MS Putting the Squeeze on Alternative Audio

renard writes: "Some interesting developments during the last two days of the Microsoft antitrust trial, as reported by AP: MS Executive Linda Averett has admitted that Internet Explorer trumps user preferences for audio playback, and explains away a failure of IE6 searches to find RealAudio sites as a "mistake by the search team." My personal favorite: an MS-internal email exchange where one employee suggests that everyone "Remember the 'embrace and extend' campaigns we've used in the past," and an MS executive admonishes that "We need to keep all of this off the airwaves." See also related stories at Yahoo, CNN, and the NYT."

Comments

Just gets worse for MS

[R2.0]

Judge Jackson may have been so personally pissed at MS he did something legally questionable, but now MS is showing their stripes to an "impartial" judge. I don't think Judge CKK is going to be the pushover they hoped.

Re:Just gets worse for MS

[dattaway]

No, MS will find some way to anger the judge and cause him to do something that will get the case dismissed. Its worked every time.

Re:Just gets worse for MS

[Eryq]

MS line of reasoning:

"The judge found us guilty... that *proves* they were biased against us!"

Re:Just gets worse for MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Im not so sure. I think CKK will unleash a nice, hefty blow towards microsoft. I think shes trying to avoid the impression of biasedness that Judge Jackson clearly showed, at all cost by giving Microsoft every opportunity to present themselves in the right light. This will even raise the impression that shes pro-Microsoft or doesnt really listen to the states.
And forget how Gates acted. The mere fact that he didnt explode like everybody exptected doesnt turn him into a favour for MS. Basically what he said was : "It is bad for Microsoft if the settlement goes through.". Well, this is what this whole thing is about. You could go even further and translate what he said into :" Ok, even if we were a Monopoly, were such an important one and already got too far so that ripping us apart now would turn America and the world into the lower levels of hell." Miss CKK could still, and i believe she will, turn into Mr. Gates personal purgatory. Wait and see !

Re:Just gets worse for MS

[sheldon]

We'll see. K-K has been tough and fair. She certainly has not been the pushover for the states that Jackson was. She's taking the time to understand the technical issues, she isn't falling asleep in court like Jackson did.

From reading the testimony, it's pretty clear the states remedy proposal won't be adopted as it's just too full of holes. You can never really interpret the actions of a fair and impartial judge, because sometimes they ask counter questions just to try to help enforce a point on the record, rather than really questioning it.

But I suspect the end result of this trial will be much closer to the DOJ settlement than the anti-MS contingent would like. Which probably means another round of appeals.

Re:Just gets worse for MS

[dhogaza]

Boy, we can tell you're paying attention. Hint: the judge is a her, not a him.

Re:Just gets worse for MS

[Chris Johnson]

"Her".

The judge is a woman- and she seems to be well aware of this strategy of theirs.

I would be very surprised if she isn't sitting back, watching carefully, and getting mad at the States every time they stumble or screw up. If they make an error, she pounces on it and refuses to let them put any weight on the error.

I think she sees quite plainly that Microsoft is an illegal monopolist running amok- and she's damned if she's going to screw up like Jackson did, by betraying any sort of bias that could be used to vacate her judgement. She's gonna put forth a very _controlled_ judgement that happens to make MS very, very unhappy.

Re:Just gets worse for MS

[mpe]

I would be very surprised if she isn't sitting back, watching carefully, and getting mad at the States every time they stumble or screw up. If they make an error, she pounces on it and refuses to let them put any weight on the error.

How much rope do Microsoft need to hang themselves?

Ok, maybe I am naive..

[xtermz]

...but does anybody else get the impression that this whole 'anti-trust' trial is just a big giant dog and pony show to keep everybody happy and make the government look like they arent all up on big biz's jock ?

Sorry, but if I tried to pass off some of the crap that MS has in these trials, i'ld be in jail on contempt charges.

Maybe i'm naive, but i think the gov doesnt really give a fxck about MS or their 'anti-competitive' practices, they just brought out the smoke and mirrors...

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[greenfly]

Well, the govt. used to care, and used to want to bring anti-trust charges against Microsoft, but then, Microsoft used to not donate money to any political party.

It's interesting to see how both policies changed around the same time.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[4of12]

Your premise might have a great deal of substance.

But remember that MS has not just been using its monopoly to tax a broad base of small individuals.

It has been extending its means of taxation by leveraging its monopoly to trounce other large businesses.

While those businesses have no where near the financial resources of Microsoft, they are businesses nonetheless(Netscape, Sun, Oracle, AOL/TW), and therefore entitled to at least some of the same bent political process favoring businesses.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[Black Parrot]

> The States came after Microsoft because they had dollar signs in their eyes. Nothing more, nothing less. They just wanted a piece of the pie. MS's competitors are just as bad. Why do you think all of MS's competitors are suddenly coming out of the woodwork and bringing on lawsuits? Because they know MS is in a state of weakness. What better way to eliminate your biggest competition than through litigation? Not to mention, being ruled a monopoly is a surefire way to ensure every con artist and halfwit who can't make it in the market on their own will slither out of the woodwork and make bogus claims against you. Oracle and Sun are a big example of this.

So... What exactly do you do at Microsoft?

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Hasn't Microsoft ALWAYS had a monopoly in the Windows computer market? :-)

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[the Man in Black]

What better way to eliminate your biggest competition than through litigation?

I think that works better than "Where Do You Want To Go Today" as a Microsoft tagline.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[Ralph Wiggam]

The tone of the trial seemed to change around the time that we elected a Texas oilman as our president.

-B

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[Zeinfeld]

Well, the govt. used to care, and used to want to bring anti-trust charges against Microsoft, but then, Microsoft used to not donate money to any political party.

I don't work for Microsoft, but I had a member of Newt Gingrich's staff tell me that the 'problem with Microsoft is that they make all this money but they do not play a social role'.

For anyone who knows beltway speak that is code for 'give campaign donnations' in the same way that supporting the 'right of southern states to cellebrate their heritage' is code for 'we are racists and would like to see the return of the KKK and segregation but we will settle for flying the stars and bars from the capitol' etc. etc.

At the time Gates had recently donated the first $100 mil. to his foundation and announced his intention to donate substantially more so the 'social role' considered was not charitable in nature.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[xonker]

Sure, some of Microsoft's competitors are using this as a way to harm Microsoft. This is the first time Microsoft has been even slightly vulnerable since Windows 95 has been released. Sorry, but I don't buy the whole "oh, they couldn't make it in the marketplace" argument. Admittedly, some companies that have complained about Microsoft may have failed eventually - but Oracle and Sun are not amongst them.

If you're one of those idiots who think there should be no rules in business then let's take that to the logical conclusion. If someone gets in my way in business, I have every right to have a guy named Vinnie show up on their doorstep and put a moon roof in their skull. If you don't like that option, then get real and admit that business is legislated and Microsoft has broken a quite a few rules in doing business. I'd be happy to play it either way, though.

The court has already decided that Microsoft broke the law - now is the time to decide what the just punishment is and what will prevent future abuses. It is fully acceptible that the punishment should harm Microsoft's business and benefit their competitors - it is the level of harm that needs to be decided.

When a person is convicted of a crime - as Microsoft has been - the court has a responsibility to mete out punishment that will deter the criminal from doing so again, protect society from that criminal and set an example for anyone else who might consider breaking the law. Therefore Microsoft should receive a punishment that is stiff enough to make Bill and company think twice before abusing their position, protect their competitors and the public to a reasonable extent and make it unattractive for other companies that hold monopolies now or in the future to follow Microsoft's example.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[JordoCrouse]

I know this is a troll, but I am in a arguing sort of mood.

The States came after Microsoft because they had dollar signs in their eyes.
Nothing more, nothing less. They just wanted a piece of the pie.

What, so you think that the states will see any settlement money? Did you think that Bill G was going to show up with a huge novelty check with the memo "Sorry for fucking you over"??

I don't know about the other states, but Utah joined as a result of the ongoing litigation with Caldera over DR-DOS. Many of the experts in the case are at the University Of Utah, and after reviewing the facts in the case, they all advised the then attorney general to join the case.

If nothing else, it was an effort to punish Microsoft, and maybe drum up a little more support for the hometown heros Caldera and Novell.

Not to mention, being ruled a monopoly is a surefire way to ensure every con artist and halfwit who can't make it in the market on their own will slither out of the woodwork and make bogus claims against you.

Right - you know I really hate it when I have to go out and pick a telephone provider, or gas station, or what kind of car to drive. Wouldn't it just have been easier if we all drove Ford cars filled with Standard Oil gas while talking on our AT&T phones?

Maybe because if we had let those monopolies stand, AT&T would be charging you $2.00 a minute instead of 15 cents, Ford cars would breaking down ever 10,000 miles forcing you to buy a new one, and gasoline would be at 10 bucks a gallon.

Yeah, these anti-trust laws really suck.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[curunir]

No...that's not what changed.

There were two things that changed the government's position towards microsoft...the views of the content industry and the views of Computer makers (Dell, Gateway etc).

The content industry realizes that it is unlikely that they'll be able to force hardware to include DRM (not that Fritzie will stop trying). However, they don't need that as long as MS controls 95% of the desktop OS market. If they can get DRM onto 95% of desktops, they'll be happy. If MS's monopoly position weakens, then consumers might start to look for an OS without a DRM solution.

The PC makers used to want MS punished. They were sick of MS's overly-restrictive OEM license agreements. But then the bottom dropped out of the PC market. People didn't feel the need to upgrade their computers since they could run everything they needed to on their current setups. There was no killer app driving people to upgrade their computers. This is where XP's bloat starts to work in its favor. XP, to PC makers, is the killer app that will drive people to upgrade.

So, when Intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, the RIAA and MPAA call their favorite senators and tell them that they'd like Microsoft to get a slap on the wrist, the government complies.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[kaehler]

OK, here is my cospriacy theory for today.
Lets see, after 9/11 we (the US Govt) is trying to find a way to "monitor" all "terrorist" computers. They have their magic lantern program or what ever which will monitor everything on your computer (every keystroke). Wouldn't it be nice if we could make it a part of the O/S of almost all computers (90+%). If we could only get some big O/S company with a big market share and, of course, closed source so you cannot see the code. Do we have any leverage with any company like this? I wonder why the Justice Department is backing off of MS???

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[Znork]

IIRC, anti-trust trials tend to be more about rectifying the situation and restoring competition more than about penalties. Penalties can be exacted through civil suits by those who have been harmed.

