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.
well duh!
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.
He is a billionaire they have a seperate constitution, justice system, and security force. I mean come on, 99% of all celebrities are doing probation on a lesser charge than what the state could of prosecuted them with. If you aren't somehow connected to the media or money kiss your ass good bye when you pull shit like this though.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
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."
I wonder if a stripped down version of the Windows OS would yeild better performance with the decreased overhead of the needless features...
In some ways it will, in others it won't. It all depends on how much RAM you have. If you have lots of RAM, you would probably not notice that much of the slowdown the preloading of Internet explorer and such things causes. If you have a less powerful machine, you probably will. The real benefit would be that you won't have to waste disk space having these things installed. Your windows partition could maybe for the first time in some years be less than 1 GB?
Not that HDs are that expensive these days anyway.
The real value on the other hand is that IE, WMP, etc. might not be as much "standard components" as they are today, when not integrated into windows any longer. But still, they would probably be bundled on the installation CD and most people would probably install them anyway.
I wonder if a stripped down version of the Windows OS would yeild better performance with the decreased overhead of the needless features...
That is a trollish statement. Like Windows or not, my Win2K box has not ever gotten a BSOD and only locked up completely (forcing reboot) once in over a year.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
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...
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?
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
"That is a trollish statement. Like Windows or not, my Win2K box has not ever gotten a BSOD and only locked up completely (forcing reboot) once in over a year."
:)
Except his statement had nothing to do with what you were refuting, he was talking about windows performing better because less gunk was taking up memory/cpu time, you were talking about stability.
totally different issues
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
Just like it's *possible* to sell a 'modular car' it would be insane
Cars are to some extent modular.
If I buy a Volvo car, I can put on tyres from another manufacturer, or the windscreen, oil filter, spark plugs, paint, in fact you could change the engine if you wanted. I am not forced to use Volvo tyres, or Volvo spark plugs, paint etc.
I have read that in the early days of the industrial revolution, manufacturers used to do things like vary the treading and size of bolts so that it forced you to buy components from them - you couldn't bolt on parts from other manufacturers because their bolts wouldn't match the threads. Eventually, people realised that this was crazy and these days we have standards for virtually everything in engineering.
Software is still at a more primitive stage. Bill Gates just doesn't want all this bolts to be standardized.
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
Also companies have (in the past and present) designed screws, nuts, and bolts to use odd shaped heads or slots (philips head screws, torx, etc) so that you had to buy the tools from them. Now is this much different from Microsoft either?
Bill not only wants you to buy the nuts and bolts (word and excel) from him, but the tools also (VB.net, C#.net, etc). If he can get everything sufficently tied together, then you will have no option to install those non-Microsoft wipers on you Microsoft Modular Car (get it MMC). It will be modular, as long as it is a Microsoft module that you are installing. You can't possibly replace the speedometer with the OSX version that looks nicer, nor the fuel injectors with the Linux version that gets better fuel economy, nor can you replace the tires with Java tires so that you can run on roads built by Sun Microsystems, IBM, and many others.
Do you trust your entire life to the folks that want to know what you watch on TV (remember Web-TV)?
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
But the car itself IS sold to you with all the bits. It comes with engine, tires, radio, A/C, transmission, seats, gauges, and so on. You're welcome to strip them out yourself, but the car company certainly won't support that, unless you decide to upgrade with other company parts.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
> 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
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
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!
Obviously nobody thinks about this, but running a program stripped off from certain properties is almost always possible. The question is not technically running it is possible or not, but is it possible in a practical way. You can strip down KDE from its window manager components and plug in a new window manager, but will this make sense, will it be useful for the consumers? For so many years, we had different kinds of window managers in X Window, and finally we are heading to what? A consistent desktop, with a window manager that comes up with its own file manager and so on.
However, there is so much competition in the auto industry that the quality of new cars has improved greatly over the years. People shopping for cars, now, have a pretty level field to choose from, and they bicker over prices and features. In today's auto market, the consumer has the edge over the salespeople ("You won't come down in price?? Well, I just go across the street.").
... hmmm, that is about it.
How many models of the standard 4-door family mover are there in the U.S.A.: GM has a few, Ford has a few, Chrysler has a few, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Daewoo, VW, BMW, Volvo, Saab, Mercedes, and more I can't remember.
How many models of consumer-grade operating systems are there: Microsoft has a few (>85% share), Apple has a couple (<15% share) ,
Consumer to Microsoft salesperson, "You won't come down in price?? Well, okay, who do I make the check out to?"
Also, no one is forced to buy a new car. A technically-inclined person can go scavenge a junk yard and rebuild a classic. The laws work so that he can get by with older technology, too, with just a few restrictions.
The car-road interface has been standardized well enough, that we don't have to worry about suddenly having to drive on rails or fly on tethers. In software, however, Microsoft wants to own the roads and dictate that only Microsoft tires can achieve traction on those roads. They want us to be under their control.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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.
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.
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
Despite all of that cash on hand, Microsoft has never paid one cent to investors in dividends.
Investors determine stock prices based on the return that they receive on the stock. This return is in the form of dividends, that is, money paid to the owners of a stock as a reward for assuming the risk of owning the stock. The reason that Microsoft's stock value is high is that there is an expectation that dividends will be paid in the future. Using the past as a model for the future, it is my conclusion that Microsoft will continue to not pay dividends. Because of that, the value of Microsoft stock should be zero.
But the car itself IS sold to you with all the bits. It comes with engine, tires, radio, A/C, transmission, seats, gauges, and so on. You're welcome to strip them out yourself, but the car company certainly won't support that, unless you decide to upgrade with other company parts.
But most cars also have various options to choose from a the dealership. You can get a cassette deck or a CD player. You can get a single CD player in the dash, possibly a milti-CD changer in the dash, or a CD changer in the trunk. You can get it with or without a sunroof. You can get black, green, blue, erd, or some other color paint. You can get an automatic or manual transmission. You can get electric power locks or windows, or not. My Honda Civic is a DX model that came with a CD player, but did not have the supposedly fancier V-tech engine, the EX model also can have a CD player but does have the V-tech engine. Or you can get the EX model with V-tech with a cassette player instead of CD. You can get a coupe/2-door or a 4-door sedan version, with some years also offering a hatchback version. While Honda may call it a Civic model, there's a large number of things that can be different from someone else's Honda Civic. Some have spoilers, mine does not... Comparing the possibility/impossibility of modularizing Windows to a car and saying all Honda Civics (or whatever your brand/model is) isn't a good comparison. As while my car came with a CD player, I've seriusly thought of changing it to a cassette deck, as my revious car had that and now all my driving music is on tape, not CD. Don't know about you, but my car is modular enough to allow me to remove the CD player and put a tape deck in its place.
Internet explorer in consumer-choice-friendly theory should allow me to remove it and put something else in its place if I like (just like my car allows me to change out the CD player for a tape deck), but MS says that's "impossible".
If it's impossible for them to make an OS without a browser that cannot be removed, how did Windows 3.x/95 exist before MSIE was bundled into them??
"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.
This is the first step for him and Microsoft to admit that this is in-fact possible on a wide scale.
There is already a tool (IEradicator) that can remove IE from any version of Windows older than Win2Ksp2. Having Microsoft admit this is possible, is just another step forward,