Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gates Admits Stripped Down Windows Possible

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the well-of-course-it-is dept.

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.

14 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. XP Embedded by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 .sig, someone WILL complai
    1. Re: XP Embedded by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


      > I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't WANT to expend the time, effort, and MONEY to develop such an OS; not that it isn't possible. They apparently think integration is their only key to stability.

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

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

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:XP Embedded by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Explain to me, then, all the various Linux distros for desktops that allow you pick and choose?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    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.

  2. Temper justice with reason by Kombat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think from the article, it's pretty clear that Microsoft will eventually be ordered to market some form of a stripped-down Windows product. However, even though he's portrayed as the "bad guy," I think Gates has a bit of a point, with these comments:

    "What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates. He said the proposals were "fantasies" that gave his business rivals "everything they ever dreamed of".

    Sure, Microsoft needs to lose some power here, but I hope they don't swing the pendulum too far the other way. Are we really any better off if Sun or Oracle are given the power to choose the direction of Windows? I hope the decision makers stick to the principle of "What's good for the consumers," and not just "What's bad for Microsoft."

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
  3. News flash... by pb · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. 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)'
  5. More information here by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. WHAT??? Gates lied???? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  7. Funding??! by forged · · Score: 5, Informative
    • Microsoft doesn't WANT to expend the time, effort, and MONEY to develop such an OS

    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.

    1. Re:Funding??! by gosand · · Score: 5, Funny
      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.

      ...or enough to buy one team of lawyers. :-)

      I guess we'll have to wait and see if it is enough to buy a government.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  8. Re:Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP by TummyX · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)).

  9. Re:Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP by grylnsmn · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you go to Microsoft's home page and look up XP Embeded you can find their product documentation. The first line of the documentation reads Based on the proven code base of Windows XP, Windows XP Embedded enables you to rapidly develop reliable and full-featured connected devices.

    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.

  10. One thing to say, that I've been saying all along. by Romancer · · Score: 5, Informative



    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.