Slashdot Mirror
MS Judge to Allow Demonstration of Modular Windows
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]"
(emphasis added)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Erm, the point is that Microsoft have been whining about how you can't make a modular version of Windows.
The states have countered with "but you have this Windows XP Embedded Thingy which claims to be modular"
It's not that the states want Microsoft to ship XP Embedded on a PC, it's that they want to prove that a modular version of Windows is possible.
Microsoft has conveniently already developed something to make their case for them, which is why they've been fighting vigorously to keep it out of the court.
In legal terms, it's called "hoisted on your own petard". IANAL.
Enjoy,
-- jon
I love how Microsoft's grred seems to be thier very undoing. If they weren't trying to exapand ameoba-like into every single area that they could to suck up more tasty cash, then they would never have made XP Embedded.
For you decision makers out there, take thsi to heart: Blind Greed will NOT make you more successful. No matter how much shareholder value you *think* you can add by being unethical, greedy, or sleazy, you will find that you will be losing twice as much value when your actions catch up to you. Stop basing your decisions on thier results for next week and start basing them on their value in the next decade!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
what will stop MS from making Office require IE?
What will stop them form making Windows without IE crash every 15 minutes?
What will stop it from forcefully removing HTML rendering & ActiveX with IE, an invite them to install IE when Kazaa tells them it needs mshtml.dll? (Or is that a good thing - Kazaa will stop showing banners using IE? My version of Kazaa Lite still shows pop-ups.)
Finally, what will stop them from shipping the non-modular version with PCs and requesting that people buy the normal one for $XXX?
Think about what would really happen. Microsoft would deliver a base set of Windows with such marginal functionality, then have a nice expensive upgrade you'd have to buy to get anything done. Presto, modular windows with more money out of the public's pocket, because the sum of the two purchases would exceed the previous single purchase.
I think the only thing really relevent is proving that they lied about what was feasible. Thereby establishing a pattern of behavior. Requiring that Microsoft distribute modular windows wouldn't help anyone much.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
Try a google search for sysocmgr.exe or sysoc.inf. O.C. in both cases stands for 'Optional Components'. IE, Windows messenger etc are removeable using the windows components dialog, Microsoft has just hidden them.
In fact, one of the top hits for the sysocmgr.exe search is from the MS knowedge base and titled "How to Add or Remove Windows Components with Sysocmgr.exe"
Wrong. Tech support is already fobbed off to OEMs; Dell fields calls for Windows problems on your OEM Dell install of Windows. Buying an OEM version of Windows doesn't entitle you to any support from Microsoft directly. So it's the OEM's problem if they break something inside windows. Likewise it's the OEM's responsibility to document it, etc. Let the market decide if they like OEM Windows versus Microsoft brand Windows (now with two scoops of apps!), the same way the market decides between the different app bundles that Linux distro makers provide.
You have a good point that Microsoft's image is on the line if other people release broken modular windows. But I think they should have thought of that before they used non-modular Windows (including IE, Media Player, etc.) to bludgeon competitors into submission. If you live by the sword, you can't bitch that in the interests of justice somebody takes your sword away.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Big Reason#1: Under the states plan the OEM & Wholesales price of the the stripped down version of windows would be 25% less than the full version. UNLESS Microsoft starts charging for the components, then the price is Full Version Price less the cost of all the components sold seperately.
So if Microsoft started charging $20 each for IE, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, etc then the price of the stripped version of windows would be closer to $0
Basically MS will be forced to licence "Window XP Lite" and then give away the add-ons in hopes of keeping market share in Internet Technologies. Otherwise we will be back to when Windows 95 was first released and it was possible to make money selling a web browser, media player, etc and compete with MS on price. Thwarting all MS attemps to corner all online media formats.
Bach will testify that his modular version of Windows was "robust and reliable," Kollar-Kotelly said, citing the states' submission. The states named Bach as one of two witnesses they want to call at the end of the case to rebut some of Microsoft's arguments. Microsoft attorneys strongly objected, saying the states should have brought Bach into the case earlier when they were presenting their initial case. Funny; they first say that a modular Windows is impossible and at best has shoddy performance (as opposed to Windows Me, for example? But that's another story...), and now their best defense is that the prosecution should have said that they were going to be proven wrong beforehand? I'm not really a legal expert, so I'll need someone to clear me up on the subject, but isn't that what the prosecution usually tries to do in a court case? I think it's pretty cool that they waited until now, actually -- now Microsoft's defense, which they've been using as a cloak for months, has entirely been stripped from them; the very base of their defense is (well, technically, WILL be) officially a lie. One could imagine a conversation in the courtroom: Defense attorney: Windows canNOT be seperated. It'll reduce the performance to that of... um... something worse than it al... I mean, than... well, I don't see YOU trying to write a modular Windows! Prosecution: We have here a robust and modular version of Windows, which is physical proof that the defense's statement is false. Defense: Yeah, but... juuuudge, they're not playing nice! They won't let us know what evidence they have until they want to use it! Judge: *sigh* Again, I'm not a legal guy, so this is just what goes through my head when I read this article.
Danish != nationality
... x windows, terminal, commercial terminal emulator, citrix ica client, rdp and netscape 4.78.
24 megs.
you were saying?
... hi bingo
I know our school would pay quite a premium for a "non-integrated" Windows. The district has decreed that all desktops must have Windows on them, and the license is basically for the newest version only. Thus, our Win2K (XP hasn't been deployed yet) installs have all sorts of non-removeable crap on them. Do you think that students would rather do work or play Minesweeper, screw off making crudely drawn well-endowed men in Paint and chat in Netmeeting? The programmer who thought up Windows File Protection should be drawn and quartered. Modular Windows Forever!
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Come on! What's all this yap about different kernel versions, different networking implementations, different yada yada? The point here is not to turn Windows into Linux, complete with competing packages and kernels, but to build a Windows that you can add other software to, and have it work as well and reliably as Microsoft's own.
Yes, the only way to do this is with open APIs. But please recognize the distinction between things like Office and Internet Explorer (even Windows Explorer, for that matter), what should be standalone applications - and are standalone on normal platforms. We're not talking about TCP/IP implementation or the windowing system - those are rightly within the OS realm.
Productivity apps are not. That includes media players and everything else that doesn't usually interact directly with the hardware. Remember what "OS" stands for? It's an underlying platform that supports other apps - MS is trying to claim that what are independent apps on other platforms can't be separated from Windows. They sure as hell can make Office and WMP and Internet Explorer for Mac OS, but not for Windows? I don't think so.
And I don't understand why the states haven't brought Apple into the courtroom. They're a consumer OS maker, they make all the same functional apps as Microsoft, and they don't claim OS X won't run without the QuickTime player. Who else could show as well that IE and WMP can stand alone, but the company that MS makes standalone versions for?
I believe that is exactly what the state's are suggesting.
On the one hand it does create an interestingly compelling argument. Gateway could differentiate their Windows PCs such that they looked more like a Macintosh than current Windows. In that sense it may provide for considerable innovation. It would certain allow PC makers to promote themselves out of the commodity market and into boutique computing.
The downside is that within a rather short time period, the various OEMs would have differentiated themselves to the point that software that installs on a Dell won't on a Gateway(as an example). It'll be like we were back in the 1980's again(anybody remember TI's aborted attempt to create a DOS compatible computer? It required DOS software compiled for the TI and never really sold well as a result.)
I guess the question is, do the positives outweigh the negatives? I suppose we could say it should be up to the customer to decide.
But what if the consumers reject this new model and instead choose compatibility over differentiation? Will the skeptics be happy, or will they believe it was manipulation on Microsoft's part and come back in to readjust the rules?
That's the question I want answered.
Don't I remember hearing about how Microsoft wanted to become the world's biggest ASP(Application Service Provider) i.e. modular Windows provider? That is, they wanted to and I believe still want to sell use of ALL Windows components on a per use basis.
They gave examples of people who only need to use Word a few times a year. In fact I thought all of their latest licensing schemes were supposed to help "ease" the transition of companies to the per use ASP model. Windows XP has support for this to some extent already. It's just not being used/persued due to the licensing backlash; hence, the "Windows is not modular" argument.
Isn't this the definition of modularity? Use the software for a little bit, then it gets uninstalled again. Need to use it again, the new improved version will automatically be downloaded. Kind of like a browser plugin that uninstalls itself.
I'm surprised the lawyers haven't used this argument already.
Flip through a computer science text book on operating systems some time, and see if it says anything about Media Players, Internet Browsers, Solitaire Games, etc
Just because you read it in a textbook, doesn't mean it's right.
By the Computer Science definition, the BIOS on your computer is an OS.
Is it enough to do all the things you want to with a computer? No? Then if an OS isn't sufficient, what do you actually need?
A bigger OS? But an OS is only supposed to support the HARDWARE!
Maybe if you extended the definition of an OS the other way, you might get somewhere:
An Operating System is a piece of software which provides applications with guaranteed interfaces to the hardware of the system and provides applications with support functionality.
Surely this makes a lot more sense?
Stop using the 60's definition of an OS. It is no longer relevant.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra