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.

3 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The Truth by EvilAlien · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think his major contention would be that it would be bad for Microsoft's business model to strip Windows down. This shouldn't be surprising, since the whole point of the anti-trust litigation is to attack MS's way of doing business!

    Admitting something can be done is redundant. It is technically possible to do almost anything, but that isn't the point. What should and should not be done, or forced upon a company by Tha Man, is the question here. Stripping down Windows may indeed cripple Microsoft and traumatize the computer industry as Microsoft pundits claim. Or it might not. Whichever view is more convincing to a Judge is what matters here, not the almost limitless potential of technology.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
  2. Was MS could use this to tjeir advantage by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:XP Embedded by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You mean the way IE 3 was cheaper and every bit as good as Netscape? Then how IE 4 was light years beyond Netscape, and still free?

    You're kind of making my point yourself. The only way Microsoft could really catch up with Netscape was by giving away a product for free. Sure, they were competing on price - they had to, to survive. The price was zero. Now, imagine they had to do that with all their products. They wouldn't survive long.

    Why don't Dell, HP, Compaq etc. put StarOffice as default on their PCs? I'm sure Sun would love that. Many customers would probably love it too. But Microsoft will do whatever they can to prevent PC manufacturers from doing this. Why? Because otherwise, the decision Joe User has to make is, do I want to keep using StarOffice that came or free on my PC, or do I want to pay $500 to get Microsoft office? You'd quickly find lots of small companies and individual users using StarOffice, and it would begin to take off. That kind of thing must absolutely scare the pants off Microsoft. You can't compete on price when things come for free with a new PC - that's why Microsoft must control that and not the PC manufacturers. Otherwise, MS are fucked.