Of course, actually restoring competition would probably be more painful than any punishment even a really angry judge could dream up; both because competition is something Microsoft fears and loathes more than anything, the company wants one thing and that is control, and because it would likely entail something like splitting MS into several dozen smaller companies to actually have some real competition again.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[jonabbey]

Oops, Joe sixpack needs to download a mail client to get his mail. What? There's no browser installed? Joe is fucked unless he knows how to use telnet or ftp. But wait.. They weren't allowed to include those either.

The issue isn't that systems should be sold without Internet software, it is that Microsoft should not have the power to force everyone to take their lovingly integrated Internet software instead of anyone else's. What's wrong with buying a Gateway that comes with Brand X browser rather than IE? What's wrong with Dell bundling Eudora with their PC's? What's wrong with IBM bundling Bulletproof FTP?

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[zeno_2]

I don't even really see why this is an issue at all. Of course no one is forcing anyone to use anything really, thats not why they are in trouble.

The reason they are in trouble is mainly because of the OEM contracts that they essentially forced OEM's to agree to. See, the OEM's are really going to be the largest distributer of OS's that there is. This is basically how a lot of the contracts went:

OEM: We want to bundle Windows(tm) on our computers that we sell.
MS: Sure, just sign this.
OEM: But it says here that for every machine sold, I have to pay for a windows license. Currently most of our computers come with this other OS.
MS: Thats too bad, we can maybe work out a deal but its going to cost you twice as much for each copy of windows.

This is the scenario that the OEM's were in. They had to decide what to do, and they went the Microsoft way. It probably got harder and harder for those oems to agree to something like this when microsoft is buying up the competition, or creating competition, and then including this into windows. This of course is not 'good' for competition, because Microsoft has a great leverage of the OS and how much they sell it for with the OEM's, and the ability to take out one sector at a time in the pc industry.

I am amazed even today, Microsoft doesn't seem to be altering their way of buisness whatsoever because of this lawsuit. Today, there was a story on slashdot linked from theregister.co.uk. Now, I don't know the whole picture im sure, but pretty much Microsoft has this new licensing scheme for educational facilities, where they would pay a yearly subscription to software. According to the story, the educational establishment would have to pay for this software for *every* computer at the said location. Even if it wasn't running microsoft software. Now, these places do have some more choices when it comes to that, but does it sound like a very competitive-type of way of doing buisness?

This is what I would like to see out of this whole thing. Id like to see windows come on 2 cds, one being an OS cd, and one being an Applications cd. When someone bought a new computer, it would come with the applications cd that the customer (and remember thats who we are trying to please) could then *chose* (there's that nasty word) to install that cd, and get IE, Windows Media Player, the Windows cd burning software, Outlook Express, and the list goes on. During the Windows setup, it could simply ask the customer, do you want the Microsoft Applications installed with Windows.

This seems fair, and you could simply use other applications from other vendors with not many problems. The problem is, Microsoft, in their 'embrace and extend' mentality, have essentially built a wall around XP with these things like IE, and Windows Media Player. They try to testify that its impossible to seperate the 2 without system instability. Your trying to tell me that my system is going to be more stable with this huge hunk of code (ie) that I may not even ever need or use? Thats a pile of crap, and anyone who has ever done much windows troubleshooting knows that a lot of problems stem from IE. I'd say that it would probably require a good amount of work to take IE and all the other stuff out of XP, but I wouldn't say impossible. The only, and this is important, reason that it would be tough is because Microsoft has made it that way. I know windows fairly well, I work someplace that involves windows troubleshooting for about 4 years now. With winxp, id say that IE isn't a needed item. Im pretty sure its used for the help system within XP, are you trying to tell us that this 'help' couldn't be accomplished any other way? You can pretty much look at anything in XP that IE does and find ways to not do it that way.

Well that turned into quite a lot, I just find it a drag when people bring up these 2 things about the trial:

a - No one is forcing you to use it
b - Why punish a company for doing really good

That being said, try to understand that Microsoft has been legally found a monopoly. This means that they used anti-competitive practices, and along with their leverage in the industry, to build a wall around themselves and stay number one. One key factor to competing OS's is the ability to get it onto OEM machines (and preferrably a large one). If you can't, you really aren't able to compete on the same playing field, and microsoft gets to sit in their own area that no one can even touch.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[Omnifarious]

IF SO was selling gasoline at $2 what would stop someone from starting to sell gasoline for $1. They would soon steal all the customers from SO. The only way to create a monopoly is for the government to pass a law saying only company X can sell merchandise Y. Without that law anyone can start compete, and if they can deliver a better product they will survive and capture marketshares.

There are many ways in which a monopoly can keep this from happening. Like buying out any competitor. Or, telling railroad companies they'll stop shipping oil using their tracks if the ship oil for their competitor too. Or convincing car manufacturers (by adding the additives and making 'non-compliant' cars break down) to make their engines reliant on additives to your gas that you've patented.

In short, a monopoly has many options for eliminating competition and creating a permanently distorted market. So, in the interest of a truly free market, it's in our best interests for a government to break up monopolies that pursue agressive strategies for maintaining their hold on the market.

Re:Ok, maybe I am naive..

[rgbrenner]

George W. Bush and the Republicans recieved $449,600 from _just_ Microsoft. I don't think there are to many people who wouldn't be against government intervention or who wouldn't be for letting MS off the hook for that much money.

References: CNet - Election 2000: High-Tech Politics

Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[MikeOttawa]

This really isn't much worse than the hoops that RealPlayer makes you go through to remove it as your default media player. After about 4 "Are you really, really, really sure you want to Disalbe StartCenter" messages it lets you. Besides - they make you upgrade about once a month so that all your preferences get reset to RealPlayer again anyway... I don't know who would actually PAY for their crappy product.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[reaper20]

Yep, Realplayer is jumping on the "Please feel sorry for us, we're getting h0sed by MS too!" bandwagon.

MS is probably at fault for some of this - but if Real would just realize that their software sucks, and that might be a big reason for people not using it in the first place.

Open message to real: I'm a Linux fanatic. At work, when my Windows users ask "which do I choose at radiowhatever.com, real or ms?" I tell them to use the MS format.

That's how much Real's software sucks. At least we have ogg.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[Flower]

True. But there is a big difference between being nagged about "are you sure you don't want to use our product" and "I don't care if you want to use PlayerX you're going to be using our Player."

In one instance, I can always find a different product that doesn't irritate me and at least tries to dwim. In the other, I'm not given any choice at all. Tack on the fact that choice is being eliminated by a convicted monopolist and actually it is much worse.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[StiffMittens]

True. And I agree that their product sucks buttocks, but consider this: If Microsoft wasn't trying to shut out the competition, then maybe companies like Real could spend more time improving the way their software functions rather than devoting so much time and energy to devising ways to confound Microsoft's desktop fascism.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[nvrrobx]

Also notice when you're installing RealPlayer and choosing your Spam Preferences, by default, all the checkboxes you see are unchecked. Scroll down to the bottom of that box, the rest are all checked.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[MindStalker]

Hey, have you tried out any of the new movies encoded in realplayer 9 format. Amazing stuff.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, Realplayer is jumping on the "Please feel sorry for us, we're getting h0sed by MS too!" bandwagon.

MS is probably at fault for some of this - but if Real would just realize that their software sucks, and that might be a big reason for people not using it in the first place.


Umm...excuse me, but the article is pointing out that MS, which has been ruled an illegal monopoly by two high courts for similar behavior, is preventing users from playing Real content even when they want to, and preventing them from even locating a competitor's products.

That's irrelevant to whether or not Real sucks relative to WM (I beg to differ on that). It's illegal, unethical, and dangerous. Real may do things that are frickin annoying, but those things are not illegal, and don't threaten the entire IT economy.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[Zeinfeld]

I've gotten to the point that I don't even have Real's products installed on my systems anymore.

I regard it as just another type of malware. I don't mind the ads, but I do mind the stupid blinking icon in my task bar telling me to upgrade. And I sure as heck dislike the way Real try to hijack a large part of my registry to make it hard to uninstall.

Sound should be treated no differently from image processing. Nobody expects IE to pop up third part image viewers to display JPG or PNG. Why should the browser hand off sound to a separate program that is going to pop up an unnecessary additional dialog panel?

If Real think they are providing value to the user they can always write their own browser shell. It is not that big a deal if you use the windows built in HTML widget, transports etc. In fact they have a lot of the code already.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[Suppafly]

yeh and every other version of realplayer restate the question with double negatives to confuse you.. "Are you sure to your don't want to not disable smart center?" that and if you if notice in the installer where they ask you to pick prefs, they have a scroll box with the visable options unchecked and all the ones you'd have to scroll to see checked.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[Ilgaz]

Startcenter "protects" file extentions registered to Realplayer. Against "someone" changing it. Guess who someone is?

Seems many of the annoying stuff about Realplayer exists because they have to do it.

Re:Not like Realplayer is saint-like

[CProgrammer98]

Nope, that's the 14 day trial for which you have to register and hand over a plastic number. You can call up to cancel withing fourteen days if you don't wnat to be charged the $$$$ each month.

Browser part of the OS? No...

[Smallest]

...the OS will soon be al wrapped up in the browser. Already, PDFs, Word docs, image files, FTP sites, audio, video clips and more all open directly into the browser window.

And, how convenient: as soon as .Net gets going for real, apps will be ditributed and you won't ever have to leave the browser to do anything.

-c

Re:Browser part of the OS? No...

[Soulfader]

And, how convenient: as soon as .Net gets going for real, apps will be ditributed and you won't ever have to leave the browser to do anything.

That wouldn't bother me overly much; I don't plan to need to use it. I'm more worried about not being able to leave the browser for anything.

Re:Browser part of the OS? No...

[Gid1]

Why bother calling it 'Windows' anymore? Seems that 'Microsoft Window' might be a better name...

Sneaky

[delta407]

How can you "accidentally" not show Real Audio search results? Huh, whoops, guess all y'all have to use Windows Media Audio now...

Re:Sneaky

[miguelitof]

How can you "accidentally" not show Real Audio search results?

Well, a programmer accidentally writes a filter along the lines of:
if strSrchResult == ["rm"|"ra"] then strSrchResult = null

Then a programmer accidentally copies this filter into the source code.

Then a programmer accidentally enables this part of the source code.

Then a programmer accidentally compiles this (along with the rest of the program).

