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.
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!
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.
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)'
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.
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
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.
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.
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)).
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.
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.
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.
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
But the car itself IS sold to you with all the bits. It comes with engine, tires, radio, A/C, transmission, seats, gauges, and so on. You're welcome to strip them out yourself, but the car company certainly won't support that, unless you decide to upgrade with other company parts.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
> 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
But of course, you could still replace your liver with a bag of CornNuts, thus making it a 1:1 swap. In theory.
However, there is so much competition in the auto industry that the quality of new cars has improved greatly over the years. People shopping for cars, now, have a pretty level field to choose from, and they bicker over prices and features. In today's auto market, the consumer has the edge over the salespeople ("You won't come down in price?? Well, I just go across the street.").
... hmmm, that is about it.
How many models of the standard 4-door family mover are there in the U.S.A.: GM has a few, Ford has a few, Chrysler has a few, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Daewoo, VW, BMW, Volvo, Saab, Mercedes, and more I can't remember.
How many models of consumer-grade operating systems are there: Microsoft has a few (>85% share), Apple has a couple (<15% share) ,
Consumer to Microsoft salesperson, "You won't come down in price?? Well, okay, who do I make the check out to?"
Also, no one is forced to buy a new car. A technically-inclined person can go scavenge a junk yard and rebuild a classic. The laws work so that he can get by with older technology, too, with just a few restrictions.
The car-road interface has been standardized well enough, that we don't have to worry about suddenly having to drive on rails or fly on tethers. In software, however, Microsoft wants to own the roads and dictate that only Microsoft tires can achieve traction on those roads. They want us to be under their control.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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.
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 $$$
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).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin