States Drop Planned Presentation of Modular Windows

sketchkid writes "CNBC just reported that the nine states have dropped their planned presentation of a version of Windows XP without certain "middleware". Apparently, Microsoft said the news of this presentation blindsided them and that they would need "an indefinite period of time to prepare its response", but the states don't want to prolong the case any more."

Comments

Huh?!?

[ablair]

Isn't demonstrating a modular Windows key to the States' case showing it can be done? Maybe they had problems with their version and didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot...

Re:Huh?!?

[ackthpt]

didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot...

While the states have had a misstep or two, I see the wisdom in not prolonging the trial. Time is currently on Microsoft's side and the testimony and intent to demonstrate modular Windows, was probably sufficient. Actually going ahead with the demo c^Hwould give Microsoft a leg up in appeal of any unfavorable ruling.

Re:Huh?!?

[snarfer]

They already made their point to the judge. Microsoft said it can't be done. Now the judge knows that it can be done. That's all that the states were trying to get across.

Re:Huh?!?

[Sc00ter]

But that's the thing, since it was never admitted as evidence it can't be considered by the judge..

Re:Huh?!?

[An Onerous Coward]

Unless Microsoft is being completely dishonest, then they seem to have every confidence that the States can make a compelling presentation. As it is, we know that they're being at least partially dishonest. After all, to be "blindsided" by the fact that their own software was modular enough to remove key componenets?

Okay, maybe I'm being too harsh there. After all, the trial is winding up, and the XP Embedded presentation would amount to new evidence, which a defendant should be given time to prepare against. But you'd think that any competent lawyers would have prepared for this possibility, unless the M$ tech people have been exaggerating the merits of the case to the lawyers. It still seems like a stalling tactic.

It's time to surround the Redmond campus, and shout and wave signs! We will not rest until The Beast is overthrown! But we may take some time off for Star Wars II...

Re:Huh?!?

[telstar]

Actually the Judge probably has even more doubts now than she had prior to their retraction. The states say the can do something, and then say they're not going to? Believe me ... if it was a rock-solid demo, they'd wait as long as they needed to perform the demo. It's comparable to the OJ glove though... if it worked, it'd be golden ... if it failed ... it seals their fate.

Re:Huh?!?

[Zeinfeld]

They already made their point to the judge. Microsoft said it can't be done. Now the judge knows that it can be done. That's all that the states were trying to get across.

No, the judge does not know that it can be done, she knows that the states claimed that it could be done but backed out when Microsoft asked for time to investigate the 'demonstration' and prepare for a rebuttal.

The issue is not over whether Windows XP can be made to run with specific pieces added or subtracted, the issue is whether such an O/S could be sold to end consumers and would not cause confusion, loss of interoperability etc.

Windows Embedded is not a replacement for Windows XP, it does not provide features that consumers are likely to expect in an O/S like the ability to instal any program. You can run Word on windows embedded but you have to decide at the time you cut the O/S whether it is included or not

The critical test for an alleged stripped down version of windows is whether you can still use it to run commercial software. Can you take the CD of tombraider and install it on the machine? Can you run Lotus Notes on the machine etc?

In the end the court case is entirely irrelevant as Microsoft could "comply" with any modularization order from the judge by issuing a new version of Windows, calling it Windows FL (For Lusers) and putting a sticker on the box stating '9 Dissenting States Compliant Software, don't complain to us if the software you want to run requires a module we were not allowed to include'. I can guarantee that there would be no hardware manufaturer who would want to buy it.

Re:Huh?!?

[tenman]

Not true. The effort can and will be presented as evidence. This combined with expert drivel, and Microsoft's "indefinite period" response thing, CAN be taken into consideration. The judge is allowed to contrive facts from the proceedings themselves. Will he? I don't know, but it is possible, and the states have a really strong case. Especially in light of the fact that several on their witness list are now inadmissible

Re:Huh?!?

[tenman]

First off, you assume that there is software that runs great under windows as it is today....

Next, while you can say that lotus notes seems to run 'correctly', I would need you to define 'correctly'.

One, I would want to show you a list of features that we would like to implement into our tool, but can't because Microsoft doesn't us to over run their files (something that other OS's allow today).

Two, I would ask that you to run Joe Sixpack's hacked up version of the tomb raider engine, and have it satisfy your own 'correctly' term (something that users of other OS's can do today).

Finally, not only do I need to be able as a developer to change the machines environment, but also I would like you to prove to me that Microsoft doesn't take ownership of file types that I have other programs to deal with.

You make a strong point, but it's a little off the track. Microsoft is bullying other software Manufactures out of the market place with a big stick and a pace that is frightening. By not allowing competition for the desktop they are doing three things. They are driving me out of business, they are deciding for the customer what programs they can run, and they are engaging in antitrust activates

Re:Huh?!?

[SerpentMage]

Ah no I think you have that wrong there. They retracted because MS said they would need an indefinite time to consider the new facts. Even with a rock solid demo MS has the right to consider the facts. This means they can protract this as much as they want to and that is not a good thing.

Dirty Tactics

[svwolfpack]

That's not a bad strategy... announce that it will take forever to prepare a rebuttal, knowing the states want this trial over with NOW. Although its curious that the states obviously dont think this testimony will be strong enough for the end result to be worth it. Bottom line: It's dirty tactic, but legal, and afterall, it's Microsoft.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[banky]

This has been MS's strategy from the start. Winning isn't about the judgement, it's about the penalty. WIth $40B in the bank, just delay until no one wants to fight anymore. Like that article said, they could BUY the states outright.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[bleckywelcky]

I was baffeled when I read this. There are time restrictions on these sorts of things. If you are involved in a civil lawsuit with another person, and they present some document evidence that you hadn't seen before, you can't say "Woa! This is gonna take me a year or two to review and come up with a rebuttle for.". You can't hold up the courts and your opponent indefintely with your problems. The judge should recognize that MS has known about the modular Windows project for as long as it has existed, realize that MS has the resources to analyze the project fairly quickly and effectively (they wrote the code originally), and give MS a limited amount of time (I would say no more than a month) to prepare a rebuttle.

This seems like a very irrational action on the state's part, to the point that I would begin to suspect dirty tricks on someone's part (most likely MS). They have been in this legal action for such a long time already, what's a few more weeks up to a month? Unless the judge would allow the "indefinite" amount of time MS claims it needs, which would be complete BS IMO.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[sheldon]

I want to know why the state's didn't submit this as evidence right from the beginning. Or why they didn't call this person as a witness during their phase of the trial.

Why would they wait until the last minute?

I don't think there was any dirty tricks. From what I've seen the States lawyers have just not been very well prepared because they keep forgetting things and wanting to bring them up later.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[TheGratefulNet]

note that infinite and indefinite are not the same things.

indefinite means that they just don't know how long it will take to prepare.

still, that's a lame-assed excuse. standard stall-tactics. sigh.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[tenman]

As you already know, this is not a civil case, as there is more at stake here, then the demise of a corparation.

This trial will set presidence for future cases, and it is best to allow time for arguments. This allows for a better base case.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[Alan]

Yup... notice the extreme measures they took when they were found guilty of being a monopoly... oh yea, nothing, they released windows XP right after. If the trail, judgement, etc takes another year, that'll be fine with them, because it means they get another year or two with the appeal, or whatever they do next. The longer they have things tied up in the courts, the longer they can continue to do whatever they want, and be more and more entrenched.

Noticed that the last while has produced a lot of MS programs that seem to just scream out that they are a monopoly? Hardware activation, .net, all that is almost throwing it in the face of the court that "we'll keep on doing what we've been found guilty of!"

Re:Dirty Tactics

[cookd]

It's more than the truth. It is standard practice. The states pay their lawyers to come up with attacks on Microsoft. Then Microsoft pays their lawyers to come up with a defense.

(And as it seems to be here on SlashDot, anything the states say to attack Microsoft is a good move, and anything Microsoft does to defend itself is a dirty trick...)

Re:Dirty Tactics

[Tony-A]

To the extent that this is being played to the media, the states have made their point, maybe even better than with an in-court demonstration. The demonstration you didn't get to see. It can't do anything to improve Microsoft's reputation.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[cookd]

Very good point. I knew I was missing something. :)

Re:Dirty Tactics

[flatrock]

These hearings aren't supposed to be a new trial. The govenment isn't supposed to be submitting new evidence. The judge chose to allow them to demonstrate this to rebut Microsoft's claims. However, Microsoft does have a right to examine what the government is doing and rebutt it. However that does take some time. Microsoft can ask for as much time as they want, but the judge can limit that time. Judge Jackson limited the amount of time Microsoft had to prepare for many things.

Why are the states presenting this at the 11th hour? Why are they now backing down? If they can really strip pices out of Windows and have a working consumer grade OS using Embedded XP then that pretty important to show. They can get the judge to limit how long MS has to respond. It sound more like their demo isn't as strong as they thought, so there's no benefit to draggin out the trial.

Re:Dirty Tactics

[kawika]

I agree, dirty tactics--on the part of the states. The Register actually posted some of the record from the trial. The states sprung this on both MS and the judge despite their expert working on it for at least two months. They delivered 67 CD-ROMS and 10 different builds of XP Embedded to MS as part of discovery. Don't you think it will take a few months to go through all that?

Read the record, you'll see the judge is rightly more pissed with the states than MS about this point.

So Microsoft "Wins" this little battle?

[markwelch]

It sounds like Microsoft wins this round -- perhaps rightly so, if this really was a last-minute bit of evidence. (Recall that one of Microsoft's demos was proven fraudulent after some time to study it, and of course Microsoft would assume that anyone else might do the same thing, so they'd need time to uncover the tricks.)

I dunno if it matters much -- there really isn't any big argument about whether some stuff could be separated from Windows, only whether it "should" be separated. In some ways, the states may gain a benefit since the judge knows there is a demo out there showing it works (sure, she's supposed to disregard evidence that wasn't formally submitted, but how can you really ignore an offer of evidence that goes to the very core of the case?)

Re:So Microsoft "Wins" this little battle?

[snarfer]

It sounds like Microsoft wins this round

Not hardly. Microsot was lying, telling the judge that it is not possible to have WEindows without Media Player and other "middleware". This is about how long it would take Microsoft to come up with a response to the states demonstration that it CAN be done.

The point is made on the judge that it can be done, that Microsoft was lying.

Of course, what it will come down to is whether this judge is a member of the Federalist Society. It won't be about the law.

Re:So Microsoft "Wins" this little battle?

[snarfer]

Federalist Society Members include fine scholars such as Judge Bork who opposes Microsoft and has done so very effectively.


Bork is getting PAID by Microsoft. The Federalist Society approves.

Hilarious

[tapin]

This is actually great news, and I'd be surprised if it's not what they were expecting to do all along (of course, they'd never admit to it).

Think of it from the States' point of view: "Yeah, we've got a version of the OS running modularly, but you didn't want us to show it. So no, you can't see how we did it. But you'd better get cracking."

In addition, they don't actually have to demonstrate its stability and all that -- it's just taken at face value that it's stable enough, since that's how it was presented when it was introduced.

This is great. Looks like a win-win scenario for the States.

Re:Hilarious

[Sc00ter]

How? If it's a jury trial the jury would never know about the modular version, and they wouldn't be allowed to say "we have it, but MS won't let us show it" because they will.. after MS gets to examine it, and it's within their rights to request it.

If it's not a jury trial, then the judge(s) can't take it into consideration when they make their decision because it was never introduced as evidence.

Re:Hilarious

[cscx]

Yeah, of course. They'll take for granted that the states were going to prove that "Windows XP Embedded: The modular version of Windows" is modular.

Also on the list of things the states were going to prove is that the milk in my Cheerios is milk and not Elmer's glue, and that my Windows XP Workstation is really running XP, not PalmOS.

Re:Hilarious

[snarfer]

It isn't a jury trial. It isn't even a trial. It's a hearing to determine the penalty for Microsoft now that they have been found guilty.

They are trying to determine whether ordering Microsoft to make available a version of Windows without "middleware' such as Media Player is feasible. If they have to release a modular version computer manufacturers can CHOOSE to include Real Player instead of Media Player, for example, and companies can compete for the business.

Re:Hilarious

[Prior Restraint]

It's a hearing to determine the penalty for Microsoft now that they have been found guilty.

Actually, it isn't a penalty; it's a remedy. The judge isn't supposed to punish Microsoft for breaking anti-trust law; she's supposed to impose a remedy that will "undo" the damage that has been done.

Re:Hilarious

[mccalli]

So no, you can't see how we did it. But you'd better get cracking."

Err...if the court doesn't see it, it's inadmissable as evidence.

Cheers,

Ian

Re:Hilarious

[Prior Restraint]

Currently, there are four replies to my comment. The substance of my response to each is essentially the same, so I'm just going to post it here once. Oh, and IANAL.

Yes: typically, when you break a law, you get punished. Anti-trust law, though, is different. As many Libertarians will tell you, it isn't "fair" to punish a company just because it was successful enough to achieve market dominance. That, after all, is the goal of any lawful business. This is why the simple fact of having a monopoly isn't a crime. Once you reach such a position of dominance, though, it becomes incredibly easy for you avoid competition on the merits, instead using your position of dominance to keep superior products off the market. This is the situation that anti-trust laws are designed to address. Thus, the goal of any anti-trust remedy is not to punish a company that has a monopoly, but instead to force it to start competing on the merits again.

So, GnomeKing, your analogy is an apt one. I don't understand why the courts do this in matters of anti-trust law, but they do.

And mmynsted: Microsoft probably does see this as just the cost of doing business. Sucks, but it can't be helped.

How can they be blindsided?

[Weasel Boy]

MS Marketing and sales personnel probably make presentations on XP Embedded every week. Surely MS can just fly a couple of their marketing people to help fill in the gaps where the demo falls short.

Re:How can they be blindsided?

[sharkey]

Surely MS can just fly a couple of their marketing people to help fill in the gaps where the demo falls short.

Or just put together a demo video, and splice extra footage into the gaps where the demo falls short.

Re:How can they be blindsided?

[Decimal]

Blindsided as in "What? We thought you were on OUR side, Judge! We were supposed to be able to weasel our way out of this one, too!"

So naturally, they have yet to prepare a defense. :p

Not that surprising....

[Kenja]

Not that surprising really. Having used Embedded NT in the past I was more then a little confused as to what they where going to demonstrate. Sure, embedded windows is modular during the rollout phase. However once installed it cant be changed. In other words you cant install Word onto it once its up and running. In this respect it is not a good example of what the DOJ is after MS to produce, a modular end user OS.

Re:Not that surprising....

[rhizome]

Why do people keep getting stuck on shortsighted speculation on what the demo would actually comprise? The point is not that "Embedded NT" should become the retail version of Windows, the point is that the modularity is possible. Microsoft has gone to great lengths to stipulate that it is infinitely impossible to cut the interdependencies in Windows (9x, 2k, XP), which is apparently not the case since they've already gone ahead and constructed an industrial version of this very idea. Perhaps the states realize that it wouldn't be as pretty as they'd like it to be, but it's certainly conceivable that the ability to install software - to take one missing feature - could be added to the existing modular codebase. And yes, applications might require rewrites, but it's nobody's contention that the changeover would be happening tomorrow.

Re:Not that surprising....

[tshak]

The point is MS designed Windows for Consumers and has integrated certain functionality that is critical to features that Consumers (arguably) want. Whethor or not it's technically possible to make a "Modular Windows Based OS" is irrelvant (and trivial). The point is, the States have not proven that they can make a marketable version of Windows that will, A) has the full functionality of Windows (MS-HELP uses ActiveX and IE specficic DHTML), and B) that is reasonably cost effecitve to support.

There are millions of things that are technically feasable. The point is whethor or not it's possible to remove IE but not remove critical functionality (like MS-HELP, Active Desktop, Explorer, and the hundreds of third party applications that rely on it). "Win98Lite" doesn't even remove the core browsing engine. _IT'S STILL THERE!_.

Now, what MS _can_ do is allow OEM's to remove the IE icon from the desktop and replace it with, say, Opera.

Re:Not that surprising....

[topham]

The biggest step backwardsd microsoft took with the help files was converting over the IE. It's improved since, but initially they lost significant functionality.

By the wy, the markup language used by the help engine BEFORE switching to IE was actually very similar to HTML, retaining the old engine, updating the help compiler without losing functionality could have been down with minimal effort.

Re:Not that surprising....

[Moofie]

It's not the States' responsibility to design a version of Windows that is "marketable". It is the States' responsibility to ensure that Microsoft is no longer able to break the law using their OS monopoly.

Re:Not that surprising....

[rhizome]

The capability to deal with this already exists in Windows since Windows 95. If you've used the OS and ever uninstalled some random program, you might have come across a dialog box saying that the registry doesn't have a record of any other installed apps using a particular library, and whether you'd like to delete it. Sure they can have shared libraries for Microsoft components, but if they're not being used, then they can be zapped. This could foster more innovation if, say, someone took it upon themselves to design a better helpfile rendering engine. Simplistically, this is tantamount to replacing 'more' with 'less' in UNIXland.

I mean really, Microsoft has a huge R&D department (and budget), certainly they can come up with a good shared library management scheme that includes the ability to remove Microsoft's own libraries if the user wants to. And another thing, why can't Netscape take IE's place in HTML help? Do you know something we don't, or are you telling us that the sky may fall?

Re:Not that surprising....

[tshak]

And another thing, why can't Netscape take IE's place in HTML help?

For the same reason why I don't test my Intranet applications on Netscape. Because it's a controlled environment. Within a controlled environment it is perfectly legitimate (and it arguably behooves us) to use a single component for the sake of A) Quality control B) Less software testing, and C) Exploit proprietary features of said component.

I love being able to know how my Intranet's interface will render to a T. I can't do this if our users are allowed to use Mozilla.

Re:Not that surprising....

[flatrock]

They used a cludgy help interface that differed from application to application. The idea of integrating the same functionality throughout the operatin environment is what has made windows an exelent CONSUMER OS. Over the years they have done a better job of making the different parts of the OS seamless. This is good product design. If you strip out that functionality and let other vendors try and stick their version in you end up with a mess. You end up with dozens of versions of Windows that all work differently. You also end up with OSs that are much harder to support. Consumers don't want this. It's a horrible thing to do to consumers.

If you think that a functional OS can't be built without the level of integration Microsoft has used, you need to go back to CS 301.

There are plenty of functional OSs that are difficult to use and support. Who is making a modular OS going to really help? I can't believe that there are this many open source advocates that are so blinded by hate for Microsoft that they want the government determining how software is designed. Microsoft has done some nasty things, but they have also made their OS very easy for consumers to use. They have done that through integrating the parts together so well. There has got to be a better solution than to try and force Microsoft to undo that integration.

Re:Not that surprising....

[flatrock]

Actually it's the States' job to look after the interests of consumers. There are many ways they can attempt to enforce the antitrust laws. How is forcing Micorsoft to create a modular version of Windows which the States' don't even know is practical in consumers best interests? Consumers like Windows because its well integrated. That's been one of the main attractions of Windows since it was created many years ago. Tight integration is what consumers want. Why do you think AOL is so popular with the masses? The govenment shouldn't be telling software companies how to design software. Microsoft should be able to integrate whatever middleware they want into windows. That will definately mean that competitors get run out of business. But as long as integrating that middleware into windows make Windows a more desireable product to consumers they should be able to do it.

This definately brushes up agains what may or may not be legal under antitrust law. If it's against antitrust law, then the law needs to be changed. This issue goes beyond Microsoft. The govenment shouldn't be preventing the creation of product that better meet customers needs just because it harms competitors. Competition is good, but preventing good product development to help competition is not progress.

Re:Not that surprising....

[flatrock]

It's not just seperating IE. It's sepearting many, many features. Pulling those products appart, and supporting a version that can have those items seperated is going to be a huge effort. Support is going to be a nightmare. The support costs for that type of product are an order of magnitude higher. Who's going to pay for this? In the end, the "modular" version is going to cost more to develope and support than the combined version. Who's going to pay for the development and support costs? You're asking Microsoft to develop a product that makes no business sense because some customres and some OEMs may perfer it. The problem is that your creating a product that costs more, and delivers less value so that competitors can compete. It just isn't practical.

preparation...

[ackthpt]

an indefinite period of time to prepare its response

In the Microsoft Dictionary we find: Prepare (v) Rig.

Load of Crap.

[Picass0]

The states had MS nailed on the modularity issue. They should push on. I smell some campaign funds being spread around.

It's MS's product. How long can it take for MS to study an MS product and work up a defense?

This isn't even as fun as the Wookie defense.

Re:Load of Crap.

[kawika]

Please don't let me disturb your conspriracy theory, but perhaps Microsoft really did need some time to build a defense to the last-minute introduction of the XP Embedded demo.

For example, let's say the states introduced into evidence an XP Embedded build that included no browser components, just a TCP/IP stack. No HTML rendering engine, no Internet cache, no Internet HTTP/FTP protocol support, no URL parsing routines, no system JavaScript. All of these are part of the existing documented Windows OS APIs, but browsers like Netscape don't use them because they invent their own wheels for portability's sake. So you should be able to show this particular build of XP Embedded running Netscape and having no part of Windows Internet technologies installed.

If the states try this, I would expect Microsoft to show that a lot of third-party software will not work properly with so much of the Windows API ripped out. That would include Quicken and my own script-based software, just to mention a couple dear to my heart.

Anyway, my point is that Microsoft probably does need some time to respond, and the time will depend on what the states plan to present. The word indefinite can mean "unlimited" but can also mean "not clear". Perhaps the time they need isn't clear until they have a chance to see what the states are planning.

Re:Load of Crap.

[Bitsy Boffin]

If the states try this, I would expect Microsoft to show that a lot of third-party software will not work properly with so much of the Windows API ripped out. That would include Quicken and my own script-based software, just to mention a couple dear to my heart.

Ok, so if they remove "stuff" then other "stuff" like yoiur script-based software doesn't work. Big whoop - all that means is that in the documentation for your software, in the requirements section, you add "Internet Explorer 6" and bingo the users download IE 6, the IE "stuff" gets put into windows - as a choice, not forced upon them - and they happily run your software.

Or, your installer checks the system for the components required by the software being installed, if they don't exist it says "This software requires , would you like to install this component now or abort the installation?"

Re:Load of Crap.

[liquidsin]

...the existing documented Windows OS APIs...
I didn't think such things existed...

Re:Load of Crap.

[isorox]

and bingo the users download IE 6

OK, lets say that windows can be sold without all the gunk that it comes with, without breaking netscape.

So What?

Microsoft then sell "Cutdown Windows" for $99.50, and "full windows" for $99.99, with a free upgrade from the "cut down" version for download?

I'm not sure what forcing windows to be modularisable would do to benefit the consumer?

And why dont they do microsoft for bundling msn messanger with XP - easilly removable with a regedit hack.

Re:Load of Crap.

[Bitsy Boffin]

It means the user gets a choice. In web browser, in email client, in multimedia player in wether they *want* all that stuff at all.

With the current situation Internet Explorer for example is forced upon the user - not even the OEM's get a choice about it, sure they can put Moz on the pc but they can't get rid of IE.

Competitors don't even get a look in with that, how can they - IE comes "in the box" it does what the general public want, why would they change - but if hey are given a choice, "do you want IE, Mozilla, Opera.... or No Web Browser" then the competitors actually get a chance.

It's not about breaking windows, it's about making the components of windows seperate products in order to allow other companies to offer thier version of a web browser, or email client etc.. without having to get over that hurdle of "it comes with one, why should I go to the trouble to change?".

For people to actively remove something and replace it with a competing product requires that the competing product be immensely better than the one they remove - even then most people won't bother. But if they are given a choice to begin with ... "you can have this one... it does x and y, or this one... it does x, y and z" users will make the informed decision because it doesn't require extra effort.

Nobody is saying that people SHOULD choose the competing products, it may be the case that the M/Soft products are better than the competitors. But people should be ABLE to choose the competing products if they desire it.

And they *are* doing them for bundling MSN Messenger - it's not about one product, it's about the microsoft policy of "bundle it in - thereby shutting out the competitors, in any market we can".

Maneuvering

[4of12]

Hard to say whether this was good or bad for either side. I think the states really don't want to drag things out anymore, inasmuch as one of the major planks of any remedy is expeditious application to make up for literally years of unrestrained behavior by Microsoft.

Lately, though, it seems that the states' legal team screwed up in some filings and when MS pulled witnesses at the last minute, they lost windows of opportunity to present evidence that the proposed DoJ remedy is woefully weak.

Still, I would not be at all surprised to see a ruling that the states have a valid claim, followed by the DoJ and MS agreeing to another round of talks to bring the settlement closer to what the non-settling states want. Anything else would result in chaos, given that MS has to conduct business in settling states and non-settling states simultaneously.

Maybe It Doesn't Matter

[krmt]

Perhaps the states know that whether or not they can show it can be done is more of a moot point. The point of the penalty phase is to enforce the penalty, and if the penalty is to modularize Windows then they have to pay that penalty despite the cost. Whether or not they've alredy done it with XP Embedded doesn't really matter as much.

Granted, I think showing off XP Embedded would have been a good thing (from what little I admittedly know about it) but perhaps they've got enough already. We all can acknowledge that speed is of the essence.

Re:Maybe It Doesn't Matter

[krmt]

Good for the state's case is what I meant. As someone posted elsewhere before, the point wouldn't be to say "Look, just replace Windows XP with Embedded XP" but to prove that it could be done. This is potentially very useful in simply showing the feasibility of the idea.

And yes, it would show that important functionality is dependant on the browser as well, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to remove it and replace it. That's what it's really about. Not ripping out the browser all together, but having the ability to replace it if you want (nut just running something like Mozilla instead), thereby allowing for competition.

98lite and IEradicator

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the States at least mention
www.98lite.net

and its

http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html

Been how many years since that company proved explorer could be taken out of 98.

Microsoft on Slashdot

[LordSah]

Is anyone else tired of seeing tiny scraps of news about MS on Slashdot everyday? There's two articles about MS today, one yesterday. Thinking back, it seems that there have been one or two stories posted about Microsoft everyday lately.

I like Slashdot for stories about tech, science and geek curios. Could the editors leave reporting every detail of the trial to CNN, and focus on more interesting stuff? Please?

Re:Microsoft on Slashdot

[daeley]

Not me. I like 'em. :)

If you're not into it anymore, why not go to your preferences and turn off stories from the Microsoft topic?

Re:Microsoft on Slashdot

[Salsaman]

For some strange reason, I can't seem to find this story on CNN. Perhaps you would be good enough to provide me with a link so I can find the story ?

Re:Microsoft on Slashdot

[SIGFPE]

Too right! It's like MS have a monopoly or something...

Re:Microsoft on Slashdot

[lkaos]

Goto your user page -> Home Page and then check the Microsoft checkbox under Exclude Stories from Homepage and you'll never see another Microsoft story again.

Gee, it's almost like you should check things out before bitching, nah, nevermind, that makes to much sense.

They speak the truth (not a troll)

[Zen Mastuh]

It really would take an indefinite time period to un-fuck windows. Anybody who has done coding for an O/S or a large application knows the difficulties inherent in un-fucking any kludgey pile of spaghetti code.

More problems would be introduced in the process, rendering the final product very unstable. This is exactly what Microsoft wants to demonstrate--that the O/S can not function with IE removed.

A cautionary tale

[Chris Canfield]

"By Jove Sherlock, I've found the bloody knife with Moriarty's fingerprints all over it!"

"That's astounding, Watson! I want to see this evidence. Moriarty, how do you feel about this?"

"The law allows me time to consider this evidence, and I will need an infinite amount of it."

"Well, we don't have an infinite amount of time, therefore we do not have enough time to consider the knife. Too bad, I really wanted to see it."

"Case dismissed."

Re:A cautionary tale

[tshak]

Anyone who thinks the case or even this isolated issue is this cut-and-dry is ignoring intelect and thriving on zealotry.

Re:A cautionary tale

[Chris Canfield]

Unsatisfied intellect begets zealotry when years beget nothing. Microsoft's proven abuse patterns and their enviable ability to outspend the consumer protection arm of the government has begotten a bit of lighthearted humor.

Perhaps the dear reader of the twice-above post will realize that neither moral justice nor the public's economic interest is best served when justice hinges upon the ability to pay. Or perhaps they will just walk away having recieved the message that "Microsoft is evil." I have no moral qualms about putting that message into people's heads, as Microsoft's behavior record should be what people use in deciding the value to society of a corporation. If and when they finally prove me wrong, I promise to recant. However, with the actions WRT Opera, Dr. Dos, Samba, security through obscurity, planned obselescence and obfuscation of the Word file format, and the proposed school computer settlement, I might as well promise to move to Tibet upon a semblance of a genuine corporate philanthropy.

Re:A cautionary tale

[tshak]

Your link to cnet is largly based on subjective material. Although I agree with some of said material (and some if it just pisses me off!), my stance is not disproven. This is not as cut-and-dry as your analogy implies. You and I may have our opinions about some of the evidence, but the issue is extremely complex and deserves the scrutiny that many on /. are not willing to give it.

Possiblity of modularity already established

[Titusdot Groan]

The actual demo is really unnecessary to the states case. Simply by asking to show the demo they have "proven" that States claim that a modularized windows is possible, indeed it is possible by somebody other than Microsoft. Microsoft used a cheezy legal trick to prevent the demo, indicating they had no effective rebuttal to this claim.

I really, really, really hope this is a good judge. There is plenty of good signs, she allowed this demo, but she's been *really* careful to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and every turn. Microsoft has been convicted and that conviction has been upheld on appeal, so she has only to set a fair and reasonable sentence.

The real concern I have is that she's been so good there is not going to be much room for an appeal either way ...

I was skeptical.

[oGMo]

I had this hope, you know, that the people here who said "the states are just holding out for money" were wrong; that the states actually cared. I saw this demo and thought "yes, this may be the final straw." Clearly I was naive and overly optimistic.

I'd like to know what a lawyer has to say about whether Microsoft would indeed be given "indefinite time" for its response or would rather the Judge would tell them they're screwed. The fact the states gave up their most damning presentation just because Microsoft basically said they had no defense is to me unforgivable. Is there no hope? Do people not care anymore?

MS doesn't "win this round"

[pyrrho]

Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove. In reality reducing it to a demo of someones hack to put XP embedded on a PC only risks making it look bad. In reality, I think it's better this way.

Remember: Everything Bill Gates et al said on the stand would lead the judge to think it can be done... and if she thinks that a demo cannot do anything more...

I was happy to see the judge allow the demo in the first place, but not so much so she would see it, but because it shows she's open to evidence that Microsoft is culpable and not particularly honest in what it claims to the court.

Re:MS doesn't "win this round"

[tshak]

Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove.

Please mod parent up. This is an extremely important point - especially to those conspiracy theorists that are claiming that MS has bought the DOJ hence why the demo is not important. Wrong. The demo is irrelevant.

Re:MS doesn't "win this round"

[sheldon]

Gates never claimed that it could not be done. Madnick(the Prof from MIT) never said it could not be done.

Their argument the entire time was that it was infeasible to be done. Basically the argument was that it would substantially increase the cost of the OS because of the amount of additional testing that would need to be performed. Not just to Microsoft, but also to the OEMs, or otherwise the problems of stuff not working would be pushed down onto Consumers, which would not make anybody happy.

Now the question the states have to answer is whether or not this extra cost is justified. i.e. does the benefits offered to increased competition outweigh the costs pushed onto MS, OEMs and consumers as a result of this.

It's not exactly clear to me how you can be dishonest about that since it is a value judgement, loosely based on opinion. But if you disagree, which I'm sure you do, I would highly encourage you to provide some quotations from the trial transcript which substantiates your claim that Microsoft was not honest in court.

Re:MS doesn't "win this round"

[sheldon]

"I think we are already in that situation. That is where the problem has been pushed down to already."

No, this is the problem that Microsoft has been trying to address since Win2k/Me and has achieved a fairly good result with XP.

"I hold that Windows is ALREADY modular, and they already cannot test all possible configurations of Windows+Applications. "

This is a fallacious argument.

Because you cannot achieve 100% test coverage today, does not mean it is an acceptable risk to increase the complexity of your test cases by introducing further variation. You obviously know nothing about testing and risk management.

Re:MS doesn't "win this round"

[hysterion]

Madnick(the Prof from MIT) never said it could not be done.
Their argument the entire time was that it was infeasible to be done.

Aha.

"They didn't claim it's not doable , only that it's not feasible ."

Does this argument depend on preliminary agreement on the meaning of the word "not" (or something like that)?

Not surprising

[Keighvin]

Dragging this whole affair out has been to Microsoft's advantage since the beginning, and they're squeezing every possible drop from it. In the meantime they continue to work unregulated and haven't changed any of their business practices: the playing field of the browser war (which initially started this) has altered dramatically since. It's likely that unless new evidence of continued abuse can be brought to the attention of the courts, andy remedy handed down will be both out of date and inadequate.

I'll save you some breath

[cscx]

[/mnt/win_ntfs/program files/internet explorer]% more 98lite.bat

deltree /y "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe"

Of course it CAN be done. The point that everyone seems to be missing is that by removing IE's core components, you also tend to break a lot of applications. No one seems to freakin' mention that for 98lite to COMPLETELY remove IE from Windows 98, you need to provide the Windows 95 explorer.exe, comctrl32.dll, and shell32.dll files. Note that since you own a licensed copy of Win98 doesn't entitle you to a licensed copy of those Windows 95 files.