It's all accidentally easy, dontcha know!

Re:Sneaky

[Reziac]

I'd guess it's more an error of omission, something like this:

if strSrchResult == ["MP3"|"WMA"|"etc"] then run "WMP plugin"

or maybe

if strSrchResult !== ["MP3"|"WMA"|"etc"] then strSrchresult = null

(where "etc" are all those filetypes I'm too lazy to remember or look up)

Which could be either accidental ("Ooops, I forgot to include all the filetypes I never use myself") or conscious ("Make 'em forget those naughty off-brand types exist"), and no way to *prove in court* which way it happened.

BTW thanks for publishing the source so I could fix it ;)

Is this legal??

[dolphinuser]

"... She said the problem was fixed two weeks ago -- over a month after the states' top lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, showed the search problem during opening arguments as evidence of Microsoft's wrongdoing,

So the "problem" was presented as evidence of wrong doing, so they went ahead and fixed it. Is this similar to tampering with evidence?

John

Re:Is this legal??

[beleg777]

More to the point, the problem was presented, and they seem to think that fixing it makes everything better.

"You can't punish me for that, I stopped doing it when I got caught!" Bah.

Re:Is this legal??

[Soulfader]

That's silly. The problem does not constitute evidence that must be preserved. If the states have documented the issue properly, that should be all the evidence necessary.

If MS were defending themselves from a "Your software is crappy and insecure" suit, I don't think anyone would be arguing that they shouldn't be able to try to fix any bugs or holes until after the trial was over.

Besides, I suspect that testifying that the problem was resolved qualifies as an admission that a problem existed. No need to prove something that both parties agree to.

Re:Is this legal??

[Archangel Michael]

In the words of Senator Palpitine, "I will make it legal".

So long republic, hello Empire.

Embrace and Extend?

[Nept]

Share and Enjoy!

As Nelson would Say.......

[the_2nd_coming]

HA HA.

anyway.......

my god, is it just me or do MS execs seem to just not get prosecuted for purgery?

Re:As Nelson would Say.......

[calags]

...Purgery...??

As far as I'm concerned MS execs can take as many laxatives as they want.

Re:As Nelson would Say.......

[jvmatthe]

my god, is it just me or do MS execs seem to just not get prosecuted for purgery?

I do believe that's what the Enron execs are going to get nailed for. Wrong corporate behemoth, but I can understand getting them mixed up.

Re:As Nelson would Say.......

[spectecjr]

my god, is it just me or do MS execs seem to just not get prosecuted for purgery?

If MS execs were to be prosecuted for perjury, then the Real execs would have to be as well.

Remember; Real Networks are the people who stood up in court at the start of the trial and claimed (under oath) that Microsoft had crippled their RealPlayer G2 installer.

The real story?

RealPlayer G2's Installer was badly written, and contained bugs.

Microsoft demonstrated where the bugs in the installer were, and hey presto - it worked fine. Any good installer engineer would have been able to fix that - I guess the Real Networks ones are too busy embedding spyware to get the basics right.

So... when are the Real Networks guys going to be prosecuted for perjury?

Simon

Re:As Nelson would Say.......

[medcalf]

my god, is it just me or do MS execs seem to just not get prosecuted for purgery

I hope they get prosecuted for perjury. I don't even want to think what the proof would be for 'purgery'!

I can see how it could happen...

[Eric Damron]

"It was clearly a mistake by the search team..."

This is true. The code is very complex and mistakes can easily be made...

if player != realplayer
addList(player);

It could happen...

Re:I can see how it could happen...

[SeaCrazy]

I know, my cat walked over the keyboard and typed in the EXACT same thing!

It happens all the time.

Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[Confessed Geek]

I've been reading this for months... and you know it still seems like of all the things you could do to punish microsoft or increase competitiveness, this has to be one of the most trivial.

Ignore the propriatary file formats, ignore the "microsoft tax" contracts, ignore the insane EULA's, Ignore the nasty anti-OpenSource traps in their code releases, (your prof in CSI 101 saw our code so your open source project 5 years later violates our IP...) Ignore all the other dirty tricks they are playing and make them take out the ability to download files, or listen to music out of the box??? what the HECK! The whole organization must be stifling giggles and telling the lawyers to fight it out just so the court doesn't realize how easy athey are getting off.

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[hattig]

Sadly, I must agree completely with the parent poster.

Real Remedies for the Real Problem

1) Microsoft must license products on a RAND scheme (reasonable and non-discriminatory)
2) Microsoft must release full API documentation detailing all APIs that non-OS tasks can call.
3) Microsoft must release full file format documentation
4) Microsoft must NOT release any source code. That won't solve a thing - it will in fact make Microsoft a larger monopoly in the future as people cannot code competing operating systems due to having seen that code!
5) No internal cross-subsidy, similar in function to the limitations the British monopoly BT has

There is more that I cannot recall right now. A possible split in the company: OS vs. Apps & Services to put their application teams on a more level footing and to expose the true cost of the "free" software they give away.

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[blakestah]

...make them take out the ability to download files, or listen to music out of the box???

No, that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal identifies 9 key areas - browser, email client, and media player are three of them. For each key area, the Microsoft user tool must be removable and replaceable by an OEM without penalty. So, essentially, the OEM buys the stripped Windows and some subset of the 9 components from Microsoft, and gets the other components from other vendors. The OEM is free to configure Windows however it sees fit with respect to the 9 key areas.

Microsoft is NOT forced to ship an operating system that cannot download files. This responsibility has merely shifted to the OEM to configure these 9 tools.

Also, all the Microsoft add-ons must be priced at a pro-rated value relative to the stripped down Windows. That means the OEMs pay for Windows, and pay separately for each add-on based on value added.

With this proposal, and full disclosure of relevant APIs for each of the 9 key areas, competition for userspace tools would be restored to these key markets. Microsoft's leveraging power would be stripped, and its software could only compete on its own merits.

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[sheldon]

Points 1 and 2 are part of the DOJ settlement. Most of the anti-MS points on slashbot seem to ignore that.

For some reason point 3 is not part of any settlement, it's not part of the state's remedy proposal either. I cannot figure this out, but the states would rather force Microsoft to release the source to Office than just have them document a bloody file format, yet the file format would be far more useful to existing applications. Releasing source would only further entrench an Office monopoly.

My theory is that since the MS competitors wrote the state's proposal that they were looking for a way to get a leg up without having to do much work. Getting the source makes their job easy, writing import/export support for a file format spec is hard work.

As far as point #5. I would have requested a Chinese Wall between OS and Apps&Services group, similar to what now exists within Financial companies between Venture Capital and Investment groups. i.e. the OS team cannot tell the Apps team anything that isn't already available off the public MSDN website. The Apps team has to submit requests in the same manner as any other group would.

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[vondo]

Because MS isn't on trial for being a "bad company." They are on trial for excluding Netscape from the browser market. The states are trying to show that MS did to Netscape they are now trying to do to other companies.

Of your very valid complaints, only proprietary file formats bears directly on MS's wish to exclude other competitors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even in the agreement with the DOJ, there is some provision for releasing these formats to other companies (but not to OSS makers).

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[MSG]

2) Microsoft must release full API documentation detailing all APIs that non-OS tasks can call.

I wouldn't stop there. Some of the best products are OS add-ins. New filesystems, security products, even drivers depend on the OS API. Why would you want to leave it out?

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[nehril]

I think point #1 (non-discriminatory licensing to resellers) is in the DOJ settlement but with a loophole: MS does not have to license new versions at the same time for everyone.

Thus, if Dell does not agree to only preload Windows, then Dell may not get Windows XP SE (or whatever) for 6 months-1 year after HPQ gets it.

these are the kinds of loopholes the states are fighting.

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[sheldon]

Could you point out which section this is in? I can't find it.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/nov01/1 1- 06revised-annotated.asp

licensing is covered under III.B

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[IamTheRealMike]

2) Microsoft must release full API documentation detailing all APIs that non-OS tasks can call.

I wish. I seem to recall seeing a former MS employee saying though that often there is no documentation even inside the company. Thing is you see, because of the internal structure of the company product teams often don't document their work so as to ensure their project isn't killed or they aren't split up. By keeping the docs inside their heads, they help increase their job security.

This leads to the "secret" APIs in Windows/Office/whatever that Microsofts enemies like to jump on - it's not really an evil conspiracy (though MS do enough evil stuff as it is), it's more an indictment of their internal corporate organisation skills.

Re:Why this fixation on Modular Windows?

[shren]

2) Microsoft must release full API documentation detailing all APIs that non-OS tasks can call.

Heh. Big fat hole here. What defines an "API that non-OS tasks can call"? It's not you. It's not me. They're all technically callable - even if it's just a chunk of assembly code buried in a disused directory in a file called "Beware of the Lepord.dll", I can parse it or bring it into memory and far jump to it. So the only thing that decides what is and is not callable is ... you guessed it ... Microsoft. I'd have a feeling that we'd have a technical difference of opinion as to what is and is not callable, which means back to court!

Wishful Thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish a beautiful memeber of the opposite sex would give me an embrace and extend campaign.

How can 'open' win against this?

[km790816]

When Microsoft has billions going into research and a dominant desktop position, how can one expect an open AV standard to become prevelent, especailly when one considers the effort that goes into creating good codecs.

Don't get me wrong. If I had to pick between Real, QT, and Windows Media, I'd take Windows Media. QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it. Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.

Is the problem with universities? Are any researcher doing work on codecs that could end up in the open forum? Does Ogg Vorbis do everything that we need?

Re:How can 'open' win against this?

[inkswamp]

Don't get me wrong. If I had to pick between Real, QT, and Windows Media, I'd take Windows Media.

Why? If you object to MS, why give in to their products so easily?

QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it. Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.

That's the price you pay if you want to steer clear of MS (at least for now.) As long as none of these things are doing harmful activities on your machine, I can't see what the big deal is. Yeah, they nag you. So does your mother. ;^P

It any case, QT is what, $30? That's not bad especially when you look at all the extras you get when you pay. Oh, but the incessant cries of outrage follow those kinds of statements.

BUT I WANT IT FREEEEEEEEEE AND IT HAS TO BE CONVEEEEENIENT AND MICROSOFT IS FREEEEEEEEEE AND CONVEEEEENIENT!!!!

