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.

Comments

XP Embedded

[Geek In Training]

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?"

Re: XP Embedded

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

No, they think integration is their only key to keeping other vendors off the playing field.

Which is of course why they're in court to begin with.

Re:XP Embedded

[lynx_user_abroad]

Explain to me, then, all the various Linux distros for desktops that allow you pick and choose?

Integration (bundling things together, and making them require each other) is a primary method that a corporation can use to differentiate their products from their competitors, to retain control over the product they are selling, to retain their market share, to create barriers to entry of competitors, and to maintain abnormally high prices.

Modularization (breaking things up into little black boxes with well defined interfaces) is a strategy for allowing competition, and is therefore much favored by consumers, in the long run.

Which is not to say that integration is always bad. In a competitive market, integration is a valuable technique for product differentiation, but less valuable as a means to retain product control. In a monopolized market, integration is useless as a product differentiator, but extremely effective for retaining product control.

One of Microsoft's strategies all along has been to pretend they don't have a monopoly, and therefore everything they do must be for the "competitive market" reasons (which are to be encouraged) rather than the "monopolized market" reasons, which earned them their antitrust conviction.

As an example, if you must buy a Ford radio for your Ford car, your choices are more limited than if you can buy any radio, tape player, CD player, etc. and just "plug it in". They can also require you to buy one of their (presumably overpriced) radios with every car they sell, even if you don't need a radio. The example breaks down with software; a Ford truck can't know you've installed a non-Ford radio, and therefore can't demand that you remove it and replace it with a genuine Ford radio. With software, it not only can do this, it can do it by itself.

When Microsoft says they can't create a modular operating system, they just mean it's not in their own interest to do so. The free software community, being built by the consumers of the software, has every incentive to modularize, and little incentive to force integration.

Their embedded product is an example of where they don't yet have a monopoly, in a market that requires a modular product. You bet they have a modular version of Windows to address that market.

Re:XP Embedded

[Aceticon]

The reality of it is there are too many dare I say legacy applications out there that will be disabled and create a support nightmare. Aditionally, think of the support problems. Your new girlfriend (or boyfriend) calls and wants some help with his or her computer. Which version do they have? Does it have IE built in or not? Defrag built in or not? Media player, HyperTerminal, or any list of other things.

In what way having to figure out if a program is there or not (and deal with it) is more complex than (the current situation of) having to figure out which version is installed (and deal with it)???

Temper justice with reason

[Kombat]

I think from the article, it's pretty clear that Microsoft will eventually be ordered to market some form of a stripped-down Windows product. However, even though he's portrayed as the "bad guy," I think Gates has a bit of a point, with these comments:

"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."

Re:Temper justice with reason

[x98chn]

I hope the decision makers stick to the principle of "What's good for the consumers," and not just "What's bad for Microsoft."

Exactly, the anti-trust laws are in place to protect the users/consumers, not reward MS competition.

Re:Hmm.... interesting.

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Hmm.... interesting.

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Have some rationality here, truthsearch

[for(;;);]

> Only a monopoly could claim their software is
> 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! ...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.

Re:Hmm.... interesting.

[pmz]

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.").

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) , ... hmmm, that is about it.

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.

Re:Funding??!

[Trekologer]

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.

Re:Automible industry is REGULATED.

[pmz]

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.

With Microsoft, they choose what you want and what color it comes in.

But *I* for one don't want the computer industry regulated like the car industry.

This isn't about regulation. It's about competition.

I don't want DellXP, CompaqXP, MSXP, GatewayXP. I don't want a stripped down car either.

Many other people do. Having options makes some decisions harder, but our lives are better as a result. I'd rather have 10 models to choose from than one. Let the companies scramble for my business, and let me put them in their place. This is what happens when the free market is in good health.

Don't let this choice BS get to your head.

Without choice, is my life worth living?

Windows is CHEAP, Affordable and RUNS JUST FINE.

Windows is not cheap, and it is a kludge. It does not run fine. In fact, it's behavior is so inconsistent sometimes that I want to punch my monitor.

You can CHOOSE YOUR OWN GODDAMN ROAD THOUGH.

Not when all roads lead to Microsoft.

Just remember you do get what you pay for, and you don't get something for nothing.

When what I'm buying is selling for its true market value. Operating systems used to be expensive, but the market has spoken. Other companies have accepted this fact. For example, I can get Solaris, RedHat Linux, and OpenBSD media for less than $50 (one of these used to be really expensive).