So yeah, from a _Windows 98_ machine, it's impossible to remove all of IE's "core components" (well whatever you consider them) and still have a functioning Win98 machine, without additional modifications. You will undoubtedly break some apps, or have future apps be broken that have shdocvw.dll or mshtml.dll (a LOT) as dependencies.

Do me a favor and remove glibc from Linux and tell me how that goes. Remember Linux is "modular"!

Re:I'll save you some breath

[jabster]

a good reply to this mught be:

which part of KDE does linux need to function properly?

why would an OS *NEED* a web browser to function?

-john

Re:I'll save you some breath

[Arker]

You don't break 'a lot' of applications. Very few have any problem with this, and the ones that do hardly 'break'. For instance, edonkey uses mshtml.dll to display an add banner, in it's absence, you just don't get the ad banners. Big whee.

My browser is registered with the system, any application that wants to bring it up can, easily. This is more than enough 'integration' for me, thanks.

Yes, unfortunately you do need a licensed copy of 95 to legally make later versions work they way I and many others want it to work - but for MS that is not a problem, being that they own the copyright they could make it available in any way they want. They could come out with XP light in a week if they wanted it, without the integration. That's the whole point, though, they want to shove this 'integration' down the throats of everyone that uses their OS, in order to control the internet. This is why they were convicted in the first place, and any 'remedy' that leaves them free to continue doing what they were convicted for is nothing more than a farce.

Re:I'll save you some breath

[sheldon]

Why would an OS *NEED* a shell to function?

Answer: it doesn't. You can completely remove bash, csh, ksh and all the other shells from your Linux install and the kernel will still boot up fine.

*You* as the user won't be able to do much, but hey that's not my problem. If you want to define the OS as being without a user interface then be my guest.

Re:I'll save you some breath

[TheAJofOZ]

Yeah, while we're at it, let's outlaw web browsers as file managers all together. We should pull them from MacOSX,

Mac OS X does *not* have an integrated browser at all. IE is just a normal application on OS X and can be uninstalled by dragging it to the trash. If you look around you'll see there's a huge amount of competition in the browser market. Mozilla, IE, Chimera, Opera, OmniWeb and a few others are all being used by significant numbers of people.

Re:I'll save you some breath

[Alsee]

Note that since you own a licensed copy of Win98 doesn't entitle you to a licensed copy of those Windows 95 files.

Microsoft is trying to argue that they are incapable of complying with a court order to create an EI-free version of Windows. Well, Microsoft certainly has the authority supply Win95 files. They just don't WANT to ship IE-free Windows.

-

Re:I'll save you some breath

[Alsee]

explorer is using IE core dlls

Exactly the way Microsoft designed it to.

so explorer would break functionally if you delete those files

Exactly the way Microsoft designed it to.

Once again we reach the point of "what exactly is IE free?" Which is why this case is destined never to end.

Sure, they can bog things down in excessive legal mudwrestling if the judge allows them to. How about this for a ruling (chuckle):

"You have the the best experts to design Windows to be modular and legal. YOU work out the details. Don't play games with loopholes.
You have legal experts to advise you on illegal business practices. YOU work out the details. Don't play games with loopholes.

Sentence: I am letting you off pretty much scott-free. Just one condition. Until further notice, you, Bill Gates will appear before me on a yearly basis. End of sentence.

If at that time I find a lack of good-faith compliance I will fine Microsoft one billion dollars, and you, Bill Gates will rot in jail for three months on contempt of court. Penalty will double for subsequent violations."

Ok.. ok... my imagination ran wild, but I bet it would work wonders :)
There must be some kind of legal mechanism that sort of says "you know what needs to be done, don't fsck with me".

-

Re:I'll save you some breath

[nhavar]

Okay so then can you tell me why everyone else started integrating browser components into everything? What are they trying to get around? Intuit uses browser compenents for it's Quicken stuff, some IDE's do, KDE has integrated Konqueror, etc. If MS's sole reason for integrating IE was to bypass restrictions then what's everyone elses excuse.

Note: Marc Andreessen stated prior to IE OS bundling that (and I paraphrase here) "We don't want to sell a shrink wrapped product. We want to bundle our software with other packages and preload it on the equipment." The part where MS got into trouble was that they owned the "other packages" and leveraged those to get the browser bundled. Otherwise bundling appears to be a valid option.

Re:I'll save you some breath

[FrostedWheat]

Do me a favor and remove glibc from Linux

Why yes, of course. Try uLibc. Very nice little package. And while I know you can't run every app using it, you can run most. But the point of my post is, you can remove gLibc if you want. You have that option. You have NO such option in Windows98.

Good tactic from states

[aralin]

Basicly they said, we have an expert who can do it, but we won't show him. Now they got in CKK's mind that its possible, but never gave M$ a chance to rebute it by withdrawing for pretty sane reasons. I think they scored big time with this trick. Especially since the blend of Embeded WinXP and WinXP , which is what it most likely is, would not work all that well and they can expect it.

You need to think a little bit more like lawyer to see how they can score points in the trial.

Re:Good tactic from states

[JFMulder]

The states have accomplished nothing in court today. This wasn't clever at all, and just plain stupid. If it isn't shown in court, then the judge has to dismiss the idea and not take it into account when making his/her judgement.

They scored no point at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge though less of the states lawyers now.

Re:MS bought them off

[morgajel]

no, it was actually gonna work to MS's favor- when the stripped down version hung, they'd have their infinite preparation time!
:)
(laugh, it's funny.)

Re:DAMNIT!

[Banjonardo]

There is a special spot in hell being warmed for these guys!

Oh, yeah, cause right between the adulterers and the murderers we have a spot for anti-trust violators.

Take it easy, slashdot. Breathe.

What's the point anyway?

