoft's beta test of their new Word spell/grammar checker?
MS Edits English
...you are really talking about doing away with the entire system of capitalism as we know it.
Think about it objectively here for a second: Microsoft started as a tiny corporation, and for no other reason than they anticipated user demand and repeatedly delivered software to meet it they became hugely successful.
This is good. They are an example of a company running well. The fact that bill gates has that much money is evidence of the success of the capitalist system. He is a genius who worked hard to bring software to people at a time when not many other people were doing it. He deserves to be rewarded for this hard work more than a cashier who can't see beyond their menial work, and can't apply their brain to any sort of progress, does. He values his mind over anything else, obviously, and has applied it to a variety of problems, quite effectively.
Now, to say that it is just or moral for the government to step in and say: "Hmmm. Sorry. Too successful. This is capitalism, but, you know, it just doesn't feel right, you having all this money and other people not having as much money. After all, we are all people, and we all deserve what you have as well." Then you are talking about cannibalism. Horrible, afwul, communist style cannibalism that threatens the very foundation that your country was built on.
People are individuals. To imagine, and then enforce, the doctrine that any given person deserves the same compensation for sitting around their house all day as Bill Gates does for relentlessly pursuing a goal and achieving it is immoral.
Think about this: imagine Linux becomes wildly successful, captures 98% of the desktop market because Microsoft has been subdued and thoroughly kicked in the teeth for what they do so well. Now, imagine if the government came in and said: "No more. No more open source. Move it all to private companies. Lots of them. This is not benefitting the public, your definition of free enterprise, and you have to stop. Releasing source code is now illegal, and, by the way, you support too many different things too well, so dumb some of them down a shade, and have it crash every once in a while. Other people deserve to capture the same market as you, even though they can't do this as well as you. After all, we are all human."
A disgusting thought? Very.
Careful when you turn the law and the government against a competitor. Learn to compete against them on moral terms or don't bother. Next you'll want the government to change your diapers too.
Window belongs to Microsoft. Windows should be able to do anything they can make it do, and no cannibal should be allowed to make it do anything less. If you want to curtail their profits, to make them fail, you have the right to do that: don't buy their products, develop better products. Anything else is uncivilized.
Can I have a Windows with the bsod at random times functionality removed, please?
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
The Gates Who Stole the Desktop
by NetRanger
(Imagine Boris Karloff reading this)
The Gates was quite in a fix now, you see,
With the Senators ready to charge perjury.
Everyone around had deserted his side,
And it was quite obvious that The Gates had lied.
But suddenly the Gates had an awful idea.
The Gates had a wonderful, awful idea!
"I can sell a version of Windows," the old Gatesy Gates hissed,
"With stripped down features. Won't the industry be pissed!"
So The Gates took his Windows, and stripped down the features.
He took out the Internet! He took out search creatures!
He took everything, everything but the price.
Then he wrapped it in packaging that looked quite nice.
When The Gates was done, he looked quite spent,
So shrink wrapped the box, and on the shelves it went.
"This will teach those fools," The Gates sneered and spote,
"When their voters get wind of this, it won't be for them they vote!"
But suddenly there was a cry of joy,
And everyone loved The Gates' new toy!
"My computer doesn't crash!" said one little Who,
"It doesn't slow down like it got the flu!"
And The Gates puzzled and puzzed until his puzzle was solved.
"Maybe Windows," he thought, "has after all been resolved!"
And his answer came with a cash register ring.
"I never had to add features. Not a ^&$@ thing!"
For years afterwards, The Gates played nice.
And he kept everything off, except for the price.
The Windows users continued to shout and sing,
But what really changed? Nada. Not a thing.
THE END
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
Ok - So M$ will release a stripped down version of Windows. Most people are so used to what comes with it they will either a) go out and get the appropriate MICROSOFT addons (browser, etc) or b) Just buy the FULL version.
I'm sure the average consumer would love having Windows with the 'bannerized' version of Opera, the Nag screens from their unregistered Winzip. Banner ads in their email software, the fact that RealPlayer takes over all your media preferences and so on.
Microsoft didn't slip - they realized that people would realize that a stripped down Windows wouldn't be an attractive product to the *AVERAGE* Windows user.
-
aphex
I Steal Music!
Opening trial questions,
......." ...." .Net services" .Net services offered over the internet. ...."
Mr Gates can you state your title at Microsoft for the record?
BG "Head Software Architect"
Mr Gates did you once state something primarly to the effect of "640K would be more than enough computer memory"?
BG "Yes, but
Mr Gates did you once state something primarly to the effect that the "internet was a passing fad that would not amount to much."
BG "Yes, but in my book
Mr Gates is not 256M or more recommended for Windows XP.
BG "Yes, but it will work with 64M"
Mr Gates is not IE and internet services not solidly the core of Windows.
BG "No, that would be
Mr Gates is
BG "Yes, but
So despite your current position as Grand Architect you have made some errors in predicting the future before. 640K is 1/100th the size of the current minimium to install windows. The internet is pretty much the core buisness model for Microsoft. Could you be wrong about market for a modularized OS?
BG "NO"
Of course it's bad to make $2bn profit instad of $6bn. How my heart bleeds for poor old Bill.
Another possible example is Expedia (MS's travel agency - which I boycott for that reason). If I was a CIO for an online travel agency why would uses a competitor's OS. Sun + Oracle / Linux + PostgreSQL would be the obvious choices. Let's hope MS's greed makes them loose all IT in this sector.
Congratulations! You have identified one of the "unintended consequences" that such a remedy would have. MSFT has shown an incredible talent for taking whatever lemons the legal system throws them and making lemonade.
Remember that billion dollar settlement where MSFT was going to "give" a "billion" dollars worth of hardware/software to schools - and just incidentally deliver a crushing blow to Apple in the education market?
How about the requirement for uniform licensing deals to all manufacturers? MSFT has been turning that to their advantage as well (The court says we have to change our sales contract with you - Dude, you're gonna be paying more now).
I have faith (and now I'm not bashing MSFT here) that if MSFT is required to provide a stripped down version of Windows they will find a way to turn that to their advantage. Just as a simple example, consider how much easier it will be for MSFT to produce a reasonably secure OS when they don't have to worry about a default setting in Outlook or IE being a virus/worm/trojan vector. If this does happen. I expect to see MSFT (after taking care of their own problems) suddenly coming out in favor of making software companies legally responsible for damage done by insecure software. (Once again making lemonade)
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Before XP direct cost to the consumer for ME was about 15$. Now in the era of XP 2kPro can be had, legitimately, for about 15$ per seat with the service pack 2 update and high encryption disk. I would not be surprised if the direct cost for XP Home was about 15$. You could actually see it if you printed out one of the configure to order part lists from the stores that might still be doing it. A retail box, now that's a totally different story.
:)
Besides all this talk of embedded XP as a solution is total crap. I would bet Wine under linux would be vastly superior at the point we're at now, and how many consumer boxes go out, even world wide, with that setup? I bet CompUSA sells more hp pcs in a month than linux + wine pcs get sold all year world wide.
Hey but at least you now know M$ has been exceeding your expectations by 100% for a couple of years now.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Every tech person reading this knows that the Microsoft operating system platform is certainly capable of being built and shipped without dozens of Microsoft applications. That platform doesn't care who wrote the applications it runs. And one only has to turn to a version of that platform before Internet Explorer and Media Player ever existed to see that Gates is bending the definition of what Windows is.
Microsoft is has pulled a definition swap on the non-technical world. It is trying to say that the APIs, the interface, and the applications in a certain configuration represent the concept of "Windows." This is very much like how an Apple is an Apple is an Apple. When us techies sling code, we know better. But what Microsoft knows is that the end-user doesn't know... or care.
People choose Windows because they can tweak it; there is so much software out there to choose from, and much of the good stuff isn't from Microsoft.
Remember, Microsoft is going where the money is, and money can be easily removed from the hands of the uninformed. As such, the "lame end-user" who just wants to turn on their PC and have it "work" with no frills is a large base to draw from.
The rest of us, the hobbiests, the scientists, the engineers, the developers, spend most of our time conversing on the higher end of the IQ distribution that we forget what the average user is like or how many of them there are. These people don't want to know how it works; they don't care it could be better, faster, or smaller. They want the first solution, not a best fit. They want the computer to tell them what to do, not the other way around as a power-user mandates.
I don't mind Microsoft going after these people, but don't insult the rest of us by twisting word meanings. Afterall, we're the ones developing the applications and content for that operating system. We're the source of your "innovation." The problem is, that last statement is true, it stings, and they know it. That's why there will always be a love/hate relationship with us -- they need us, but don't want to be reminded of that fact. While the left hand condems, the right hand acts in secret.
"Here's the stripped copy of Windows. Doesn't include IE, WMP or anything that depends on it. It's for sale to both OEMs and to customers."
