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.

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."