MS is like the local drug dealer... gives you the good stuff quick, but just enough to get your addicted. Eventually you'll be paying the big bucks for it and you'll notice the damage only when it's too late. So, pay the piddly-ass $30 of whatever for another media player and get over it. You'll be paying eventually... one way or the other. You may as well ensure that your cash goes to support someone/something who is tolerable.

Besides that, there are known tricks for getting around some of those problems, not all of them illegal either.

--Rick

Re:How can 'open' win against this?

[Dixie_Flatline]

Ah, but Windows Media already got you to pay in SOME way, and WM doesn't have to bother running hidden programs - it's got the whole OS running underneath it. And while WMP isn't always asking you to upgrade, you pretty much have to anyway, so you can play all the new content of the day.

Me, I boot into Linux to watch most non-streaming media. I actually have better luck with decoding most things.

Re:How can 'open' win against this?

[Nurf]

Is the problem with universities? Are any researcher doing work on codecs that could end up in the open forum?

I agree with you, and have decided to do something about it. OIC is a video codec I am writing. I hope it will be ready for prime time in a matter of months. No promises though. :-)

Check my sig for a link if you are interested.

Re:How can 'open' win against this?

[scott1853]

WMP does ask you to do a free upgrade. That's how they sneak all the digital rights management crap in there. The first time WMP asked me to upgrade, I looked at the list of features FIRST. DRM was the first one and I've been clicking "Upgrade Later" ever since.

Re:How can 'open' win against this?

[Riskable]

Real runs hidden applications when Windows loads and only recently stopped its practice of asking me if I want to upgrade.

Actually, Windows Media Player spies on you too. It's just hidden within the operating system and there's no way to turn it off. This is an abuse of monopoly power because if Real had the same access M$ does, they'd have just as good spyware built-in.

Here's an article with the details.

Re:How can 'open' win against this?

[Tony-A]

why would a dealer, with no guarantee of continued custom, give away a free sample of a very expensive substance?
guarantee. Doesn't need a guarantee, just a reasonable probability.
very expensive substance. Retail is expensive, not wholesale.

Slightly Misleading

[datastew]

The quote in the story is a little misleading. Here is the full quote:

Another Microsoft executive, Dave Foster, cut the discussion short: "No more replies," he wrote. "We need to keep all of this off the airwaves."

The Microsoft executive is stating that the discussion of what they are doing and why needs to be kept off the email "airwaves." In my mind, this is actually more damning, because it intimates that he knows what they are doing could get them in trouble.

Re:Slightly Misleading

[5KVGhost]

In my mind, this is actually more damning, because it intimates that he knows what they are doing could get them in trouble.

Taken out of context it's hard to say what he meant. Perhaps he's just sensible enough to realize that the conversation could easily be misrepresented by other parties.

Haven't you ever decided that it might be preferable to continue a sensitive discussion offline, rather than in email?

Let's not forget ...

[TheViffer]

Real Audio + Quicktime + Windows Media Player + Win amp all installed on the same machine is complete cluster f*** and a battle ground. I am sure there are a few more that I am forgetting, but this is a good start.

If a computer had emotions and I installed all these applications at the same time, it would be begging me to format its hard drive to stop the suffering.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[ari{Dal}]

Amen to that.

That's one 'feature' that i'd love to see beat into the ground. Just about every product that has competitors (as most do) include those stupid @*()#&@( popups to reassociate them with format x. If i wanted program y associated with format x, i woulda left it checked when i installed the bloody thing.

At least most have the option to never show this again... realplayer is just a complete bitch for this, which is why i don't use it. ever. i'm also quickly getting fed up with quicktime's 'UPGRADE TO QUICKTIME PRO', adobe's "THERES MORE TO ACROBAT THAN JUST READER!", and winamp's "VERSION XXX IS NOW OUT! DOWNLOAD?".

but what pisses me off the most is no matter how often you uncheck or say no to all these things, they somehow get mysteriously 'reset' every few weeks.

And is it just me, or are those 'never show this message again' buttons getting fewer and fewer? nowadays they're buried somewhere in the nether regions of the user preferences section, with ever more obscure wording.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[sharkey]

Winamp+Kazaa. Hangs the Win95 shell if you try to use Winamp while Kazaa is running.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[5KVGhost]

Yeah, same here. Quicktime, RealPlayer, and WMP all installed with no conflicts whatsoever, along with a couple other misc audio and video applications. Any of those apps will attempt to comandeer various filetypes during their default installs if you let them. Blindly clicking "OK" is never a good idea.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[espilce]

Remember this is Joe Blow User you're talking about. Of course he's not going to look more closely at the installation options next time, he will just bitch at his computer-literate friend that his "music stuff" isn't working, (acting as if it's inherently his friend's fault since, if he knows all about computers, how could he let this atrocity happen?) until said friend fixes it for him, and Joe Blow will promptly forget what was done and how (if he even payed attention in the first place) so that he can repeat the mistake verbatim the next time he installs a program. And the poor computer literate friend finds himself increasingly distancing himself from his Joe Blow User friends in an attempt to escape the strange phenomenon that whenever a semi-intelligent mammal gets near a computer he/she becomes a complete moron capable of no logical reasoning whatsoever.

sigh...

Re:Let's not forget ...

[macinslak]

They paid people to make that stuff, they want you to pay them to use it (or at least look at ads in winamp's case).

The only reason Microsoft makes it a point to not annoy you is because they have lots of money to lose and are trying to create a monopoly with all of their respective alternatives. When all the competition is dead, they'll just start charging for all of it and likely make you lease it instead of buy as well.

So stop yer bitchin.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Suppafly]

Not to mention that quicktime messes up IE's ability to render png files correctly and it asks you to upgrade to the pay version every single time you run it.. I just install quicktime and tell mediaplayer to use the quicktime codecs to pay .mov files..

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Suppafly]

realplayer is just a complete bitch for this, which is why i don't use it. ever. i'm also quickly getting fed up with quicktime's 'UPGRADE TO QUICKTIME PRO', adobe's "THERES MORE TO ACROBAT THAN JUST READER!", and winamp's "VERSION XXX IS NOW OUT! DOWNLOAD?".


Except winamp makes it batantly obvious how to permanently turn off update checking while the others don't actually let you permanantly turn that "feature" off and don't even let you choose to delay it during the install process.

Stop whining about MS....

[southpolesammy]

...and go use something else. This is the kind of thing that drives me a bit insane, since this fuels the fire of people thinking that using Microsoft products is the only way of using a computer. "I can't use this because Microsoft won't let me....wahhhhh...." There are other products out there. Don't like Internet Explorer? Go use Opera. Don't like MS Office, go use OpenOffice. Don't like Windows? Go use Linux or Mac OSX, or FreeBSD, or etc...

If enough people start using other products, perhaps Microsoft will take notice and start building things that people actually want. It's called market tendencies folks...not exactly rocket science.

Re:Stop whining about MS....

[t]

They have yet to succeed on a long term basis. If MS the monopoly continues unabated, I'd bet money that this "Windows-less" option will suddenly cease one day.

To restate the same damn thing for you knuckleheads, you can't open a business that sells linux boxes (or OS-less boxes) and claim that MS does not have a monopoly because of the existence of your company. (VA Linux anyone?)

t.

When I went to college ...

[TheViffer]

the computer room had a nice big red button. It was the power shutdown for the entire data center.

It had a nice sign over it.

"Do not accidentally, on purpose, press this button."

I believe the same concept applies here.

More power to MS!!

[Mulletproof]

As a friend of mine so eloquently put, "Blocking Real Audio is a bad thing?"

This is a bigger issue than you think

[dingo]

If ie is monitorring what you do on something as trivial as a type of music format then that means that it "is" monitoring you. Now they have more of a liability in general. I know it is far fetched but ms only defence when their products are being used for kiddie porn or to cicumvent national security is that they dont monitor what goes thru ie. Now they cant use this defence because they "are" monitoring ie they have already removed thier own "moral" objections to monitoring their customers.

It WAS a mistake..

[Anonymous Coward]

And I imagine that the dialogue went something like this:

Judge: "What about searches?"

MS: "Oh, that was a mistake"

Judge: "and the bit about IE ignoring preferences?"

MS: "That was a mistake too."

Judge: "Is there anything that you did that WASN'T a mistake?"

MS: "No, your honor."

Judge: "Can you explain these mistakes to me?"

MS: "Umm, we got caught?"

lather...rinse.. repeat...

[ari{Dal}]

*shock* *gasp* *amazement* MS used underhanded tactics that were exposed in the trial and/or corporate emails. I feel like we're caught in a timewarp.

I wish once and for all that the general public and the US Court would realise that this is just another day at MS, and that we likely won't see the end of this type of MS BS til they actually implement either a breakup, or some other REAL sanctions.

If they won't play nicely with the other children, take away their toys. That's what parents do with spoiled children (at least they did when i was growing up).

RealOne Player is actually worse, IMO.

[Jayde Stargunner]

Really, the first time IE 6.0 pops up its media window, it gives you a "Do you want to use the Media Bar to play all audio files?" prompt. I chose "No", and IE never bothered me with file associations again.

On the other hand, I installed RealOne a few weeks back and desipte unckeck a huge list of files it wanted to take over, I still grabbed quite a few. I attempted to reassociate them with Media Player and other programs, and guess what happened...

Next time I opened RealOne player, it popped up some "File Associations Agent" which said: "Another program or programs have attempted to associate RealOne Player-assoicated files with themselves. RealOne Player has re-associated all files."

WTF???

Nowhere did I choose to have these files associated with RealOne Player, nor did I choose any "maintain file associations" button. Not to mention, you can't even get rid of the resident aspects of RealOne Player. Just about every time I boot my computer (which, admittedly, is very rarely) I get some "RealOne Player Critical Notification" box that pops up. As far as I can tell, the best you can do is make it only show up "A few times a month"--there is no "GO AWAY YOU FSCKING ANNOYING POP-UP WINDOW!!!" option that I could find.

So, yeah. As evil as MS may possibly be, I don't feel bad for RealPlayer on this one. =P

-Jayde

Re:RealOne Player is actually worse, IMO.

[Sawbones]

Tell me about it. A useful link then (admitedly easily found via Google, but whatever): download older versions of Real Player (all the way back to v3, I run 8 but whatever works for you).

http://proforma.real.com/real/player/blackjack.htm l

Re:RealOne Player is actually worse, IMO.

[mpe]

At one point, RealPlayer had some evil trickery in it's install. There was one step which was "Which spam do you want to sign up for?" and the interface was a scrolling list of checkboxes next to "newsletters" you wanted to subscribe to.

Be "support@real.com" got signed up to quite a few :)

IE needs to learn to take "no" for an answer

[generic-man]

I've been using Internet Explorer 6 for over six months now, since I got a computer that was pre-loaded with Windows XP last year. Whenever I click on a link to an MP3, AVI, or other media file, I always get a dialog box saying "Would you like to play this in Internet Explorer?" I always check "Never ask me again," and click "No." However, for some reason, I keep getting asked this very same question every time!

I haven't tried it, but IE must only stop asking if you finally say "Yes."

Re:IE needs to learn to take "no" for an answer

[spectecjr]

I've been using Internet Explorer 6 for over six months now, since I got a computer that was pre-loaded with Windows XP last year. Whenever I click on a link to an MP3, AVI, or other media file, I always get a dialog box saying "Would you like to play this in Internet Explorer?" I always check "Never ask me again," and click "No." However, for some reason, I keep getting asked this very same question every time!

Your OEM screwed up the install. Your user security database is most likely hosed; other symptoms will be passwords not being remembered in Outlook Express.

Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact fix. But I had to do it on my Gateway system when it arrived at work. It's in the MS knowledge base though - search for "outlook express" "user authentication", and you should find something about it.

When I installed my own copy of Windows XP (beta, full release, whatever), it didn't have this issue. Makes you wonder what the software Gateway preloaded is doing with the system.

Simon

Re:IE needs to learn to take "no" for an answer

[Dr Caleb]

I have a similar problem with Outlook Express in W2k Server. There is no option to get rid of it in Control Panel -> Add/Remove -> Windows Setup. I've deleted the icon, but ever since I got SP2 and the hotfixes, the icon keeps re-appearing in Start -> Programs every time I log on/off. What kind of a numpty would activate Outlook Express on a PDC anyway?

And anyone have any idea why Activesync contacts Microsoft.com every time I synch my PDA?

"Open" Needs Standards

[goldspider]

I'll probably be modded down as a troll, but I think the parent touched on the real problem here. Standards.

The one crippling characteristic of OSS is that there are few (if any) standards. When there are few standards, and everybody is using something different.

That in itself isn't a bad thing, but if the OSS community wants to overthrow M$, or at the very least claim market (user) share, standards have to be established so that there is one clear and very public alternative to the latest M$ offering.

Re:"Open" Needs Standards

[goldspider]

A good point, but the public perception ignores those behind-the-scenes functionality. Instead the public sees the absurd "emacs vs. vi" and "KDE vs. GNOME" arguments perpetuated because there is no accepted standards in desktop environments.

If the OSS community can get behind something and stop arguing which one is better, they may be able to actually send up something that can really compete with Microsoft.

They say divide and conquer. The OSS community is doing half of Microsoft's work for it.

Re:"Open" Needs Standards

[pmz]

OSS is only about standards. TCP/IP is one. POSIX is another. ASCII is another. X Windows is yet another. Even the licenses are standard: GPL, BSD, etc. It's just that these kinds of standards don't happen overnight.

The variety among open source software will only get better with time. KDE and GNOME are always getting better. Open Office and Mozilla are always getting better. The OS distributions are always getting better. Etc.

Computing is still young, and natural selection is keeping OSS stirred up, for now. It will stabilze, and the result will be really nice. We just need to be patient.

Re:"Open" Needs Standards

[catfood]

[T]he public sees the absurd "emacs vs. vi" and "KDE vs. GNOME" arguments perpetuated because there is no accepted standards in desktop environments...

What better, more standard, standard could there be? Both EMACS and vi read and write the universal linefeed-delimited plain ASCII format by default. That is a hell of a standard!

(I don't know enough about Gnome to comment on KDE vs. Gnome.)

You seem to be using the word "standard" in a Gatesian way, where a particular application is called "standard" if you can get everyone to use that application. When Open Source and Free Software people say "standard" we mean practically the opposite--that you can use any application you want because they all share the underlying APIs and file formats!

Gatesian "standards," when properly implemented, mean no choice. OSS and FS "standards," when properly implemented, mean unlimited choice. Know the difference.

Re:"Open" Needs Standards

[platypus]

Well, setting a standard costs money.
Lots of, from the perspective of an open source project. And it costs more, far far more the any fees for licence bodys.
How much had microsoft to pay for IE till today, to get its functionaliy to a quasi standard. Note, I said "quasi", but seemingly both Netscape & MS back then thought they might loose if they are "only" standards comliant.
And they surely both invested a lot in that wsr.

Unless you define entities like IBM etc. also as members of the OSS community, chances are rare that the OSS community can achieve something like that. It happend, but it's unlikely.
On the bright sight, companies see the power of open source in setting standards (IBM says so since some time), and now things like openoffice make it interesting again.
Man I really hope and think OpenOffice/Staroffice can get big.

criminal

[tps12]

This has gone too far, IMO. Moderators, excuse me if I sound angry, but, well, I am. I can't believe M$ would actually go so far as to prevent searches for RealAudio files. Remember, the computer user is supposed to be in control, not the software manufacturer!

This just emphasizes how hard Open Source companies like Linux and RealMedia are going to have to work to overcome the scourge that is Micro$oft. We have made great strides, and Linux and BSD combined now account for a full 1% of home computers (including OS X and discounting dual booting and versions of Windows pre-2k). These are numbers to be proud of, but still M$ treats the "Hacker" (not a bad term!) community as an insignificant force.

If you ask me, it's dirty tricks like these, trying to make their own proprietary mp3 format the standard, that indicate that they are actually afraid of Linux and Open Source. We have them on the run, now let's go in for the kill.

Re:criminal

[_typo]

This just emphasizes how hard Open Source companies like Linux and RealMedia are going to have to work to overcome the scourge that is Micro$oft.

Since when is Real Media an open source company? Real is a proprietary technology (and a pretty crappy one too) and Real Media is just another proprietary software maker. They're not any better than Microsoft.

Re:criminal

[t]

This has always been a problem in english, that of affinity. e.g., we could rewrite the sentence using parentheses to demarcate phrases to get an interpretation that is factually correct.

This just emphasizes how hard (Open Source companies like Linux) and (RealMedia) are going to have to work to overcome the scourge that is Micro$oft.

So we could interpret it as "how hard A and B are going to ..."

This is similar to stating "We have cats, dogs and fishes." Logically you know "dogs and fishes" are separate and is considered valid english but I personally prefer the extra comma for clarity, "We have cats, dogs, and fishes." Another example is "We have hotdogs, burgers, chips and dip." Should that really be "We have hotdogs, burgers and chips and dip." since "chips and dip" can be considered one thing?

t.

Re:criminal

[unitron]

"I can't believe M$ would actually go so far as to prevent searches for RealAudio files."

Nothing new here. Windows 95 breaks DOS compatibility. Go into (File) Explorer and try to find anything with a .PIF extension. Sure you can use the "Find" feature (but it still won't show the extension), but if you just look at the file listings all you see is the file name without the extension and in the "type" column it doesn't call it a "Program Information File", it calls it a "Shortcut to MS-DOS Program". You can't use the "Options, File Type" windowlet (they should change the name of the OS to "peephole") to change this, either. There is no way (except perhaps the always risky regedit) to force (File) Explorer to show the .pif extension.

Its not all bad

[rtkluttz]

I actually prefer MS's player over all the others... ESPECIALLY Real player. Its nearly the only one left that doesn't carry add-on spyware. At least you can disable the tracking on WMP. Most of the others take over the system and try to take control of every media type out there and carry pop-up banners and other crap I don't want to deal with.
.

Re:Its not all bad

[markmoss]

I actually prefer MS's player over all the others... It's not a matter of which one is best for you, or for most people, it's that MS does not allow you to choose. This (1) prevents competition, which will eventually provide a better program, and (2) messes up anyone whose particular needs are better met by a different program.

Its nearly the only one left that doesn't carry add-on spyware. Maybe if you were willing to pay a few bucks you could buy a program from a company that doesn't have to support itself with spyware or pop-up ads.

I'll leave it to other people to comment on how far you can trust MS to not sneak in spyware, or to not leave gaping security holes for third parties to take over your computer...

How to shut up QuickTime's upgrade reminders

[cpeterso]

QT asks me every damn time I look at something if I want to buy it.

1. Set your system time many years ahead (like 2010)
2. Run QuickTime
3. When it asks you if you would like to upgrade, say no (of course!)
4. QuickTime will then write some secret registry key to remember when it should next remind you to upgrade. Fortunately, your next reminder is now scheduled for the year 2010! ;-)
5. Be sure to set your system time back!

Re:How to shut up QuickTime's upgrade reminders

[Wumpus]

Hey, that circumvents a technological measure that controls access to copyrighted work!

Re:How to shut up QuickTime's upgrade reminders

[IAmATuringMachine!]

Then again, if you use it so much that the "please buy me" message annoys you, you may wish to consider paying for it. I did that and it does wonders at getting rid of the message.

The best things in life ARE NOT free.

Media player replacement...

[Stoutlimb]

The first thing I do when I roll out a new windows box, is point the browser to winamp.com. It's a decent player once configured properly, and plays almost everything under the sun. I just wish it had better video support. Winamp would be the best Media Player replacement I've seen yet.

I heard there's a really cool media player out of Hungary or something, that comes with neat extra programs too. Perhaps we should bundle that with Windows instead.

Re:Stupid Employees! Bad! Bad!

[miguelitof]

Interesting.. Once again Microsoft proves just how stupid their Rhode's scholar winning, 4.0 GPA, full ride to Haaahhhhvaaad (MIT, Cal-tech, Yale, etc.), over achieving, 1600 on the SAT, employees really are.

Actually, I thought this showed that some of their executives actually are honest enough to tell the truth when under oath. If the employees were stupid, they would be trying to lie while they are up on the stand.

What I think this does show is how unprepared M$'s lawyers are for some of these witnesses. The lawyers should have spent a lot of time prepping the witnesses; they should have expected these questions and coached the witnesses on how to answer truthfully without hurting the case.

Further bad testimony from Microsoft

[burgburgburg]

Attempted to submit earlier today:

Microsofties testifying poorly for the company. Yesterday, Microsoft's Will Poole, vice president in charge of the company's Windows New Media Platform division, conceded that he couldn't think of anything Microsoft had done with its audio and video capabilities to address a trial court's April 2000 findings against the company.