Now imagine what happens next when customers start trying to use it for day-to-day tasks.
"Hello, Microsoft Help Desk"
"Yes, I'm trying to get my new computer with XP Lite to upload pictures from my digital camera and it doesn't work."
"Sorry sir, XP Lite doesn't include the necessary functionality. Contact your camera maker and buy the needed software from them."
"I can't seem to see the Internet either"
"Yes, XP Lite doesn't include a web browser or any internet client such as FTP you can use to download one. You'll have to go back to the store and purchase a CD. Oh, it doesn't include a network stack either. Please contact Trumpet if they are still in business."
"But I can't even load or play a CD!"
"That's right sir. The drivers for your CD drive are not included with XP Lite. Contact your CD maker, or may we suggest the XP Pro update?"
In all seriousness, MS just has to put out a truly crippled product that nobody in their right mind would want. This would be trivial and would follow the letter of the law.
Sure, OEMs could buy XP Lite and spend a while trying to get it back, but then you'll have 50 seperate versions of Windows, all with different features. Software might or might not run on any given one, but if you just upgrade to XP Pro everything magically works! Imagine that!
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
You can see a video (Real format) of the Gatester cussing ("We f****d up!") and claiming something "Makes us look like greedy fools" here. It must be rather old as he mentions Netscape. Short, so plays well even over dialup.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"Win" - as a winning, for complying with the court order and producing not-really-working, stripped to the bones version of Windows, constantly crushing, "proving" that it was not a good idea to slash it anyway, forcing customers to slowly add MS components to make it work again, and at the end making Microsoft more money.
First, read the article... the key nugget is Mr Gates admitted that Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows used in products such as bank cash machines, allowed programmers to pick and chose which functions they wanted. However, Mr Gates pointed out that Windows XP Embedded required considerable testing after the options had been selected, and would not allow third-party software to be subsequently added.
That is the embeded version folks, wholly unsuited to x86 architecture as is and if ported still would not be a consumer OS... it's meant for fixed useage appliances and devices, that's all.
Secondly, I am positive it would be possible for MS to build and market a stand alone OS. I hope they do actually. This would be great!
It will cost a fortune to develop since it branches significantly from the existing integrated OS platform. MS will sell it exclusively in those nine states and make it available to the remaining world. The cost should only be around four times as expensive, and support will most likely have to be on a per call fee basis (Say 1.99 per minute). Indeed, lets pass these costs along to the dumb ass consumers in those nine states who allow this political sham to go on... I love it when the next biggest and even greedier monopoly attacks the big boy, the consumers win out every time.
I'm sure the way the judge will read things like AMD's CEO testifing on Microsoft's behalf and being rewarded with Microsoft support for AMD's new 64bit Hammer processor a scant 8 days later will not be good.
You have to love it when a companies own testimony and witnesses show what that they are still willing to do all the things the were just convicted of.
I'll lose my job with the Gambino family if they bust up the mob! They can't do that, I own too much stock. I'm heavily invested in illicit drugs, prostitution and the numbers racket - I have a family to feed, they can break us up!! Here we work so hard defending our territory, you think clearing our turf of those Russian mobsters was easy? They nearly put me in a lumber jacket! All that work and what do we get? Harassment from the long arm of the law, that's what. I tell you there's no justice in this world, pfft.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
So as long as people are willing to accept whatever their OEM have installed for the lifetime of their machine, this is a perfectly acceptable solution.
However, it does seem that they could develop an installer for XP Embedded--the fact that it currently isn't up to the task is hardly an excuse.
~=Keelor
98Lite.net
98lite.net shows it's not only possible, but helps improve the speed and reliability of windows.
Is perjury still against the law?
Webster: " the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing"
And for all you disagreeing posters, read the actual 98lite.net pages first before you post back.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
seems to me that gates thought windows would become too micro and too soft
have a nice day
BOFH_org
Sums it up nicely: ... ... an unfair advantage.)
In the courtroom at the stand
Gates: The proposed restrictions are too severe!
Gates: If they're imposed, I bet we'll have to stop selling Windows altogether!
Judge (banging gavel): Order in the court.
Judge: Everybody put your money away. I don't think Mr. Gates was literally offering that bet.
(Standard Tom Toles Small Print -- Gates: You can't give our competitors our most valuable asset
What if they did ship a stripped down version of windows for less money. OEMs find it even more attractive and continue to sell PCs with Windows. MS then just bundles the 'missing' functionality into Office - business as usual. Linux necomes less competitive on price...
Bill Gates concedes that motherhood not licenced through MicroSoft "may not necessarily be evil, but it is anti-American, and then the terrorists will win!"
Mr Gates argued that the proposals allowed rivals to strip out anything they wanted and still call it Windows. "What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates. He said the proposals were "fantasies" that gave his business rivals "everything they ever dreamed of".
Fanatasies that would be easily realized by, oh, a company illegally maintaining a monopoly.
Hey guys, I'm new to slashdot, so don't rip me to shreads.
:)
I don't think I understand what the big fuss over microsoft is? Is it because they force an installation of IE with the OS? Wheres the problem with that? Thats like telling a car manufacturer it can't install a radio because its not fair to other stereo companies.
Obviously I'm missing something, please inform me, and go easy
Thanks
How is it that being rich automatically places a person in the super-human catagory of having to be perfect? Why do people expect so much out of this man? Because he has money? "Gates had money, therefore he shouldn't lie." Heh, that's like saying "Lumpy has a car therefore he shouldn't lie." Huh?
Don't get me wrong, I do believe if you're going to wield that kind of power, you have responsibilities, but that's a moral diliemma, not human nature. Gates is human, and like 99% of the population on Earth, has lied at one time or another to protect his interests. Heh, he has more reason to lie than most of things we fib about... Am I a Gates fan? Do I have a shrine in my bedroom with candles and cut out pictures of him in it? No. That and I don't even see why the topic of Gates admitting Windows is modular is news...Duh.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I think one of the main points in Bill's written testimony was that there was a very vague definition of what a stripped-down Windows would be. And I agree that the non-settling states gave quite a strange definition. To me, it's simple: Whatever is necessary to install and run any Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP software, without anything else added. So if IE's HTML renderer (One of Bill's major points of contention) needs to stay in order for some programs to run, it can stay. The browser interface goes.
Wasn't this a problem with a previous court order?
Didn't Judge Jackson order MS to make an IE-less version of windows, and allow OEMs to strip it?
If I remember, they complied with a "broken" windows, but later fixed it, but in the end, no one ordered it.
The big OEMs would never do order a stripped version - It would cause too much problem from there customers when they get it home and realize its not "the real" windows. It wouldn't work with 100% of "windows" applications anymore due to missing things.
I think as far as remedies go, they need to force MS to open up file systems, protocols, and possibly interoperable COM components, to allow (among other things) other browsers (Netscape) to be made to take IE's rendering & embedding place.
Does this mean that Bill Gates is looking at a run for office in the near future?
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
A coworker of mine said something interesting about the current situation. Microsoft has the ultimate trump card. All they have to do is claim that the punishment has made them loose their desire to further inovate. Regardless of how nice it would be for the tech community to be rid of Microsoft influence, if Microsoft falls it will take the American economy with it. As for my opinion, most of the major problems would be fixed by simply taking away their leverage in the market. Force them to set a flat fee for all products and set a specific volume discount that applies to all customers. Allow them to give a set discount to non-profit orginizations. No more extortion based on discounts. Probably have to have a government commity set up to approve their TOS type agreements too though.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
The "special version" of windows runs on specific hardware, it doesn't have to account for x-zillion different configurations. Just like one could say the XBOX is a stripped down windows one has to realize that its stripped down because they KNEW exactly what they had to deal with.
How much smaller could you make Linux if you were only running on something like an XBOW or ATM machine? I am pretty damn sure you could chuck a significant portion.
The key problem with the States proposed solution is they don't know what they are asking for, let alone know dick about technology. To be so stupid as to label Office as "middleware" should throw red-flags up for everyone!.
I enjoy being able to write CDRs with XP, but that would most likely be ripped from a streamlined system as the definition of "middleware" that the states has is "vaporous" at best.
Gates was right, it is "technically" possible. Anything with is mostly "technically" possible, the question is, is it "marketable"?
I doubt it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Can someone explain the purpose of putting the space in the URL, or of not just linking directly to the comment? I've just always wondered.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Great. Maybe when you can point to a product that does this for the current version of Windows people will care.
It gets a black screen of death! I'm on Win2k right now. I have to reboot because a DOS window locked up and refuses to terminate the process. No sir, not even in the task manager. Win2K is also the slowest Windows I've operated and the question why is easily answered. More code == longer processing time. The more useless 'services' that are running the more a disservice to you. Should I write a kludge of code that can mask crashes, or should I fix the problem. Microsoft has always prefered the kludge.
With that said I can't wait until this new version of Windows is out. Finally a version of Windows worth its price. However part of the court order should be that each version must be released bug free. Yes that is impossible in the case of Windows, however we don't buy cars that lock thier breaks every 200 miles. If a model did that there would be a recall. Why do we buy broken software?
I find the lack of quality in software these days shameful, and can admire open source programmers who downplay thier software until it is truely finished.
I hate to point this out, but it's now 2002. The current version of windows is not only 4 years further on (4 years to mix everything even further together), but it's also based on a completely different base operating system.
My Journal
> Only a monopoly could claim their software is
...oh, I kid...must not troll during hopefully great troll blackout...). But the point is, modularity is something that is great for users once it's completed, but really hinders rapid software deployment. Real-world software engineering is riddled with these comprimises.
> poorly designed without fearing loss of
> customers.
The Linux kernel has made similar comprimises, and Torvalds has admitted as much in debates about monolithic vs. micro kernels. Linux's monolithic design is not as flexible as it could be (when compiled), but the design increases execution speed and ease-of-coding. The HURD was designed to be aggressively modular, with very cool, very fine-grained things you can do with services that would be the exclusive domain of the superuser on other kernels. It was designed this way because the FSF is lead by a visionary, uncomprimising, probably somewhat mad Coder. Linux was designed initially to be a quick fix for GNU (see Torvalds' 1991 post to comp.os.minix announcing Linux -- "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu"). So the Linux kernel design comprimised modularity for expediency. This was a good thing, just as the continuing work on the HURD is a good thing. They have different goals, and will succeed in different ways.
G-tes, although he probably doesn't realize it, is pointing out the same phenomenon in the codebase of his Spawn. The ol' NT codebase wasn't designed to be modular (to the extent it was, it didn't stay that way long). The non-modularity was for expediency (like Linux) and to promote an inescapable software monoculture (ALSO LIKE LINUX!
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Yup. But then they would be the target of massive complaint by users who didn't know any better. They can't afford to deal with that no matter how much money they have.
In my opinion, we need to have technically minded individuals working on this case, we need to focus on anti-competitive practices such as the licensing agreements with OEMs instead of what software they bundle. This is getting just plain stupid, the longer this goes on, the stupider the states look.
T
Camper shell and lumber rack and trailer for the pickup. Matching luggage and clothing for the car.
:-)
Of course the trailer hitch is an M$ standard, not quite the same as other hitches.
And the tires are just a little bit off the wheel standard, so you have to buy M$ rims if you want replacements. Ditto for the wheel bolt pattern, and they hide it beneath lock and key, so it violates the DMCA to try to copy it.
Every time you turn on the radio, it restores all the initial M$ presets, loses yours, and hits you with an upgrade commercial -- "Press 1 to buy leather seats".
Sheepskin seat covers? Each model changes various things.
And so on
Infuriate left and right
98lite allows you to remove (among other things) MSHTML renderer and the Shell Document Viewer, which between them are what most people mean when they speak of IE. (Internet Explorer is a very small frontend to various components.) If you remove this renderer, anything which expects it to be there (Windows Help, AOL, Quicken, the Winamp minibrowser) will break. The documentation for 98lite and IEradicator specifically mention that certain files will be left behind; this is why. You can, of course, remove the HTML rendering capability of the OS entirely, but then applications will break.
From the website 98lite.net's Why? page.
Important info at bottom of post for all unbelievers of it's practicality.
BTW this was written before Aug 2000.
"Firstly, let me say straight up that I think Microsoft put together some great products. The Windows series of operating systems are excellent interfaces to a computerised work environment - remember DOS word processing packages - ugh! You cant hope to satisfy everyone - but by making software (including operating systems) modular, and highly customisable, you can maximise your number of happy users. Along the way I think that Microsoft forgot the single home user that can not afford the latest gear, that doesnt want a 24 hour internet connection, that doesnt want to upgrade all the time - or that simply doesnt have the dollars to keep up with the fast pace of computer developments. I found myself asking...
"Why is all this stuff that I never use, or dont even have the hardware to support, installed on my computer without me having the choice to delete it, or better yet - not to install it in the first place."
Windows98 offers many improvements over windows95, unrelated to IE4, that make it a more desireable operating system than its older counterpart:
Greater Stability
Better memory management
Can execute code direct from the file cache (vcache)
Application launch acceleration
Better driver support
Faster bootup/shutdown
ACPI support
...and the list goes on....
It is a great OS, however, there is some extra overhead imposed by some of these new features, that slows your system down. If you dont have the horsepower this slowdown is really noticable. As soon as I upgraded to win98 I noticed that Explorer was slower to load, and that my system seemed to work harder just navigating around my disk.
Harder than it ever did with windows95. In addition, the windows take longer to redraw, and all the icons seem to take longer to get updated and repainted - I could actually watch the windows repainting. It was like there was a large weight sitting on my computers chest.
Granted, I am using a relatively slow computer. It is a NoteBook I have borrowed from work (a no-name clone, P133 (not MMX) 10.5 inch 256 colour LCD display and 14.4 Modem, NO CD, but thankfully 32MB RAM, 2.1G HDD). This system is a real dog, that has sub-par disk and graphics subsystems that benchmark below a 486DX100. I can not afford to buy a faster computer of my own, so I'll do *anything* to squeeze the last drop of system performance from this notebook. Several months after upgrading to Windows98, I concluded that
Windows98's IE Explorer was:
Slower to load
Slower to use once loaded
Consumed more memory which caused more swapping.and my system was in general 5-10% slower to use.
This was not very satisfying. I reloaded win95 as a dual boot), but I found that I missed all the improvements in Windows98. So I deleted '95 and went back to '98. The speed that Windows98 Explorer loaded really became an issue when I discovered the alternative shell LiteStep. The LiteStep shell gave me an extremely powerful shell replacement and application launch facility in the LiteStep Popup Menu, used less memory, and was a neat interface to boot. Yet, every time I wanted to view a directory, I had to wait for Explorer98 to load. I tried looking for a faster, smaller, Explorer replacement but I really like Explorer in "My Computer" mode (opening a separate window for each folder), something that no third party replacements do very well. I tried for a long time to get the smaller and faster Windows95 Explorer to load instead - and evetually my perseverence paid off... Notice I haven't mentioned the "webification" of Windows98 yet. I dont use IE, simply because I prefer Netscape. I dont dislike IE, it is a nice browser. I simply want the choice. In addition, I dont like the idea of an active desktop (which bogged my P133 system to a crawl)and dont care for web view of folders and all this "integration" that Windows98 promotes. I like to keep my local and internet perspectives separate. I know you can turn off most of the IE4 webification in windows98 - using tweakUI or using a utility from from Windows Annoyances - but turning IE off does nothing to speed up Explorer, and doesn't give me back any hard drive space. Again I find myself asking why I cant remove all these files that I dont use...
Lastly, everyone says...
"You cant remove IE from win98 because IE is so tightly interwoven with the operating system"
...thats like waving a red rag to this bull, and 98lite is the culmination of my frustrations. Using 98lite, my system is much "snappier" to use, and MyComputer windows of my hard disk directories simply snap open. My small hard drive has about 40+MB few files on it, and I couldnt be happier. My computer seems much faster, and is simply a much nicer beast to use and my day-to-day computing experienced has improved dramatically. 98lite is not just about removing IE from the system. I have developed 98lite into a tool that gives you the power to choose which system components you want to keep or remove - including the choice to remove IE if you want. Many people are installing Windows98 using 98lite - and then installing IE4.0 or IE5.0 for the their browser. This preserves the faster explorer shell - but gives you IE web browsing if thats your choice. Outlook Express (98 and also version 5) also continue to work well."
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Like I said, READ THE SITE BEFORE YOU RESPOND!
It works on WinXP and on WinME
what "current" version do you use at home?
Pro? Which is for an (OFFICE ENVIRONMENT)
READ THE SITE!
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
My overriding question is "Why should he have to even bother making Windows modular?" What's the point? So you can use Opera instead of IE? I'm not a Gates fan, but it's his right to design Windows however the hell he wants. I'll even go to to the extreem and say that it's his right to design it to be hostile to other software if he wants. All this investigation into whether or not Windows can be parted is pointless crap. It's not designed to be, but it can happen. Big deal. He has the right to make Windows any damn way he chooses, just like it's your right whether or not to use it. You don't like the anti-competitive practices he's using on your software? Use something else.
The point is the anti-competitive practices he's using in business, not on the OS. My Toyota doesn't use Ford parts and why should it? Why aren't they being hammered for not being modular? All the Linux fans are going to hate me for this one to, but why do most people use Windows in the first place? Sure, MS has done a criminal job in establishing it's product, but to the average Joe, it does the job better than Linux can. It's friendlier. You don't have to write your own drivers. It's well supported. Little things like that. If you were to get a core nucleaus of developers that did nothing but work on Linux the same way MS plugs at Windows, I'm sure it'd give Gates a run for his money. But the problem is it's a hobby compared to Windows developemnt. Yes, I can see the flames coming now, but it's the truth. Back to the point, the argument of Windows being modular is a smokescreen to the real issue, MS's anti-competetive corporate practices.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
If the state and fed governments want to encourage competition, they can stop buying Microsoft products themselves and infuse the billions they spend each year on software into their competitors. Imagine how well off Redhat would be if this happened, for example.
The government has a helluva lot of influence on related industries too. If they basically do what they should do, and stop publishing and receiving electronic documents in a proprietary format, then this would help out competitors.
As it is now, the U.S. governments have done a lot to help make Microsoft what it is today...
I can't imagine the courts could do the right thing as far as penalty goes anyway. Hit em where it really hurts, stop being their customer damn it...
Yet Microsoft's cash seems to be just sitting there. Why would Microsoft, the ultimate growth company, allow so much money to pile up?
I knew MS reminded me of the dragon Smaug for a good reason....
I just don't understand how this is even legal in the world. How can any company, regardless of how much you hate them, be required to change their product to allow their competitors to put their product with it. It would be like a cereal company that's really successful being told that had to take part of their cereal out of the box and add a sample of the competitors cereal. Sounds re-god-damn-0diculous doesn't it.
:)
(I just mention cereal because I am eating some now.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
MS doesn't want you to be able to buy a modified "car" from *anyone*... hell they don't even want shops to be able to sell fords *at all* if they want to carry volvos.
but a stripped down CowboyNeal would be just plain scary!!!
Who are the dealers in the PC world? Dell, Gateway, HP. In each case, MS mandates that they cannnot make such deals with their customers. There was a time when Dell offered Netscape instead of IE. IBM offers Norton Antivirus, not McAffee scan. But if you don't like it, nothing prevents you from doing so. But to replace IE is to reduce the functionality of explorer.exe!
Sure, Microsoft said that it wasn't possible to create a stripped down version of Windows but they lied. Of course it is possible. The truth is that they don't want to do that.
First, it would take away one of the tools that they use to allow their monopoly OS to extend their presents into other areas and second it would require a big investment in time and money. If they already have an OS that will benefit them they why would they WANT to change it? The fact is that the problem is not that it can't be done the problem is the Microsoft doesn't WANT to do it.
Well too damn bad. We don't get to choose a "punishment" that we like if we commit a crime. If I was manufacturing fully automatic guns and the government came to me and said "That's not legal. Change them so that they aren't fully automatic." Would the excuse "I can't change it" be good enough? No, I would be forced to stop manufacturing them all together and produce a totally new non-fully automatic gun.
It's not a hard concept. Their OS violates anti trust laws and that is illegal. If they can't fix it they must stop selling it.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Probably too late in the thread to get noticed, but here goes...
What if Microsoft is now strategizing that a forced fully modular design could be done, with the condition that Microsoft eliminate third party flexibilities, effectively slipping themselves into the hardware market at the same time? They could easily argue that Apple has better control over their software because they control the hardware side of the equation.
"Sure we can make it modular... if we sell more applications and the hardware, too!"
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
I think it's because there'd be pure chaos if they tried switching over to another platform the way things are now. While depriving MS of all those licences would definitly strike a blow, it'd be sheer hell converting to the OS of your choice... Imagine the logistics involved of backing up every machine and database the government has... OMG...
Still, the government subsidies to MS competitors is a decent idea, but one you'd really have to think about before implimenting, simply because there is so many things we subsidise that have gone horribly wrong...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Copied from right below the article are other titles from the same publisher. Judge for yourself.
more from FT.com
Gates gives cool performance in court
Gates seeks redemption on witness stand
Gates takes the stand with a grin of defiance
Analysis: Microsoft's big bet
Microsoft offers tepid forecast for IT sector
Microsoft cuts Xbox price in Europe
Microsoft wrestles with PC demographics
Microsoft prepares to take the stand
Special report: Microsoft's antitrust battle
Microsoft's share price
Because we're all communist. Equality for all. Just some are a bit mor equal than others. ;)
Seriously, though, you hit the nail on the head. This whole excercise in modular ability is a huge waste of tax-payer money.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
so we'll soon be seeing "strip windows", like strip poker, but better?!?!
Dammit, that means Ford can sue to make Toyota use it's parts, right? Total BS. It's his business practices not the OS itself. Just because it can be modular doesn't mean he should have to.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
interesting.... well, I hope you realize that you'll probably never know what OS the equipment used on you uses, much the same as you don't notice on bank machines (which hardly ever crash, btw)
True enough, but the one time I did have one crash on me (while I was getting it to do the intensive task of checking the balance in my current account) I was faced with the message "Windows NT is Restarting" and could only watch helplessly through the reboot as it kept hold of my card (and my one source of getting money). I've made it a point ever since to avoid ATMs with pretty displays just in case they're running NT. Green screens just feel safer, somehow.
I would be a paid subscriber if Taco and Hemos weren't such cunts
FOR FUTURE PROOF
176625cee06dbd86772dc8c1ef8e0247 *IG20020425.zip
Sorry to the community for this post...
Out of curiousity, when you were out at that 98lite.net site did you read the disclaimer about how this would break a lot of existing applications?
And you expect to promote this to consumers? Good luck.
Yep. With funky animations to boot. Oh, wait.. It'd have to be a 3rd party solitaire...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't really care if Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are installed with the default Windows install, I just want the option to uninstall them. I have no use for IE (I have Mozilla) and limited use for Media Player (I use Winamp for audio), which I would replace if I could find a suitable replacement MPEG/AVI player. An uninstall option. That's all I ask for.
"I just want to thank my coach Eric a.k.a. Disco for shattering my reality..."
Where were the few bits in the article worth a read? I sure didn't see anything in that article worth reading.
I submitted this article LAST NIGHT. Thanks for taking the credit.
I'd love if you actually quoted what you are talking about, I have been using the program for over a year and a half without problems on multiple boxes. show me how (with specifics) it would: "break a lot of existing applications?".
What are they?
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
As a developer, I already have huge problems writing code that uses various functions that are only supported on particular versions of Windows.
E.g. InterlockedCompareExchange is a function that is useful for performing low-level synchronization in situations where standard Mutex's, etc. don't really cut it for one reason or another.
Looking at the documentation, though, I find that it's only available on Win98 or later. If I want to write an app or driver that will work on Win95 too, I can't use this function.
Now, apparently the states want to attach the following addendum to practically every major component in the system: "Might or might not work on any particular machine, depending on what the OEM decided to strip out."
So much for trying to use HTML help. The web browsing services might be removed.
Ack! Please don't do this. There must be better ways to punish Microsoft and encourage competition.
Lots of talk about how 98 is 4 years old, and so on...
Here's the trick. I use 98SE at home for two reasons:
First, I know it inside and out - I can troubleshoot it, I can tweak it, and I know what to expect when it inevitably blows up. I can't say the same for 2000, no matter how vauntedly stable it is. The internal archetecture is just different enough to throw me off, and I don't feel comfortable with it. I'm sticking with the devil I know.
Second, I only use it as a game machine anyway. Most games that I've purchased these days only have manual addenda for running the software on 2000/XP boxen. Plus, most require that you play it as Administrator, which kills the whole reason for preferring a NT-based kernel over 98's anyway. I can't say I'm an industry insider or anything, but it looks like games are still being written with Win98 users in mind. I mean, we don't *all* run out and upgrade each time Microsoft decides it's time for us to do so. There's still a good-sized user base out there, and I think many would agree with me that 98 represents the best balance between functionality and bloat, or between stability (look! it runs!) and compatability (look! it runs what you want it to run!). At least for my purposes it does.
Seeing that Win95 recently fell out of the support chain, I'm sure 98's head is on the chopping block for the next year or two. After that, I may well have to upgrade, at which point it will be time to reassess my priorities...
...or hope that WINE's got support for whatever DirectX version is out by then.
For a component that is so desparately tied into the operating system. No really, windows won't work without IE. Oh and it won't work without an instant messenger either.
Your honour, I don't know how technical you are... but the instant messenger is a key component of windows, every time a use looks at a folder on their disk they need their instant messenger to contact support and ask why the hell can't I look at this folder?
Ooo, ooo, ooo, and we're going to use MSN messenger as an interface to the operating system - want to know if you're system is still running? Simply look at the instant messenger window. Has the WindowsXP contact got a little smiley face by it, then all is well. What? It says this contact is currently away from the computer... well that's not right...
I notice that they didn't have any trouble at all putting the inseparable IE in to my operating system when it was Windows 95.
Carpe Daemon
"Well, if we stripped away all the unnecessary code, fluff, and crap from Windows, there wouldn't be anything left."
I can't believe you would even think such a thing. Sure, he may be the richest man on the planet, but that doesn't make him the most successfull.
His business skill are crude. He makes money off of others ignorance. He makes his money dishonestly. Personally, I think deciding when to go to the John is a more important decision than any decision he has ever made.
Are you blind, or just plain gullable?
It breaks Win2K Servers and Win XP Home/Pro so profoundly you have to reload. The specifics, since you are such a rabid dog supporter of this outdated and disfunctional software, is Lotus Notes (any version), ViaVoice (V 8 and 9), Netscape 6.0 and 6.1 Mail and Publishing functions, ANY application that uses compiled HTML help systems, Hot Dog software products, Adobe Illustrator 9, Quark 4 and up, and the list of about 25K other programs. You dumb ass.
Well, yes. It's quite possible to ship a version of Windows XP without the web browsing component. It's also possible to ship it without the DOS Emulation component, or the Win16 execution environment, or MFC, or any VC++ libraries, or whatnot.
They're called API's, folks. Application Programming Interfaces. Win32 is clunky as hell, but undeniably exposes some damn powerful capabilities. Do we really want a federal mandate that developers must not have dependable access to a better way to code?
For all the talk of the browser, I do note that by '98 there wasn't an operating system on the market that shipped without a web browser, except perhaps VxWorks. Windows 98 was one of the last.
--Dan
P.S. I'm a hardcore Linux user, coder, and administrator, and wouldn't mandate Win32 on anyone. It's in that context that I understand the painfulness of MS's position.
All you have to do is actually learn how the OS works, the registry is managed, and how not to install third party shareware and adware crap software. Oh, but you probably run Linux, right? Never mind, not a possiblity for you then...
Dumb ass...
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Naked Windows XP Professional (tm)
where XP of course, stands for eXPerience
If you can't talk about technology without mentioning Bill Gates then there must be a big problem. Seems to me like he owns Slashdotters daily. For some reason they all talk about him. Funny to see Bill talked about more than God and more than all the politicians combined.
I *have* read the site. It says,
98lite is a selective feature installer for Windows 98, 98SE and Me that modularizes Windows features, applets and sub-systems into optional components that may be user installed and un-installed "on-the-fly".
I couldn't find any information that WinXP was supported. Please, please, please show me where it says 98lite supports WinXP and I will stand corrected. But until then, I will completely disagree with you that it works for the "latest" version of windows.
"Is this what we really want? I remember the days when you had to shell out $200 per PC just for a TCP/IP stack, for example -- and then another $100 for a copy of telnet from Reflections. "
ah yes the good ol' days. I got news for you, it's not the good ol' days anymore.
If it was stripped down to that point, people would compile the Open Source equivalent(sp?)
Those without the desire or know how to comple it could download a compiled Open Source version.
you do have a point, it would be nice if the government would stop saying "windows" in the specs when they mean GUI.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I fucking wish every fucking mother fucker wouldn't fucking use the fucked up fucking word "fuck" so fucking often.
Fuck, I some-fucking-times would fucking like to fucking invite my fucked up friends and fucker relatives to read a fucking slashdot fucking article every fucking now and fucking then, but fuck -- there's too fucking much fucking profanity.
It's so fucking irritating.
--Richard
If you look in the cabinet files with Windows 98, 95, and some other versions (I'm not sure which), you will find a flie called "mini.cab" This is basically a stripped down version of Windows 3.1 that can be run off of a floppy disk with no harddrive.
It's not my fault - greatness was thrust upon me.
A: What the fuck are you installing it on Win2k servers for?
and what the frack are you running linux for and then discussing how to run MS products the 'way you want' them to run for? Moron
B: Lotus notes works if you know how to click "Install" I use it for work.
Actually, it doesn't work. Check out the support site at IBM, as well as Technet... very specific articles about how that shitty program breaks compatibility with key elements of html rendering. IBM goes so far as to state specifically that warranty support is void if that program is involved... Again, you are a moron.
C: Compiled html help systems work fine, and since you obviously need them so much, you might want to read them to see what you're doing wrong that you can't install a program on your own computer.
Once again, you are wrong... the compiled html files built on MS codebases do NOT run when IE is stripped out by this program. Further, compiled HTML help files compose 1/3 of the help files found in todays top selling productivity software... leaving them on the computer for end users is a must as it can and will result in fewer support calls to tier 1/2 helpdesks... Idiot
D: If any of those programs needs anything you've taken out of Win98se by using the 98Lite sotware, DO NOT choose to have them removed. That's why it gives you so many choices, so you can use what you need and not have crap you don't!
Who is talking about Win98SE... and what network staff would allow it on their networks with NT/2K/XP-Pro available? We were discussing XP here dumbass. And, in reference to your specific comments, the choices are limited and do not always result in the right combination of components left/removed to keep the core OS running stabily. You are such a fucking moron... god help the company that hired you... a lack of attention to detail and minimal PC knowledge.
E: "outdated and disfunctional software" How about outdated and ignorant user who can't figure out why he breaks his computers without checking the options to see what he's doing.
OR!... how about an idiot who uses third party utilities to strip out core OS functions from stable systems to satisfy his own politically motivated idealisim, one bought and paid for by the biggest monopoly on the planet thanks to AOHell/TW, that results in comptuers that have to have third party apps installed that compromise the stability of the OS more than just installing them on the original setup and ignoring the default software. What a fucko...
sorry about the subject, i just typed in random characters so i could preview the article, but forgot to change it. cheers, spec
News archive states as follows:
"In conjuction with opening the new offices in Melbourne we'll be opening a new site at http://www.LitePC.com and releasing updated products for Windows 2000/XP"
Not out yet because they want to improve the XP OS not make it less stable, I've been running the beta for a bit under a month, it's rock solid to me, but I don't use all third party programs ever made for XP.
At this time you are correct, XP is not openly supported.
Have you read the Microsoft Financial Pyramid, the MS financial fraud analysis from November 1999 by Bill Parish? There's more on Parish's Research and Press Release Archive. Let me quote few paragraphs:
What do you people think about it?
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
I don't mind that MS adds all their crap to the install... the first thing I do when I upgrade a computer with a new OS is delete all of it, but the crap that it won't let you delete (Yes, there is some stuff that windows does not allow you to delete (I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that...)) anyways, all the crap it won't let you delete just clogs your system, and I get supremely pissed off that my new stacked system lags and when I open up the WTM I see "System Idle Process" is taking up 99% of my computer's time... a program that idles my computer IS LAGGING IT! ARGH! Well, I think that BG is half right, It's not okay to tell a company to make a certain thing. Right now MS is basically halfway between the "user-friendliness" of Macintosh, and the advanced techiness of UNIX OSs, so they're reaping the benefit of Mac users who want to move up, and UNIX users who want to use programs that UNIX cannot due to a reduced amount of workers who cant figure out how to recode the information from other OSs. Overall, I believe that MS should release a modular Windows (yea... right) but that they should still leave on the very basic, necessary programs that most people use (i.e. Windows Media, IE, etc.) but leave off the things that people can do themselves or find a better way to do them (i.e. WinDefrag, SysCalc, SysDefrag, etc.) A perfect world for me is one where windows automatically makes 2 partitions: one small one for Windows itself, and another for data/programs, or even have a built in partition manager. And God knows I'll be happy when I never see that god damn Windows Help paper clip again.
Of course any version of Windows can be embeded...
You just have to throw the disk at a wall hard enough.
There it is embeded.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Webster's doesn't mean anything.
Black's definitions superscede Webster's in courts of law.
Having Microsoft make an operating sstem that can have any other software company just plug in it's software into an embedded option is not viable or good for the consumer. How is Microsoft supposed to create an OS that will work with any browser out there for browsing My Computer for example, without having to worry more about accodating other companies than creating a quality product. Something they already seem to have trouble with. Maybe the answer isn't having microsoft allow anyone to plus into their OS, but to limit what they can code for, and allow for other companies to work with them in the coding process. By say taking them out of the broswer market, and allowing a company like Netscape to comein and creat the browser for the OS. But that's jsut my opinion I could wrong.
Black's Dictionary def for perjury:
"perjury; subornation, of perjury, making a false
statement or other crimes which involve some element of deceit, untruthfulness or falsification to be an act of dishonesty or of making a false statement."
see also "dishonesty"
Dishonesty; the disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, defraud or be untrustworthy.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
I'm not trying to be mean or nitpick here but your arguement has a major weakness.
If you were to buy a NEW Volvo car you get volvo parts. That's it. You can change out those parts after you buy it, but the car (when you bought it new) is ALL Volvo.
Windows: Remove Explorer / install Netscape
Volvo: Remove factory CD player / install Sony CD player.
It's the same thing!
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Who cared that Clinton got a blowjob from a fat-trashy whore in the whitehouse? It wasn't illegal, and it's his own personal business so long as it doesn't interfere with his work.
He lied.
On the stand.
Under oath.
Now, his lying doesn't bother me anywhere but under oath; what else might he have lied about?
Now to correlate this with Gates, Gates has lied, under oath, repeatedly in court. It's not that he's rich; it's that he's committing purjury.
Yeah ... The thing is that Windows XP embedded is a fixed codebase on a well-defined hardware platform with no expectation of being added to or installed upon with additional consumer applications written by numerous 3rd party software developers. That's a HUGE difference with how Windows XP Home or Windows XP Professional is used.
Yes, you can choose what kind of cars you want, where to buy cars, what color you want it and low and behold when you get it home it is still a car no matter who built it.
But *I* for one don't want the computer industry regulated like the car industry. I don't want to be 16 to drive, i don't want my computer prices to jump up because the government body assuming responsibility/liability is having to do crash testing.
The computer industry has excelled beyond anyones imagination. With or without microsoft THINGS HAPPEN.
I don't want DellXP, CompaqXP, MSXP, GatewayXP. I don't want a stripped down car either. I don't want to go to the VW dealer and tell them i want a small block ford engine instead of a vw motor. What is the point?
It isn't about stealing a product and emulating it either. Windows *IS* microsoft's product.
It Isn't a matter of "what choice of windows do you want today" but "What choice of operating system do you want today"
Don't let this choice BS get to your head. The government can't dictate our choice just like microsoft can't, so i don't know what the big deal about stripping down windows is. Windows is CHEAP, Affordable and RUNS JUST FINE. I don't know about you but i HATED The days when i had to buy Stacker for 99 bucks, QEMM for 69.00 bucks and DESQview for 199 bucks just to run my Wildcat BBS program that cost 399 bucks. I'm pretty happy that a 199.00 product does all of that and more, and i'm SORRY, but that *IS* innovation.
Just like my 500.00 coffee table that lifts up with ease and turns into a desk. Its just an ordinary coffee table that costs alot to everyone else but me who knows the innovation behind it, and yes, adding fatures, functionality, dependablility and useability IS INNOVATION.
This isn't about Microsoft Owning the roads, they *DO* own them. You can CHOOSE YOUR OWN GODDAMN ROAD THOUGH. If you don't like taking the toll road then take the free country road.
Just remember you do get what you pay for, and you don't get something for nothing.
I don't think so. It supports Win98, Win98SE and WinME. Maybe you'd like to show me exactly where on the site it says that it supports Windows XP. I think you must be imagining things.
I think you need to read the site before you post.
Don't mention the fact that he also said that XP Embedded couldn't be added on to have it was customized, which would be a key features of this modular form of XP.
In other words, he admitted it was possible, just as he did before, but said that it would be insane to do so.
You're so full of shit.
Flamebait? The guy was claiming that Microsoft uses 'super spooky ultra secret APIs that make their apps work better, faster, stronger than anyone elses'.
Presumably if you had a moderation option for "Is On Crack", you would have used it against him, yes?
Fuckwad.
If you are an embedded systems software guy who wants to shoe-horn XP into hypothetical Windows-TiVo box, then XP Embedded is great. You get all the network and device support of XP but you don't have to bring along the UI which doesn't work so well on a TV screen. You control all the software that goes into the box. Life is good.
On a PC, XP Embedded or an equivalent Minimal Windows would be a nightmare. The user is now in the position of trying to manage which components go into the system without any technical knowledge of how they fit together, or even what they do.
Lets say the courts tell MS to rip out IE. The C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IExplore.exe file is only 89KB but they must be assuming you don't need all the components that IE uses: an HTML rendering window, an HTTP protocol handler, a common Internet file cache, a JScript engine, and so on.
Prepare ointment for fly insertion: All these components are documented in the Windows SDK and usable by third party apps. Programs like Quicken use them. Other parts of the OS such as Windows Scripting Host use them. *I* use them. If they aren't installed with the OS then developers who have built on them are screwed (and thus users are screwed by transitivity). I don't want to rewrite my apps, and neither does Intuit.
Maybe MS will let us distribute the pieces ourselves. What a mess that would be. Maybe you'll be asked to insert your Windows CD or download 40MB from a web site each time an app installs that needs the missing components, I'm sure my users will love that speed bump.
Or is this whole "you can't yank IE" argument about a 89KB IExplore.exe file and the blue "e" desktop icon? Nah, can't be.
If you roll with the embedded solution, and OEMs are free to cobble together whatever components they think are the min bar, then each OEM will be effectively producing different SKUs of windows. Now pretend you are a independent software vendor--do you now have to test your product on ALL of these flavors? A matrix that is growing every day? "My app works great on the standard release, and on some OEM releases (dell, compaq), but it fails on most other PCs... Bummer..."
The matrix is just to dizzying and ISVs can't keep up. There needs to be some standardization.
I personally think that Windows as it is today is fine. OEMs are free to add software, so what's the problem?
You're pretty much correct, but the primary difference I see between computers and automobiles that cars are pretty much a stand-alone purchase. The infrastructure (roads, etc.) are already standardized and in place, so you buy your car and you're done.
With computers, we've got the infrastructure standardized (I refer to the Internet and TCP/IP here.), but after you buy your computer - you not only select an operating system, but also all the software that runs on top of it.
I think people often forget that only 10 years ago or so, we had all sorts of operating system choices - but people did nothing but complain about it, and demanded standardization. (That game is really cool on your Commodore 64 computer, but it won't run on my Atari, or on my buddy's TRS-80.) Back then, your computer and your operating system were truly tied together, since the OS was usually in firmware.
When IBM compatibles started gaining popularity (with MS-DOS as the operating system standard), it only really happened after they offered enough compelling software titles to pull everyone else away from their non PC compatible systems.
In other words, the software applications/games/utilities themselves drive people's operating system (and therefore, computer) buying decisions. Since Microsoft lucked into owning the OS (DOS) that ended up rising to the top back then, they've had the head start and the money to hang onto that position ever since.
New companies could write consumer operating systems left and right, but it won't make any difference unless compelling new software is developed that only runs on those new operating systems. Right now, except for Linux people who attempt this largely because they just want to do something to force Microsoft out, there's not much of a business reason to develop code for anything but Microsoft products. (Most game programmers, for example, are tied up developing compelling new titles for dedicated gaming systems like Playstation 2 -- not for some yet unheard-of OS for a new computer.)
Specifically if you install aftermarket parts or if you install them yourself the manufacturer will (probably) consider your warranty void. So Of course, we'd expect that modular windows will not be covered under the MS limite warranty
To be serious, if you document and keep receipts auto manufacturers allow that you can do your own basic maintenance without losing warranty coverage.
Just as others have pointed out I can (and do) save myself a lot of money on my vehicles buying only used cars and doing my own work.
What I like in microsoft's argument is the assertions that letting 3rd parties 'under the hood' will destroy windows and make it less reliable. I actually find it hard to imagine that independent groups who will ultimately be judged by the market on whether they add value for their customers don't stand a pretty good chance of assembling a more reliable system that MS has so far managed to do.
Also on the automotive theme, note that auto makers get most of their profit from selling *parts*, not vehicles. The auto itself is mostly sold at cost.
By the same token I *think* (no solid numbers here) that the industry of *supporting* MS windows is much larger than MS's business of selling the code itself. MS mostly plays in this arena in (pricy) corporate support and in enticing lusers and strongarming enterprises into the continuous upgrade model.
$0.02 us
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Are you blind, or just plain gullable?
Priceless, absolutely priceless. Sir: YHBT. YHL. HAND. Fucking idiot.
The issue:
Microsoft has integrated a number of software features into the OS that tend to exclude similar software made by third parties. Is Windows modular such that these may be removed from the system so that other vendors can load their own software instead? Case in point: IE.
Your Argument:
Windows is modular.
Fallacy #1
We would expect that if you argue the case that Windows is modular, then you would come to conclusion that IE could be removed from the OS without harming it. This, afterall, is the whole basis for the discussion. Instead, you confirm that there are too many dependencies for this to happen without crippling Windows. For the sake of the discussion, you have contradicted your own argument and agreed with the position that, no, Windows isn't sufficiently modular to remove IE. You claim it is a "vital part" of the system.
Fallacy #2
To show how this isn't any different from Linux, you claim that Red Hat wouldn't work if you remove gtk+. This is misleading for two reasons. First, it is Gnome that won't work without gtk+. Gnome is not Red Hat Linux. Second, you have the option to not even install gtk or Gnome in the first place, therefore Red Hat Linux does not rely on either Gnome or gtk. You have no such option with Windows: it does rely on IE to properly function.
The only thing you prove with this comment is that, once installed, removing components ad-hoc is a bad thing. We know that. The issue is, can it not be installed at all?
