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.
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...
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
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!
Tom
Oh arse
If they strip windows enought maybe people could discover that it is only DOS in disguise!!
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.
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.
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.
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."
Look on Windows XP Embedded and you can see it today.
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
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
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!!
Not according to the marketing literature and the dev specs - they say its "developed using the code base of Windows XP Professional" If gates had this as an out, why wouldn't he use it?
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?
iexplore.exe if you noticed is pretty small. IE is actually REALLY modular and it just loads in libraries it needs.
Delete those libraries and see what happens.
-----
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.
Not correct. Microsoft has two embedded code bases, Windows XP Embedded and Windows CE. See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/default. asp for the differences.
As Gates made very clear in his testimony, Windows XP Embedded is based on the Windows XP code, but without an installer for new applications.
"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
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).
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.
LOL. Funny how a troll like this can get modded up on /.
I'm developing a Windows XP Embedded based project. Windows XP embedded IS Windows XP -- it IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT based on Windows CE. The individual components and dependencies have been worked out allowing you to choose to install or not to install certain components. Windows XP embedded can run any Windows application and device driver designed for Windows XP or 2000. Windows CE.NET is the next version of Windows CE. Windows XP embedded is the next version of Windows NT embedded and is designed to be fully compatible with all XP software and hardware.
And ofcourse desktop windows is modular, it's built up of many DLLs etc (for fuck's sake). Each new windows OS has been built on previous ones with added functionality. It's just a matter of how fair it is to expect Microsoft to remove vital parts of windows (like IE) from THEIR OS. Windows XP is just as modular as Windows CE. You have DLLs, Drivers etc. It's just that CE was designed to allow the OEM to add/remove certain components (just like Windows XPE).
I can't believe slashbots are still arguing about the modularity of Windows. Noone ever said it technically wasn't. Simply that integration means there are too many dependecies to reasonable remove IE from windows without crippling related subsystems (the help system etc). How can you not understand that software is software, you can remove anything you want. It's just a matter of which components will fail because it relies on it. Redhat Linux wouldn't work as usual if you removed the GTK+ components. Gnome would fail to run etc. But this doesn't mean Linux isn't componentised (I would argue that windows is MORE modular than Linux - windows has proper design for objects (COM) and drivers (WDM)).
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...
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 go farther to their Getting Started with Windows XP Embeded page, it adds some more interesting notes, such as Based on the same binary files as Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Embedded enables you to rapidly develop reliable and full-featured connected devices. and You can use standard, off-the-shelf x86 hardware components in your Windows XP Embedded designs. In addition, because Windows XP Embedded supports the Microsoft Win32® application programming interface (API), you can use Win32 applications, drivers, or services in your embedded designs with little or no porting required.
This doesn't sound to me like it is impossible to be able to run other software of XP Embeded. In fact, they specifically claim that you can. It should not be too difficult for them to modify it to automatically check dependencies as needed.
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........
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.
...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.
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"
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); }
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.
But of course you could still replace the IE stuff with a shim over Gecko, thus making IE->Mozilla a 1:1 swap. In theory.
/brian
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
föreningssparbanken here in sweden uses windows nt on thier atm's. the one in this town shows a blue screen every friday night. it's ok other days, but it doesn't seem to like fridays. incidentally, fridays is when all the swedes in this tiny ass town hit the bars, so maybe that has something to do with it.
No, it's still modular. Actually making something more modular often increces dependencies between modules. Think about it for a little bit. If you take functionality that is done many places and place it in a module that performs that function. You then end up with a lot of code that relies on that module.
What I want is a program that strips out all of the extraneous crap used by Microsoft Office. Unless I'm mistaken, even when you NEVER INSTALL OFFICE, a significant portion of it is already crammed into the Windows libraries and therefore loads itself when you boot your machine. This makes using alternate office packages a real pain because they have to load their own libraries on top of this. Am I right on this? Could somebody create a program to strip this junk out of the system libraries?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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.
Great. Maybe when you can point to a product that does this for the current version of Windows people will care.
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
It is not the job of the moderators to independently verify the accuracy of the statements. The reason why they moderate +1 informative is because the poster posts information that informs the moderator of something to which they did not previously know. They assume that this is true until it is shown to be otherwise. If it turns out to be false, it ceases to be informative, and is therefore modded down. But until it is shown to be false, it is assumed to be true, and is therefore informative.