The states also brought out an email from a different Microsoft employee, Kurt Buecheler, who wrote that when Microsoft went to distribute market development money to computer manufacturers, "a key criteria will be shipping Windows Media Player."

Today, when the states lawyer enquired as to why IE6 played music files with WMP technology even if the user had selected RealPlayer as their default, Microsoft executive Linda Averett said Microsoft could use RealNetworks software to play music in Internet Explorer, but chooses not to.

"The reason it is not replaceable is that Microsoft does not allow it to be replaceable, correct?" Schmidtlein (dissenting states attorney) asked.

"Correct, it is an integrated feature," Averett testified.

She also testified about the complaint by RealNetworks that the XP search program couldn't find RealNetworks files. She claimed it was a mistake that had been fixed two weeks ago. This would make it a month after states' top lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, showed the search problem during opening arguments as evidence of Microsoft's wrongdoing.

Yesterday's testimony: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-900213.html
Today's testimony: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Micr osoft-Antitrust.html

Put up or shut up.

[HoaryCripple]

This (hopefully) teaches everyone here not to use microsoft products. And yes I do take into consideration the fact that many of you have to use microsoft tripe at work. Just don't use it at home. Please. And by this, I mean no more office 2000 purchases, no more purchases of computers with windows pre-installed, nothing. Just cut them off. One geek at a time. It will eventually work.

Thanks for your cooperation :)

Re:Put up or shut up.

[Chris Johnson]

Read this: Compulsory Windows

If you cannot comprehend a world where something like Microsoft can hunt down and make use of ways to use some people's need or desire to run Windows, to strike bargains where EVERYONE is required to pay for and get Windows like it or not... even to the extent where, as in the Reg's report, Macintosh seats in the edu market are required to pay for Windows Upgrades they cannot even run, then how about you shut up?

I mean, it's like you're talking about a free market or something.

When a Microsoft can say, "Oh, you have to buy copies of our stuff for EVERYTHING, in fact every person who sets foot on campus, including dogs and pigeons" and get away with it because the 70%-90% of Windows seats MUST be served...

When those seats MUST get current Windows OSes because Microsoft bundles stuff with the OS and makes it compulsory to make use of other aspects of the Windows environment, whether that be IMing or a new media codec or web pages in the wild that require the version of IE only bundled with the system...

Then you don't have a free market anyway, so enough with your 'just choooooose something else'. It won't work. Without a free market choice is vanity. Trust me on this, I've exercised the vanity of choosing Macs for _years_ and look where MS is now! Like I hurt them. Sheesh.

Re:Put up or shut up.

[Chris Johnson]

You're not listening, and you're talking like some sort of libertarian- by this I mean, the sort that makes Randites look well-adjusted.

It's like being mad at OEMs for permitting horrible Microsoft terms. I suppose in somebody's insane fantasy, the OEM could say "Hah! A is A! And furthermore, we will roll our own operating system with Linux and compete in the free market against you!"

In reality, for an OEM, making PCs without permission to ship Windows is suicide- so there can be no 'agreement'. It's a kind of force some of you guys seem ill-equipped to comprehend. It's the reason antitrust law exists.

For the edu market, refusing Microsoft terms is less obviously suicidal, but it is still dangerous to try and sell students and parents on a computer department that is all Linux or Mac, particularly for non-CS departments. It's far from the suicidal hopelessness of being an OEM sans Windows, but it's still going to lose you money, by having some students and parents rejecting the school simply on grounds of their not using Windows. The difference is, this is more of a risk that can reasonably be taken.

Backbone is all well and good. It is not always enough. There are situations, like with the OEMs, with printer manufacturers, possibly with ISPs over .NET, in which backbone means nothing because the power relationship is so out of balance that no amount of volition or free will could possibly matter. It's like a really PISSED OFF ant having a fight with a human over whether it should be stepped on. It really doesn't matter.

There are too many situations now where the Microsoft/world power relationship is completely one-sided, and it's only getting worse with every new area Microsoft seizes. I think it's great that you show backbone! However, we also need governments everywhere to recognize the situation and forcibly balance the power relationships.

It doesn't matter one bit how hard Microsoft may have worked to establish such unbalanced power relationships- operative phrase is 'sucks to be them'. They could have just delivered value propositions instead of being masters of establishing unbalanced power relationships and leveraging them. In order to have a functioning market, the power relationships have to be brought back nearer to balancing. Otherwise, you only have a nice example of how free markets are not a stable structure, and left to their own devices can only produce their benefits so long as there is liquidity and risks as well as benefits to all parties.

Re:This just in: power corrupts

[smagoun]

In other news, water runs downhill.

Well, usually.

Operating Systems....

[Groovus]

Slightly off topic....

Allright, so I'm reading through the Chapter 4: Processes section (brushing up on my basic threads and synchronization concepts) of the Silberschatz/Galvin "Operating Systems Concepts" (you know, the dinosaur book) and it hits me. Fundamentally, all this garbage MS bundles in its "OS" is extraneous to an operating system. Looking through the book, there's no chapter on Media Players, no chapter on Web Browsers, no chapter on personal information managers....no chapter on WINDOW MANAGERS!!! These things are not part of the OS proper.

Has anyone at any point in these hearings ever offered up a working defenition of a computer operating system? Don't you think that would go a long way toward determining exactly what should and shouldn't be "part of" an operating system? It seems to me like everyone involved is working backward by looking at individual, extraneous components and querying whether it is or isn't "part of" the OS. Shouldn't they really figure out what an OS is and then look at the components to see if they belong?

Truly, the book provides a very basic, somewhat low level, and very academic view of operating systems (basically the OS facilitates IO, Storage Management, Process Management, Security and possibly Networking/Distributed Computing in using a given collection of hardware). I would grant that at this point having some kind of GUI environment for an OS is pretty much a requirement in order to make a machine "useable" by an appreciable number of people. But after that how much further do you have to go?

It seems to me that looking at things from this perspective would make it abundantly clear to everyone involved that MS has gone way beyond the bounds of what an OS is in their Windows product. It would also probably provide obvious deliniation points for breaking up the business (for instance there is no good reason for the window manager to be integrated with the underlying graphics routines). It would also highlight just how spurious all of MS's arguments are in regards to how breaking things up would ruin MS Windows, by highlighting either that MS has no clue about what an OS actually is and their code is incredibly flawed as a result, OR (more likely) MS has gone to great lengths to obscure what an OS actually is to further their own ends at the expense of the user and other application developers.

Admittedly it is not as all cut and dried in practice as it is in acedamia, but I do believe that attempting to establish the basic notion of what an OS is would further illuminate the problems presented by MS's current approach to its "operating system" in relation to the States' (and our) concerns in this case.

See I knew paying attention in class (or at least keeping the books I was supposed to have read for class) would pay off some day....

Re:Operating Systems....

[Tony-A]

"... but essentially MSFT itself describes an OS as software which manages the resources of your computer.

The question then is: what part of an OS does IE manage? "

The user, silly. The user. Can't have unmanaged users now, can we?
(* ducks and runs for cover *)

Implied Intent

[nhavar]

I don't see anywhere in your quote where the gentlemen acknowledges why they need to keep it off the airwaves nor do I see anything that implies that he thinks the discussion implies guilt or wrongdoing.

It would seem to me that alot of people are implying some evil intent where it's very possible that none may have been. Often when you get a group of people discussing a topic, especially one like "embrace/extend" you get into discussions that should not be had. Additionally you get people responding that know little about what they are talking about or who think they know or who've heard from a friend of a friend. What started as normal business conversation can quickly turn to rumor, conjecture, and assumption. Then when records get supoened the lawyers go through and find a statement like "I heard on the internet that Bill said he was poised to take over the world with some new hidden code". The whole thing gets put into evidence but they only mention "Bill said he was..." and noone ever has the time to put it all in context. Hence you get alot of implied intent by statements that really don't have anything evil behind them. Maybe the veep just didn't want to see "Tom" (the guy who has an opinion about everything (usually a negative one)) get into the discussion and turn it into a flame fest.

Additionally the "Embrace, Extend" ideal is not a bad one. It's the premise that almost everything that we have is built on including opensource. How could we ever progress without embracing what we have and extending upon it. The problem is that there is a last word that keeps getting added to the conversation "Extinguish". I'm not sure that this is something that can be directly attributed to MS or not as I see it passed only by Anti-MS zealots.

"Extinguish" is an ambiguous term. As you embrace a concept and extend it eventually the original concept is replaced by it's newer extended and in theory better counterpart. The original concept is not destroyed, it remains, just unused. But if the "extinguishment" of an object is for the control of the object then you get into the wrongfulness of the practice.

My point is that in order to show wrong doing you have to do more than just throw in a couple of disparate statements made by who knows. You have to show a consistent pattern of intent. You have to have a focus, because if you take 40 different statements by 40 different people in a 1000+ person company you can't really equate that to a conspiracy or evil. On the flip side if you take 40 different statments by 4 different people in the same company and they are of sufficient rank and privilage to motivate the company towards certain practices then you MAY be able to show intent.

Personally I'm just tired of buzz word bingo and buzz phrase bingo where the media and people take statements without qualification and read deeper more meaningful intent into them.

It's like if I said "I want to feed the world" and someone started conspiracy theories about how "I want to rule the world". Oh it all makes perfect sense. If I want to feed the world I could only do it if things were in proper order and how can I get them into the proper order if I don't control everything.

sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Re:Implied Intent

[thelexx]

"It would seem to me that alot of people are implying some evil intent where it's very possible that none may have been."

You see it as "very possible", while most of the rest of the people here see it as "bloody unlikely" based on the past exploits of the company.

""Extinguish" is an ambiguous term."

I'm still not sure if you're a just a troll or an outright shill, but certainly one or the other.

MS has been found GUILTY. TWICE. They are a PREDATORY MONOPOLY. They didn't get that way by management just being a regular bunch of Joe's who play by the rules and are simply misunderstood if/when they don't. Have you ever read the Halloween docs? Big difference between being competitive and sociopathic, which is exactly the kind of behavior exhibited, in aggregate, by MS.