Fallacy #3
You suspect that Windows may be more modular than Linux because of COM and WDM. The fallacy here is that, in the case of COM for example, Linux supports various alternative technologies. Indeed, there is a COM implementation for Linux, as well as RPC, Corba, Kparts, Bonobo, and others that all basically do similar things. Your argument seems to indicate that Windows has COM, but Linux doesn't suggest any particular inter-object protocol. It would seem that Linux is more modular in this respect, then, by your own admittance. As for drivers, Linux certainly allows for kernel modules to be written by any third party without needing a single line of kernel code. I do not see how this is any different than the Windows drivers.
In summary, your reasoning seems to support the overall sentiment that Windows is not modularly designed, in the context of the issue at hand.
Yes, we understand that modular design techniques were used in the implementation of Windows. We do not care about that. That is not the issue.
The above post looked fine in preview :(
Oh well, try again...
#include < stdio.h>
int main() {
   printf("Not long");
   while(1)
     printf("\b\t\t");
   return 0;
}
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
Gee, Duh. Right there from the website.
"98micro completely removes all traces of the MS HTML engine (shdocvw.dll, and mshtml.dll). You will not have access to any of the proprietary Microsoft compressed help files, and you will not be able to run programs that rely on the MS HTML rendering engine, but many other stand-alone applications will perform better than ever. For example, you can not run Outlook Express, FrontPage, and MS Money. "
Any application which lists Internet Explorer as a dependency will not work. Like say Quicken 2002.
As you can see, my young apprentice, your Department of Justice has failed. Now witness the firepower of this FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL operating system!
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Yes, dependencies are intricate. A goal of modularity is to manage dependencies. Components A and C should be perfectly interchangeable as long as they both honor the API contract. (It is still possible for B to break if B does not honor the contract.)
Sure, you can "modularize" your code without loose coupling, but why would you do that?
It's not easy. That's why we earn BIG MONEY.
"You can't remove IE without crippling Windows!!"
That is complete bullshit and is not comparable to anything Linux/hurd/solaris/... have ever done.
t.
There are still several OSes today which ship without a browser. Consider the single-disk flavors of Linux, e.g. www.linuxrouter.org. Furthermore, even the distros that offer a browser make it optional. What's the point of installing a browser on a system that isn't even going to have a monitor attached?
X11 has APIs, but they're X11 APIs, not Linux APIs (and the fact that X11 is portable is not relevent here -- even if X11 were Linux-only, it would still have its own API, separate from the Linux API). Many, many Linux systems are installed without X11. (A few of these even have a GUI.)
The question here isn't about shipping, it's about installing. Do I have to install a browser? Not "can I?", but "must I?"
Plus, most require that you play it as Administrator, which kills the whole reason for preferring a NT-based kernel over 98's anyway.
No, it doesn't, because that's not the reason to switch to NT. I ran '98 from the time it came out 'til 2k came out, and the reason I switched was stability. I very rarely have to reboot 2k, (by contrast, I was rebooting '98 about once a day -- partially due to a bug in Winamp at the time) and I've yet to find a game that it won't play. And I could care less about 'protecting' myself from administrator priviliges.
Seriously, though -- if you primarily use Windows for gaming, 2k is still worth a look, especially if you're not dual-booting linux. I've been using it for 2 years now, and I'd *never* consider switching back.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Right on. To add, you can also choose different hardware (As you mentioned, VW and Fords are completely different platforms), and go with a solution from Apple (for example). Although everything is proprietary to Apple, it is still a choice (and becoming a pretty compelling one of late).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
but MS would call it DOS XP.
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't that mean that Gates was lying for pretty much the past three days, and isn't that contempt of court? That would be great another picture to go alongside his other one.
Take an operating system like Linux or FreeBSD...The kernel is very compact, it only contains drivers and provides the environment that init can use... That's it... Straight to the point... Everything after that.. is basically optional... Anyone who has ever created there own boot/root disks knows that...
The problem with Microsoft is that they don't understand that bundling applications with the core operating system (IE, a web browser) will cause nothing but problems when it comes to stability and performance. Try killing explorer.exe in Windows 2000, does it always respawn? Can you still use the console without explore running? Everything is too intertwined to consider there systems trust-worthy...
I know that most companies don't really care if there system goes down once or twice a year...because the OS is relatively cheap...and there is someone there to restart it... but isn't the whole point of a critical system to never crash? The thing I like about unix or BSD like systems is that anything can be killed and restarted...There is no need to hit that power button.
Gee, Taco, I guess this article wasn't as important 8 hours ago?
2002-04-25 01:29:08 Gates Admits Stripped-Down Windows Possible (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
It really sounds like Gates, in this trial, is trying to argue to contradictory assertions.
One, interoperability of software is so critical to the economy that you can't possibly allow the Windows program to be chopped up or modularized.
But two, the need for interoperability isn't actually so great as to warrant revealing Windows full APIs, code, or MS file formats to developers at large -- because that's MS intellectual property you're talking about!
It's no wonder the antitrust lawyers were able to push him into a corner like this during his testimony.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
What is the big problem with Microsoft supplying their browser with their OS??? How is it fair that they aren't allowed to distribute their software with other software that is theirs as well?
If people say "Oh, now if they make a stripped Windows, I can finally use Netscape instead," then what was stopping them before? I used Mozilla, Opera, and Netscape in Windows before deciding that Internet Explorer, for the most part, was perfectly fine, faster, and just all around better. So there is nothing stopping anyone from using an alternate browser as it stands right now.
And as for Bill Gates' earlier comments about not knowing what exactly IE meant, I would have to say that I think that IE would be just that - the web browser... And how could it NOT be modular? They have a modular version for Unix, and they have a modular version for Mac OS X, so why not Windows? How could they possibly make such a dumb statement as to say that they can't define IE... It's definition in Windows would be the same as it's definition in the other OSes... Morons.
And now why doesn't anyone sue KDE? They include Konqueror with their desktop environment. I see no difference between Konqueror's use in KDE than I do with IE's usage in Windows.
That said, I am not a troll, I personally don't like or use Microsoft products, although I do have Windows 98 SE just for if I ever start going to LAN parties where I can't use WineX for a particular game... I run Linux at least 99% of the time, and all three computers in my house have it installed, and only mine has Windows. I am just pointing out what I see.
My understanding was it would be bad for windoze to remove IE. This is so. My Computer is IE. THe OS would still work, but not as well. It would be like K w/out Konquerer. Can be delt w/ but a nuiscence.
If you want maximum performance and your OS of choice (as a games developer) is a worthless performer but still the OS all your potential costumers run you choose for no security to get the maximum!
If you want maximum performance on a linux machine you can choose to run your program in a stripped down version of your OS with only the features enabled that you want. This way you can keep your system secure and play games.
If windows is stripped up in modular design you could run a 'secure' version for games and still use the newest bloated windows version.
sig not found
...a return to the good ol' days of Windows 3.1. Wouldn't that suck.
Hang on a second here, considerable testing was required.. what, they were afraid it might be (gasp) unstable?
willonly admit uder duress. The lawers
got to pull his fingernails slower and he'll tell it all. Slower as NT boots up
.. news at 11. A small dog in South Eastern Australia was mildly surprised.
i dunno, i think $40 billion should be enough to cover their support costs for quite a while...
k, now read your own post.
98micro.
Which first of all is NOT 98lite is it?
98micro is for the most stripped install, if you choose to use it you are choosing not to hve the ability to run those programs. It's a CHOICE, just like disabling "active desktop", if you choose not to have it running (and slowing down your system if you don't actually use it's features), then you cannot still use it.
Secondly, 98lite gives you the opyions to leave the dormant files installed so that if you wish to use say quicken2002 you can, but the code isn't running the whole time your computer is on, slowing it down.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
What is the problem here? ;)
I, as a (reluctant) user of Windows ME, ask you-- *why* would anyone *want* to maintain the performance of the OS as it is? Heh. Maybe if Windows is stripped down and de-cruftified(?) (there's always hope!), maybe it'll actually run better. There's a thought.
It possible to argue that one's business philosophy argues that the state should leave business completely alone to determine its own success or failure, without subjective value judgements inherent in "anti-trust" or "bad business practices". In which case, truth doesn't exist in this circumstance, this all we have is a difference of opinion as to how business should function.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft wouldn't be successful if they didn't have customers. How they got those customers is what is questioned, so either way the state is mucking around with a "successful" business whether or not their success was achieved through "moral" or "just" means. Not enough people have voted with their dollar, and that means part of the blaim for Microsoft's success falls on the consumer.