Synergy is your friend
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
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!
But of course, you could still replace your liver with a bag of CornNuts, thus making it a 1:1 swap. In theory.
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...
Subsidies? Poor choice of words perhaps? We're not talking about just giving money to competitors. We're talking about the government doing BUSINESS with Microsoft competitors. They would just buy software and services from non-microsoft vendors.
No, it couldn't happen overnight. Just a resolution should be passed that removes microsoft from the approved vendor list except in case of department hardship and require the usual billion-part justification why some file and print service in some yocal branch office, for example, has to be windows instead of apple or linux for example.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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 $$$
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)
I can't believe slashbots are still arguing about the modularity of Windows. Noone ever said it technically wasn't. Simply that integration means there are too many dependecies to reasonable remove IE from windows without crippling related subsystems (the help system etc).
The reason we're still debating the modularity of Windows is that some people insist of thinking of "modularity" in terms of libraries, while everyone else is thinking of "modularity" in terms of functionality.
Yes, IE is modular in the sense that it's a bunch of libraries (which are also used by the rest of the OS) and a small executable, not a huge executable with everything built in. Still, most people consider web browsers to be applications, and you should be able to remove any application from the OS without making it nonfunctional, because applications are not a necessary part of the system. Removing an application should be no different than removing am ISA- or PCI-based sound card (Compare this to a system with a sound card "integrated" into the motherboard...)
The real problem, I think, is a terminology disagreement between Windows developers and everyone else. Maybe "modularity" is the wrong way to explain the relationship between IE and Windows. Maybe "integration" would be better? The fact that IE is "integrated" into Windows so deeply is a problem, and MS should be able to produce a version of Windows without an "integrated" version of IE?
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.
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.
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
The PRO edition of 98lite enables you to get rid of far more than just IE. The list is huge, though I don't really want to look it up myself. :)
http://98lite.net/
It's been a long time.
Ah, yes. But Gecko can render HTML just as well (or better) than IE can. And CornNuts make lousy blood filters.
/brian
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.
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.
"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.
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
Why would you *want* loose coupling? What is the big advantage that it has? That you can switch components?
That was never in the agenda, you know.
Beside, you want to make it so?
A method of doing something like this:
HKLM\StdApp\Browser\GUID = {GUID_OF_USER_BROWSER}
Would give you what you want, of course, it wouldn't work on legacy application, (meaning all of the applications), and you would've to convice programmers to risk *more* potential configuration problems.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
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.
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)'
Ok. So to extend your nicely detailed analogy, as new technologies are designed, they become options, then, the 'standard' bit, then 'required' bits, by convention if not by law. For example, turn signals. Gosh, they seem bloody obvious now, but originally, a car was required, in some areas, to stop at an intersection, fire a pistol into the air, and announce loudly where they were going. Or automatic transmission. Or mufflers. And so on. So, where to draw the line? Is a TCP/IP stack 'essential' in this day and age, or do you want to spend an extra 200 bucks on Trumpet Winsock? Ok, if TCP/IP is required, what about protocol tools? FTP, telnet, ping, traceroute, nslookup. Well, in this day and age, if a computer cannot plug in and surf the web, then as far as I'm concerned, it's not 'functional.' And at that point, but what process can something else be declared as having moved from 'nice to have' to 'essential.' And how much functionality can a built-in version have? What if somebody suddenly writes a competitor to NTFS, and claims that Microsoft is illegally tying the NT OS to NTFS? Windows itself should NOT be touched by ANYTHING that's going on. Illegally forcing OEMs to install windows, and nothing but windows? Fine, write laws against that. But don't touch Windows itself.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Xtifr--
The point is that Win32 C++ sucks, and for a number of applications, HTML/JScript sucks much, much less so. To belabor the point, should Microsoft *have* to include an RTF Help File parser because the *feds* demand that Windows be unable to parse the single most significant new file format of the last few years?
It's interesting that you bring up the X11 API's. HTML is cross platform -- Win32 ain't.
Regarding the lack of the monitor: Windows is not fully administerable from a command line -- disagree with this philosophy if you like, but as Perl says, There's More Than One Way To Do It.
--Dan
That's what a shim does, isn't it? Mapping functionality of one library to a similar but different one?
Though I wouldn't mind having a bag of CornNuts.
/Brian
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.
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?