LEXX

Re:Implied Intent

[nhavar]

First I'm not a "microsoftie". I hate how people attempt to disuade an argument simply by putting a label on someone hoping that the label will make them seem stupid as opposed to arguing the facts. Additionally where in my statement did I say that MS had done nothing wrong in the past or where did I state that MS had not been found guilty by the courts. I didn't. Did I ever state "MS rules", "Gates is God", or "IE is the best"? Then how can you imply that I'm an "microsoftie"?
Again the conversation doesn't say anything quite so obvious. If it had said "Hey guys because of the pending legal issues we need to keep this offline" that would be obvious. Or "Let's stay out of trouble here and take it offline" that might have been obvious. But to simply say "No more replies" "Let's take this off the airwaves" could just as easily be "Stop wasting time with this ignorant waste of resources and get back to work". Of course you don't want 50 workers going and talking to their lawyers saying that the veep called them ignorant so you have to be more diplomatic about it. If the gentleman had made any statement about the trial or legal issues or "recent problems" then I might be inclined to agree that squashing the conversation was due to the trial.
My other problem is that he doesn't say "Stop this discussion" or site any company policy that would prohibit further discussion. He simply states - take it offline. Now the offline conversation might be hear-say in a court of law but not always. So I still can't say that this one line statement is a clear indictment of wrong doing by the VP.

Re:Implied Intent

[nhavar]

So then we are going from the "guilty until proven innocent" point of view?

Re:Implied Intent

[GSloop]

Someone else said this recently.

"The fact that Margaret tortures little kittens for fun really has no bearing on her skills as a babysitter..."

The fact that MS has a very long history of immoral and illegal acts SHOULD color the judgement of us when we look at what they say. You would be an IDIOT if you didn't. Perhaps it can't be that way in a court of law, but it sure as heck will be in my book.

If you act like a dick 90% of the time (I'm not referring to you...) and something you say could be construed as offensive, it's reasonable to figure that you're just being your normal self, a prick.

Sure, I might get hit by a metorite, but it's not bloody likely. Sure, MS could be just a innocent sheep, and we're all just way out of like, but again, it isn't very bloody likely!

Cheers!

Re:Implied Intent

[Tim Doran]

Repeat after me: "Microsoft has been found guilty twice. This is the punishment phase."

Say that to yourself before every article you read about the trial and it'll help keep things straight.

MS Media Player not bad, but no excuse

[dh003i]

I use Windows, and I like MS' Media Player. It is good. It's not the best audio player, but its a good audio/video combination.

MS Media player is vastly superior to Real and Apple players. However, in terms of sound, its not nearly as good as WinAmp or FreeAmp. MS Media Player has managed not to become as bloated as Apple's and Real's products, but its still bloated. What's the point of those large buttons on the left side of it? MS should've stuck with the classic format.

Anyways, it isn't as good as WinAmp for music, and isn't as good as DivXPlaya for video.

Despite Media Player being good, that doesn't justify MS' abuses of its OS position to force people to use Win Media Player. People and OEM's should have the choice about what software the OS uses to play media file, NOT MS.

Which is worse...MS or Real??

[billmaly]

Speaking as a Windows whore...I'll take MS over that virus posing as software that is Real networks. Install them once...then try to do ANYTHING related to audio that they don't try to get their hooks into. Hate it...I'll take MS "integration" over that POS any day!!! Thus endeth my rant.

Re:Which is worse...MS or Real??

[Chris Johnson]

Is it perhaps possible that if there was a 'market' for this sort of software, and no monopolist turning the screws, there might be choices BESIDES WMA and its evil twin and the determinedly-trying-to-play-just-as-rough Quicktime?

Imagine interoperability O_O

Don't rely on the news stories...

[sheldon]

Read the trial transcripts yourself:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/nonsett li ng.asp

I've noticed a lot of the reporting has been pretty bizarre, taking points out of context and so forth. When you actually read the full testimony you see it within the context. The lawyers are often trying to press a point, and it may take them 10 questions to lead into it. Often the witness may seem to be playing dumb, but really it's because they have to be very careful and answer tightly worded questions with pertinent answers. Generally a witness is only brought in to testify on a very specific subset of information, and questions outside of those bounds are not allowed. It's a cat & mouse game because the lawyers are always trying to set up the witness, and I find it quite fun to watch.

I still have trouble

[SkyLeach]

getting IE to play my .mp3 links in WinAmp instead of Quicktime. The garsh-darn thing just refuses to do it.

Of course, that may be a Quicktime trick but stil..

Free Software: you have an itch? Scratch it.

[FreeUser]

When Microsoft has billions going into research and a dominant desktop position, how can one expect an open AV standard to become prevelent, especailly when one considers the effort that goes into creating good codecs.

There are already good codecs out there, and more on the horizon. Nuppal or xvid come to mind as two excellent codecs (I'm encoding all of my Max Headroom episodes into xvid, and using this methodology under GNU/Linux I end up with quality video that exceeds the quality of the program on the television as I was watching the broadcast, easilly burnable onto a data DVD to boot.

Absolutely phenominal, and the xvid (a variant of opendivx if I'm not mistaken) can be scaled down as much as needed for web pages (at a cost in quality and/or resolution).

So, if you want a good, open audio/video codec write a Netscape/IE/Mozilla plugin that supports xvid video with oggvorbis encoded audio. The tools to make the video are already free and exist on virtually every platform ... if you want a web browser capable plugin, write it and free yourself from the Microsoft monopoly. Then you at least have a comfortable codec you can use until the Asbolutely Free with No Ifs, Ands, or Buts Ogg Tarkin codec is released.

I guarantee you many (perhaps most) web page authors who are doing this sort of thing as a hobby (most websites) and want video would take a free(dom) codec over a non-free one given the choice, similiar capabilities, and the opportunity, and there is no reason for us to be beholden to Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else with all the free tools and implimentations available on just about every platform at this point in the game.

Another co-mingle ?

[velociraptor]

I hope this is reasonably on-topic, in that it relates to MS tying features together in what seems a monopolostic way...

I was trying to set up web-cams with my bro-in-law and started with MSN Messenger. After signing up for a Passport (guess I sold my soul...), I then signed in, but was prevented from broadcasting my Webcam. Why ? Because I run Win2k.

MSN Messenger informed me that in order for it (a stand-alone application, one would think...) to work with a Webcam I had to upgrade to XP.

So we just used Yahoo instead.

However, the more I think about it, the more it annoyed me...to get an application to work I have to upgrade the OS, when other vendors are perfectly able to provide the same features without the upgrade ? I suppose it's what they call great marketing...

Completely Legal

[toupsie]

So the "problem" was presented as evidence of wrong doing, so they went ahead and fixed it. Is this similar to tampering with evidence?

No, this is not evidence tampering. The version of Windows used to present this "bug/feature" is still intact. What Microsoft has done is released a patch to fix this "bug/feature" for the general public. The copy of Windows submitted into evidence is still in the same state as it was upon being submitted.

However, fixing this problem does make Microsoft look more guilty (if that is possible).

not to be paranoid, but...

[EccentricAnomaly]

"We need to keep all of this off the airwaves."

You always see stuff like this in leaked microsoft emails / memos, whatever...

This makes me wonder if there's anything else out there that they've successfully managed to keep off of the airwaves... I mean, since they keep saying to keep things hush hush it must be working or else they wouldn't even bother to send an email out and trust people to keep it quiet... So far everything that's been leaked is about things that are already know like FUD...

I just have to wonder what other secrets are lurking in Mordor...

Re:not to be paranoid, but...

[Chris Johnson]

Of course. Unless you figure they're all really stupid. Don't you think some of the people at Microsoft are smart enough to keep things under wraps? It's a mercy that some of them ARE stupid enough to break 'radio silence'.

That, or the culture they're in is so utterly 'kill everybody else, rule for 1000 years' that it's a constant struggle for them NOT to publically go "hey, wreck the competing software! Embrace and extend, jerk them around, run them out of business and be the only person making commercial software anymore! 100%! 100%!"

These are the people who were led in chants of 'Microsoft, kill 'em!' by Steve Ballmer. You have to wonder what they're really after? Wonder, instead, what they consider a legitimate boundary. Are they satisfied with ruling only all software and computers?

Re:not to be paranoid, but...

[shren]

They're obviously a cult. And since computer code can be munitions, and we never know what they're hiding in the depths of thier hard drives, it's time to send the BATF and FBI in to kill them all and burn the place to the ground, in whichever order they'd like.

Re:RealPlayer and Quicktime are AWFUL audio plugin

[el_chicano]

It's been a while since I've installed it as a plugin, but I don't recall being given the choice on WAV files the last time I installed it

Fair enough, but when installing Real or Quicktime you do get asked about the associations. I am very careful to make sure I choose the right associations but if a non-expert is installing these products then they could possibly run into some problems.

No applet or plugin should associate itself with a media type without some means to undo that specific association.

What is wrong with uninstalling the old product? Also, installing the new program will reset the associations for you. I prefer WinAmp for WAV files, so I just install WinAmp. I don't even have to uninstall the Windows Media Player.

And speaking of the Windows Media Player, I don't see where your complaint is coming from. Simply upgrade the player at the Windows Update site. If you upgrade IE you also get offered a chance to update your Windows Media Player. It is really not that hard.

The big problem with doing it this way is that you will have to fix the associations that Microsoft so thoughtfully broke for you afterwards... :-<

Perhaps you meant 10%?

[Silverhammer]

Since it is default OS on all Macs now shipping, OS X alone is at least 2 or 3 percent of the home computing market.

Divide and Conquer

[PM4RK5]

Let's divide this project in to sub-components, so when we get conquered we will be able to can the entire (insert team here) team and claim "those people were lying sons of b*tches. We've canned 'em and we're clean now. Now leave us alone to hire another equally bad team." Not to mention that the (insert team here) was instructed to do so, and as such - if they DIDN'T program it in, they'd get fired. And when M$ gets caught, they're fired anyway.

Bah. "Mistake on the part of the Search team." It's more like "Netscape found... and removed. Press OK to apologize."

hoping you are wrong

[Alien54]

I hope you are wrong.

The way MS eecutives and apologists are screaming reminds me of the way Republicans were protesting the innocence of Richard Nixon, right up to the day He pesigned as President due to the threatened impeachment. There is a similarity in the nervous hysteria.

Of course, clinton showed it is possible to survive if you have your partisans in a row, and people are going after you for the wrong reasons. Mind you, I think Clinton should have been nailed, but not for the reasons that were used.

Keeping on point, the appearance in some quarters is that of superbly restrained terror.

These folks don't get it.

Is this any different than Google delisting sites?

[dave-fu]

Google listing scientology sites ostensibly means they'll get sued and lose money in the process.
Microsoft listing Real Audio links means their users will have to go through the agony of installing that godawful media player and possibly fricking up their systems, causing someone along the lines lost money and time trying to get that parasite off the machine. Worst-case (and you're grasping at straws here if you believe it) is that MS' _free_ media player is losing mindshare to Real's buggy, crash-happy, costly media player, which somehow translates into, uh. Lost revenue for Real in the same way that delisting scientology sites on Google translates into lost money for scientology?
Either that or shame on Microsoft for not advertising its competition.

full API documentation

[Tony-A]

full *AND ACCURATE* API documentation detailing all APIs that non-OS tasks can call.
Bought any bridges lately?

Re:Real Sanctions

[HiThere]

Why reward them?

This would only increase their market penetration. Granted, it's nearly total now, but this is what they did on purpose for many years as a marketing ploy.

If you want to hurt them, expire their copyrights.

Re:Common Sense 101

[nhavar]

So let me get this straight since I disagree that it's clear cut based on the on-liner evidence then suddenly I'm so low on the IQ chart that I can't even support life processes with my inadequate brain power.
Why is it that when someon disagrees with the "mob rule" here on slashdot that they get insulted and accused of being a shill or a "microsoftie" or worse a troll. One is not a troll for having an opinion that's unpopular, one is a troll for taking a stance contrary to the popular one for the sole purpose of being unpopular. I'm attempting to get people to use their brains in that a ONE LINE STATEMENT is not an HUGE evidence towards guilt. I never implied that MS had not done something illegal or that they had not been found in a court of law guilty of crimes. What I stated was that people are going overboard taking one line statements and adding their own implied intent to them. Much like everyone took my statement and suddenly implied that I'm a shill, or a troll simply because I like to try logic first.

Re:Why a

[sheldon]

Can anyone tell me why this parent isn't at 0 or -1 for whining about a link he obviously didn't check to see what it was?

hint: I linked to the trial transcripts. If you know of a better link, then post it. moderation should be based on value of the message, not whether or not it mentions Microsoft or not.

Huh?

[tshak]

I've been running WinAmp as my default audio player since IE4. I'm running IE6, and MP3's (etc.) automatically play in Winamp when I click on them.

Now the fun starts.

[Tony-A]

I don't see anywhere in your quote where the gentlemen acknowledges why they need to keep it off the airwaves nor do I see anything that implies that he thinks the discussion implies guilt or wrongdoing.
Not relevant. The question is whether it could be construed as implying guilt or wrongdoing. Microsoft will find itself increasingly in the situation of having to prove itself innocent.

Personally I'm just tired of buzz word bingo and buzz phrase bingo where the media and people take statements without qualification and read deeper more meaningful intent into them.
It will get worse ;)

sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
It's even more fun when the conclusions are accurate.
What did Microsoft do wrong today ;)

Re:Modularity = Bad Software

[StiffMittens]

Are these DLLs part of the OS or are they part of IE? I mean, I think that is the whole issue here. Isn't it? Microsoft has made it's web browser an integral part of the OS. In other words, if I choose to remove an application (namely MSIE) from my system, it really shouldn't remove part of the core OS along with it. For example, if I want to change the windshield wiper blades on my car, I would be very upset if the distributor cap was connected to the wipers in such a way that if I remove the wiper blades, I also remove the distributor cap. Wouldn't you be?

Re:Common Sense 101

[t]

"Extinguish" is an ambiguous term.

You destroy all credibility that you may have had by making idiotic statements. This is equivalent to saying "I did not have sex." means that blow jobs and such are not sex. Or by insisting "what do you mean by 'is'?" You ask a hundred people what "Extinguish" means and you will get the same answer. The wordnet dictionary has four definitions of "extinguish", two are related to putting out fires. The other two are of the kill nature. Yes KILL. If you still don't get it, here is definition 1:

1. snuff out, extinguish -- (put an end to; kill; "The Nazis snuffed out the life of many Jewish children")

So why is "embrace and extend" equated to "embrace and extinguish"? Because history has shown that whenever MS uses that strategy it ends up with the victim being extinguished.

And your simple explanation that that topic would get all types of conjecture etc is crap because this was not a public mailing list, it is an internal mailing list at MS that their boss reads. And your "Tom" wouldn't be working very long at MS if he usually had a negative opinion about everything.

Your entire argument reeks of illogic. I could continue but it is pointless.

t.

ogg

[lazelank]

this is completely off topic, but, i just recently upgraded to winamp 2.8 and it includes the .ogg plugin. it just made me happy.

They're not only scum-bags but dumb fuck-wits.

[crovira]

Do they think all their users are morons?

Do they think that they can treat people like shit for years and years and have NOBODY wise up?

Do they think we're all going to put up with this unrepentant behavior without ever exacting retribution?

Wanna see what happend when you push Americans to far? Look at Afghanistan. The Soviets couldn't do in ten years what the Yanks did in a few months.

Mr Gates' you're pushing our buttons the wrong way.

If I owned any stock, I'd seriously think about letting Bill Gate's have it ALL back. (100% of doodly squat is still doodly squat.)

Re:Common Sense 101

[nhavar]

Actually to say that "I did not have sex." when referring to a blow job is accurate. To say "I did not have sexual relations" when referring to a blow job would be the innacurate statement (I won't go into defining 'is' that's truly moronic). The definition of sex is tied to penetration and the act of copulation usually for reproduction. Sexual intercourse can be seen as sex and can include acts like a blow job. But when you lump all things sexual into sex you lose some of the meaning of sex. Masterbation isn't sex it might be a sexual act but it's not sex. Masterbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, etc. could be considered sexual acts or acts of a sexual nature, but cannot be considered 'sex'. Therefore it's your argument that fails.

Extinguish also means to dim, nullify, or to reduce to silence or ineffectiveness. Lovely throwing in the Nazis in all this. Makes a nice little comparison MS == Nazis. It's the comparison that so many MS bashers love to use.

When I'm talking about MS or anyone else "embracing and extending" I'm talking about embracing and extending a methodology, practice or standard. I'm not talking about a company or entity. In your wording you act as if MS "embracing and extending" a standard is tantamount to them walking into an office building and hacking all the workers who worked on the standard into little bitty pieces. I think you can see that MS has embraced and extended several languages, standards and ideals without the necessity of those standards bodies or creators to themselves be silenced (W3C, ECMA, ANSI, c++, etc.). I see plenty of evidence to suggest that MS did little that extinguished their "enemies" while I see plenty of evidence to suggest that the "enemies" caused a significant amount of their own downfall.

I never said that "embrace and extend" was equated to "embrace and extinguish". I stated that somewhere the phrase came up "embrace, extend, and extinguish" and I didn't know where it came from and couldn't assign to it being directly from Microsoft because I haven't seen evidence to suggest it (doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist).

And do you actually work in any type of large business. I see e-mails getting floated all the time and hear discussions daily that have all kinds of conjecture. I've worked for several companies that this happens on a regular basis. Additionally I've worked in plenty of companies that have hired loud mouthed argumentative and opinionative employees and they seem to be the last to get fired usually because the management A) Likes the go getter attitude or B) is afraid of lawsuits and bad press. Point in fact I sit an isle away from a guy who does nothing all day but bitch about the stupid stuff his boss makes him do, complains about how his benefits are screwed up, moans about the government, and craps on his fellow employees. He hasn't been fired yet because nothing he's done is against company policy, but people avoid him like the plague and try not to bring up his "hot topic" issues within ear shot. He's annoying and could probably be written up as "disruptive" but it would be a hard fight and cause more problems than management wants to deal with.

My question is "Why are you so vehement?" at any point have I insulted someone, spoke down to, or demeaned. I'm simply stating what I see and I'm getting insults and barbed responses.

While it might rightly be said that MS has pursued "predatory" business practices and has been convicted of such, that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm arguing that you can't use one line from an e-mail without any corroberating evidence and say "See! There! I told you so, their guilty!" and that's what most people are doing. They are taking one line at a time and making up their own stories about what happened/is happening at MS without any thought for the accuracy.

Re:Embrace and Extend

[nhavar]

I'll have to agree to most of what you said. I do think that MS used it's position to get better product placement and further their own goals.

But, I don't really agree that you have to special case your web pages in order for them to work. I currently design web pages for a large corporation that are strictly standard web pages with no special browser handling instruction that work equally well and display identically in both IE 5/5.5/6 and Mozilla/NS 6.2. We use CSS1/2, XHTML, XML, XSL and Javascript. I've seen plenty of pages out there that stick to the standards and work just fine and are good advocates for how to operate within the standards.

The problems mostly are that in the beginning NO-ONE stuck to the standards, and NS had the same agenda that MS did. The problem was that MS used it's already established products to further it's grasp while NS had no previously established in-roads or leverage to perform similarly, otherwise it would have (See AOL, ORACLE, SUN, IBM, INTEL etc.).

Thank you for the clean and concise conversation and for refraining from calling me names or demeaning my character.

Re:Common Sense 101

[t]

Actually to say that "I did not have sex." when referring to a blow job is accurate.

Yes, tell your girlfriend that and see what she says. When she is screaming at you, tell her "it's your argument that fails." Later you can ponder on your own whether masturbation is sex.

Lovely throwing in the Nazis in all this. Makes a nice little comparison MS == Nazis. It's the comparison that so many MS bashers love to use.

sigh... Perhaps you should query wordnet yourself. It really is the first and primary definition. But then, I thought you weren't one to make assumptions.

the rest of your argument analogy etc... is pointless to respond to. Especially your comparison to the dipshit at your company, MS gets oodles of resumes and would not have to tolerate that type of behaviour. What is your company? I bet you won't say since it would prove how weak your argument was.

You are getting so much backlash because you did the same thing, you took their one line and came to the opposite conclusion which is in apparent opposition to the facts at hand.

t.

Re:Why a

[sheldon]

Please explain to me exactly how court transcripts can be misrepresented in any way?

Until you do, you have no point to miss.

MS line of reasoning

[Stephen Samuel]

Anything bad for MS is evil and nasty and ought not to exist, for reasons of national security.

How to get rid of QT Pro prompter

[hearingaid]

This works, and it's easy.

1. Boot your system.
2. Change the system date to sometime in the future; 2036 should do.
3. Start QT Player, ignoring the prompt.
4. Exit QT Player.
5. Correct your system time, perhaps using an NTP server.

Now, your QT Player will not prompt you again until 2036.