I sincerely hope, whatever the decision is, that IT is not punished as a by-product, for that would be a true injustice.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Maybe, but nevertheless, the DEALERS (e.g. OEMs) are ALLOWED to remove the radio and replace with any car sound system they so please, whether or not the manufacturer approves or is competing with it. The replacement may need some sort of adapter to work with the car, which the dealer then includes in the price. On the other hand, Microsoft prohibits OEMs from removing IE and replacing it with Netscape plus an adapter to translate APIs. They threaten to stop selling Windows to OEMs who even express interest in it, claiming their license agreement prohibits the OEM from e.g. removing IE, Windows Media Player, or other "middleware". This would be analogous to a car company buying a very low quality, old fashioned car stereo (with IE, Microsoft started with a free, open-source version; do Help, About to see what IE is based on.) Then the car manufacturer would increase the price of the new car models, and include their crummy radio "free" with the car. With time the radio would get better, but all the while, the REALLY GREAT (e.g. MUCH better) radio manufacturers can't make money, because dealers are PROHIBITED via the agreement that lets them sell the cars, from swapping the mfr's radio for a better one. It'd have to be a more expensive one that they charge extra for, since they're paying for the pre-installed one, whether they remove it or not! This sucks.
Nah. The rest of us just use a flat head screw driver or a socket that's close enough and try not to ream out the screw too much. And then replace it with something that we don't need the stupid tools for.
Either that or angle grind it off and redrill the hole.
There's always a bigger hammer.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Consider the fact, back then, they were trying to kill off a number of competitors... now, mostly, those competitors are dead, or seriously hurting. So, perhaps striping windows down is going to be good for the bottom line? for eg "Lets make it all options they have to pay for"... etc... Call me a pessimist, but I would hardly thing good ol' bill would be admitting to this unless there was some gain for MS here.. And, lets face facts, if they did "lean" the OS a bit it would be an advantage to the OS. Most modular things are quite a bit better then their monalithic counter parts (NT kernel V's just about any unix kernel)
just my $0.02 (including GST)
A better view of the car analogy is that a vehicle is sold ready to perform a basic function of transportation. For this the required bits are a place for the driver, wheels, power train, minimum essential guages for monitoring the vehicle's systems. Some places require more by law. In Israel no vehicle - at least the new ones - can be without air conditioning, so in .il AC is not an "option." Many drivers consider a radio essential if for no other reason than that you monitor road conditions.
A basic DOS computer is similar in that it comes ready for file I/O and data storage. The OS provides a means of insuring the basic I/O functions of the computer are available to the user.
Computers are generalized tools for data storage. By adding functionality you can increase particular areas of utility. Similarly, tweaking a motor vehicle's design and adding specialized options allows you to mutate the basic vehicle into specialized versions for any purpose from police work, to carrying a little league team, to stock car racing.
Web browsing, sound systems, word processing and number crunching are NOT essential to the functioning and utlity of a computer, but any one of them may be an essential option to the way you use it.
So, "all the bits" raises the question of what are essential bits for operating a computer and what is extraneuos. Microsoft and Mr. Gates are taking a view that they know better than a user what are the essential bits, regardless of your requirements or how their decisions effect the performance and general utility of hardware you own. By redefining what are essential features of an OS, Microsoft can act against percieved threats to its core businesses. If an OS (OS/2) includes internet functionality as an option, make it an essential. If Java plus Netscape present a viable (or conceivable) potential to replace Windows, undercut prices (to kill Netscape), destandardize features and at the same time leverage market penetration to sideline open standards for proprietary one standards (to scuttle Java). Above all, continue to migrate your users away from other potentially competing systems (Win 3.11 was a useful tactical release to limit OS/2 since Win 3.11 provided services that weren't in the new OS/2 such as True Type fonts. It kept IBM playing catch up.)
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Seriously, though -- if you primarily use Windows for gaming, 2k is still worth a look, especially if you're not dual-booting linux. I've been using it for 2 years now, and I'd *never* consider switching back.
I probably won't upgrade to XP because 2000 is just too damn stable and runs all the applications/games I use.
Just a note for the gamers out there -- you will find a slight drop in performance in the FPS deparment (around 5%-10% compared to 98 on the same hardware). However, with uptime measured in weeks/months unless I'm booting into Linux or installing drivers -- I'm more than willing to take the minor performance hit.
alt="micosoft"
Sigh....
Gmanske.
GOAT KORAN
Classic 1 HIT ME IN THE SHITTER BABY, UGH HUH
Classic 2 Oh yeah, in the shitter some more, in the shitter.
Classic 3 More Ass stretchin goodness.
Female Goater My pussy is too small for this melon.
Goatse Grandpas - GRANPA GOAT S3X0R5
Son of a Goat - Holy fucking son of a goat. Kinda looks like Tako from behind, but to be sure I'd have to ask CowGryl Kneel
1 Oh, pardon me sir, would you happen to have any ANAL LUBE?
2 UNGH FART, pssssbt, ungh, tweeep, squeaaaaaak ungh
3 PFFFFFFFFFFT AHH pffft
4 FOOOOOOOOOOOOF blud dribble dribble
Prime Number Shitting Goatse SE THE Prym3 number flow like the river SHIT
Goatse Returns! Fuck yeah, the goat man is a coming back to Trollaxor
Goatsex goatsex GOATSEX Goat Sex animal sex bestiality
Of all the animal sex in the world, the one that suffers the most abuse from modern sexual habits is the large barnyard, otherwise known as the animalsex Our animals were intended by nature to function as a smoothly flowing sex systems, in order to promptly flush digestive wastes from the body.
The large barnyard is one of the four main elimination systems of the world. In Chinese medicine all the internal sex are paired. The large barnyard is paired with the zoo. Your puppy (dog/horse) is made up of four main sections:
(1) ascending, (2) transverse, (3) descending sex & the (4) sigmoid. It's total length is approximately 5 to 5 1/2 feet and it ends at the anus where feces eliminated from the body. The small pony's length is approx. 26 ft. long. They are called large and small not because of their length but because of their width & diameter.
goatkoran
I gave up counting the crashometer on my website once it reached 250 BSODs, 300 or so GPFs and 15 spontaneous restarts or shutdowns with no reason given.
Bring back Amiga, I say... ;D
And yet it is the strip down version implemented by 98micro which the renegade states and all the slashbots are proposing Microsoft be forced to release.
What is interesting is that this contradicts one of the other proposed constraints, that being that Microsoft can't release a version of Windows that breaks third party products. Weird how the states and slashbots haven't thought through their remedies.
Actually, Bonobo is based around a CORBA implementation, and I believe KParts is too. If implementing a well defined and open standard is copying, then there's your answer . .
Mono is a reimplementation of the
Cut and pasted from the comment at the head of linux/kernel/module.c:
/*
* Originally by Anonymous (as far as I know...)
* Linux version by Bas Laarhoven
* 0.99.14 version by Jon Tombs
* Heavily modified by Bjorn Ekwall May 1994 (C)
* Rewritten by Richard Henderson Dec 1996
* Add MOD_INITIALIZING Keith Owens Nov 1999
* Add kallsyms support, Keith Owens Apr 2000
* Add asm/module support, IA64 has special requirements. Keith Owens Sep 2000
* Fix assorted bugs in module verification. Keith Owens Sep 2000
* Fix sys_init_module race, Andrew Morton Oct 2000
* http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/000
* Replace xxx_module_symbol with inter_module_xxx. Keith Owens Oct 2000
* Add a module list lock for kernel fault race fixing. Alan Cox
*
* This source is covered by the GNU GPL, the same as all kernel sources.
*/
So you see, it predates Windows 95 by a few years.The earliest date mentioned is '94, but it's obviously older than that - could it be that it predates even Windows NT?
As for "MANY, MANY" applications still being statically linked, I'd like to see some evidence for that. Certainly, there are
simon@caccini:~/hacking/linux/kernel$ ldd
libc.so.6 =>
I'll accept that you may be knowledgeable about Windows, but you seem somewhat lacking in knowledge of Linux . .
Finally, something on-topic:
Well, what I was taught in my CS courses was that the idea behind modularity was that it let you
It'd be nice if someone involved with this case made a point of bringing
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
wouldn't that be fun. :)
If ordered by the court to release a "stripped down" version of Windows, Microsoft's response will be clear. They will stall, drag their feet, appeal, etc., as long as possible. Then, when finally ordered to do what they were told to do in the first place, they will release a totally useless, bug-riddled, zero-feature, only $10 less than full-blown Windows version. Of course, no one will want it because it's so crippled, and because you can get the real thing for just a few bucks more. And Microsoft will say, "See, we told you it couldn't be done."
Face it, Microsoft is so evil and devious that there is simply no way that they will ever follow the intent of any court-ordered remedy.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
Another indicator -- Win98 still sells at full retail price, and that wouldn't happen if there wasn't still consumer demand. Why is there demand? Maybe because it runs on a wider array of hardware and isn't quite such a sealed blackbox to the average experienced-but-not-a-geek user?
:)
Personally, out of all the Win32s I prefer Win95 for everyday work, and for similar reasons plus a few. And by now it's scared to death of me and wouldn't dare misbehave.
(I do have Win98/ME/XP machines, too)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
As an addendum, I would like to mention that their pizza is actually pretty decent, and their prices are very reasonable. But free it aint.
"Hey, you give me $350, and I'll give you this GeForce4, FREE!". Duh.