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]"

Comments

Windows XP Embedded modularity claim on MS site

[Seth Finkelstein]

Take a look at the Product Overview for Windows XP Embedded
(emphasis added)

Windows XP Embedded is the componentized version of the leading desktop operating system, enabling rapid development of the most reliable and full-featured connected devices. Based on the same binaries as Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Embedded enables embedded developers to individually select only the rich features they need for customized, reduced-footprint embedded devices.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Re:Windows XP Embedded modularity claim on MS site

[binaryDigit]

I would respectfully disagree, well sort of. I don't think it's necessary for these judges to be guru level c++/os/compiler guys to make a reasonably informed judgement. I would agree that to excel in either law or tech, you have to spend enough time in either discipline, which basically rules out being an expert in the other.

I can easily see however, judges that are well versed in the ways of tech. Hell, if you can have lawyers with so many specialties, why not judges (now don't take that statement to the extreme, I don't think that _everything_ needs specialized judges, though I think that there are definitely areas where a more in depth knowledge is critical to making imformed opinions/judgements).

Of course for M$, I see 8 individuals in black robes and hoods, with BillG on the rack, and (for some odd reason), Mel Brooks in a red robe and hood trying to get him to confess his herecy.

Re:I don't get ...

[jon_eaves]

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

Re:Maybe not in MS' pocket?

[subsolar2]

This does bring up a bad side effect, though: If microsoft modularizes windows, what's to keep them from charging $20 a pop for each of the additional modules?

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 ... so what would the OEM's install do you think??

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.

Re:Finally

[EnderWiggnz]

... x windows, terminal, commercial terminal emulator, citrix ica client, rdp and netscape 4.78.

24 megs.

you were saying?

This could be really useful

[PurpleFloyd]

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!

Re:have i got this right?

[sheldon]

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.