Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Judge to Allow Demonstration of Modular Windows

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the but-that's-impossible dept.

robkill writes: "U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, over the vigorous objections of Microsoft, will allow the nine dissenting states to demonstrate a modular version of Windows. The software is based on Windows XP Embedded, and was built by computer consultant James Bach. Details can be found here [zdnet.com]"

10 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get ... by SlashChick · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... why no one has latched on to the fact that you can't install products after the computer is delivered in Windows XP Embedded. The author of the linked article (which can be found in the sidebar of the article linked in this story) makes a really good case as to why a system based on Windows XP Embedded won't fly in the consumer marketplace.

    Some of you /. readers must have worked on embedded systems before. The fact is that embedded systems aren't meant to be modified after installation. Sure, you can add an installer, but then it no longer becomes an embedded system. Is this hacked, pseudo-embedded system really going to do its job any better than Windows XP does right now? (And will anyone buy a stripped-down version of Windows?)

    The real solution is to get Microsoft to open all of their API's so developers can write compatible software (or perhaps replacement software) for Windows and Office components. Enough with the "18,000 different (but modular, ooh!) versions of Windows" arguments... and bring on the more compatible, better software that opening the API's will help to deliver.

    --
    Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
    1. Re:I don't get ... by jon_eaves · · Score: 5, Informative

      At this point, IANAL.

      Microsoft claims that to remove components from their current OSes and make it modular is infeasible. (agreed).

      However, they have produced WinXP Embedded, supposedly based on WinXP, supposedly modular.
      Also, you could look at their X-Box as another example. I have good friends who are X-Box developers, and they love it, because the API's are *identical* between Windows and the X-Box, so they can test their code on a PC (within reason) before putting it onto the X-Box. Clearly, there are modular versions of "Windows" that Microsoft has chosen to create for it's own purpose. The states just want that purpose to be "for everybody".

      Now, either Microsoft is lying to the court, or lying in their marketing. You choose.

      PS: I don't give a flying duck about this BTW, the only remedy I want to see from Microsoft is to be forced to publish every single file-format (Word) and protocol (Exchange) that they use, and keep those documents up to date.

    2. Re:I don't get ... by evilpenguin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Windows NT/XP was written to be modular. The whole thing is based around a microkernel architecture. You could turn Windows into Unix by replacing services. In theory, if the Hurd were further along, the nt/xp (whatever the hell MS marketing want s to call it this week) microkernel could run it and it would be the Hurd.

      Windows IS modular, their claims notwithstanding. What microsoft has consistently tried to do is add APIs and then to insist that this is part of the operating system. This is how they "embrace and extend." It is only true to the extent that they can get ISVs to start using these APIs. This is why IE suddenly replaced Netscape in Quicken 2000 -- they got Quicken to swallow the new web integration APIs (and, IMHO they simultaneously screwed up and slowed to a crawl one of the best Windows apps out there).

      These claims depend on what your definition of "Windows" and "Operating System" are.

      All of that said, I don't think a modular Windows will do a bit of good in restraining Microsoft's outright criminal manipulation of the marketplace. I actually agree with the original breakup plan because I do not think the state should have a right to sieze intellectual property (force open APIs or source code). I think they should just keep financially and structurally beating up Microsoft until they finally decide it is not worth it to remain in defiance of the law. I am a big believer in property rights, given that they back both MS and the GPL.

  2. forgetting something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    let's remember that 98lite was "modularizing" windows years ago. i still have a box running a completely ie-free version of 98se in my daughter's room.

  3. Re:Finally by kpansky · · Score: 3, Informative

    I agree. If windows were modular, I would have far fewer qualms about it and would almost be able to recommend it to people. Dont like the web browser, slap in the mozilla extension. Want XFS support? Slap it in. Want to use SAMBA instead of the native CIFS implementation? Go right ahead. It is this sort of freedom that gives Linux its huge advantage over windows. Although I would not personally use this system, it is a step in the right direction for all software.

    --

    --Kevin
  4. Re:Finally by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0, Informative

    Or maybe any version of redhat made in the last 2 years. Try and get a workable install with X and a few apps like mozilla under 1 gig. You can't without manually picking every package and breaking hundreds of dependencies.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  5. Re:Developer's nightmare... by follower-fillet · · Score: 2, Informative

    > A modular OS as I describe above...

    > -Backup all directories other than the OS.
    > -Reinstall OS.
    > -Copy back directories.
    > -Do minor configuration to apps and desktop
    Sounds suspiciously like how the old Mac OS worked, except you could just rename the system folder & re-install, no need to backup & copy back everything else. Somehow I doubt it's that simple with OS X (conjecture).

  6. Re:Are we there yet? by Tony-A · · Score: 3, Informative

    But for example, if Ford had access to the complete GM automobile line specs, we could start to see some real change.
    Oh, but they do. If not from GM itself, then Chilton has a nice comprehensive series. If you think the prices for genuine GM parts is exhorbitant, your local auto parts store most likely has something that will fit and is much more reasonable, almost certainly NOT made by Ford.

  7. Re:Developer's nightmare... by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Informative

    Truthfully it is that simple on OS X. A few new tricks include making sure you pick up all the priviliges, etc.. but it's no harder than making an image of a drive in any other UNIX.

    Also apps do copy over completely by moving the files. Start them up again and voila, etc. though of course if you've removed the registered preferences file you'll have to put in the serial again. Many apps simply install off a disk image by copying the app to your drive... that simple, no installer.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  8. Re:Finally by nytmare · · Score: 2, Informative

    Windows XP Pro default install uses 1700 MB of hard drive space, 1100 MB of that in the Windows folder. Control Panel allows removal of no more than about 50 MB. I feel ill.