[rseuhs]

1. Microsoft agrees not to bundle IE with Windows.

2. Microsoft bundles IE with Windows

3. Microsoft sais it would be difficult/impossible to unbundle it again.

I just don't get it.

I also can't build an extension of my house on the neighbours ground (= violate a contract) and later say "hey, hey, it will cost me too much to tear that extension down"

Can please somebody enlighten me why it is relevant how difficult a modular version of Windows can be done?

Why this strange double-standard?

Re:What's the point anyway?

[sheldon]

Microsoft has never agreed to unbundle IE with Windows.

Jackson tried to issue a court injunction forcing this, but it was overturned by the Appeals court.

Re:What's the point anyway?

[nhavar]

Uh no. You've got your information screwed up from what I can tell. In 1995 MS was under a consent decree that dissallowed them from forcing OEM's to license one piece of software to get another piece of software (i.e. having to license Office to get Windows or IE to get Windows). This decree was more concerned with DOS issues and protecting the makers of other OSes. The consent decree doesn't say anything specific about the removal and/or unbundling of IE.

After Win98 shipped MS attempted to retroactively state that Win95 installs needed to be shipped with IE because IE was "integrated" into the OS (this despite the fact that it wasn't until 98 that it was truly seen as "integrated"). The state saw it as dual licensing again while MS maintained that IE was an integral part of the "user experience" and that they weren't pushing two licenses but only pushing one and that was the OS license.

Bottom line...

[march]

Look, the bottom line is that of course it's modular and of course Microsoft has put connections to try to bind things together (in, many times, a really poor hack as I pointed out in a previous comment).

The legal tactic the Gov is using is smart (for a change). They are pulling a "Microsoft" - say they are going to do it, so now people know it can be done, and then not doing it because it wastes time.

Go Gov! (in this case :-) )

Ridiculus

[mr100percent]

If new evidence is going to be introduced, the Disclosure rule means that the defense (aka Microsoft) are entitled to see it beforehand, so they can make a defense.

Microsoft can't stall forever. The judge is supposed to set aside time for MS to regroup and plan, i'd guess about a month tops of recess until the case goes back into session. But that's what happens under normal circumstances, which begs the question:

WHY, oh WHY didn't they do that? It appears that the States didn't want to wait the extra time. So it moves forward to a verdict a month ahead of time. This sounds bad.

Re:Well well well

[ergo98]

If you are referring to the Active Server Pages engine (asp.dll), and IIS, both are optional components that do not have to be installed, and can be entirely removed (Add/Remove programs, Windows Components). Furthermore, you can then go nuts and install Apache if that is your desire.

To obfuscate not to defend...

[Arker]

They could only be planning an obfuscation, not a proper defense. The fact is, not for the first time, they lied shamelessly, they were called on it, and they don't want to admit it.

Re:Modular Windows == Fragmentation

[rseuhs]

"Don't tell me it's not a necessity, because it IS."

If it's necessary, why did Microsoft sign the consent degree NOT TO bundle IE in the first place?

No MS-apologist could answer that question so far....

Re:Modular Windows == Fragmentation

[Jester998]

"To allow remedies that would make Windows modular would simply force Microsoft to remove Windows off the market. It would require significant re-engineering of the entire product, a task that could take years."

Uh, this is bad... how?

It's a good thing.

[gnovos]

If MS really were allowed to have even a reletivly "short" period of time (a few months, as much as ayear), they could easily push super hard and complete th e"next" version of windows, so when the states finally present thier modular windows, MS can respond, "Oh, hey look at atht. You guys were rigth after all. Ok we'll start making modular XP. Oh, but we stopped selling XP two months ago, now we sell Windows ZP, where every single system call must first be translated into html and passed to the internal webserver to be proccessed, we call it 'local web services'."

Logic 101

[Junior J. Junior III]

If you say that something can be done, but only in an infinite amount of time, then that's logically equivalent to saying it can't be done. So, if MSFT wants to say they'll take forever to come up with a defense, ipso facto it means that there is no possible defense. Therefore MSFT is guilty. QED.

GAH!!!!!!

[nickd]

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT HOW MODULAR WINDOWS XP/NT IS !!!!!!

will it allow OEM's to include multiple OS's on the bootloader without fear of recrimination from MS ?? NO (rip BeOS)

will it allow third party developers to openly interact with MS systems/formats/protocols - without resorting to reverse engineering which is now illegal (DMCA) ?? NO

will it stop MS from embracing and extending open standards and protocols and hence locking out competitors ?? NO

MS is brilliant - they are kicking up a huge fuss over something that at the end of the day doesnt impede their monopolistic practices/status much at all. The choice at the end of the day will still be MS + XYZ modules or MS + ABC modules - ITS STILL WINDOWS!!!!!!

Here's a quick question(s) though...

[VValdo]

Would a modular version of Windows be good for:

1. Consumers?

2. Linux/Open Source alternatives?

3. The technology industry?

4. Microsoft?

I'm trying to imagine a modular-windows world. What would the pros/cons be? Is this an appropriate "punishment" for Microsoft, or should we be careful what we wish for?

W

Re:DAMNIT!

[syrinx]

Oh, yeah, cause right between the adulterers and the murderers we have a spot for anti-trust violators.

Probably in the new 10th circle.

Re:OT: Your sig -- urban legend

[Suppafly]

thank you.. i was about to post an offtopic statement basically saying the exact some thing..

Ooh - I can think of worse!

[heretic108]

Something that rang my alarm bells about the 'modular embedded windows' is the fact that it doesn't have an automatic mechanism for installing additional programs.

I can't rule out that some unscrupulous hardware vendors may customise an 'embedded/modular Windows' to only allow installation of certain apps, namely apps supplied through the hardware vendor.

So you don't like the browser on the computer you bought from Acme Discounts Inc? You don't like the advert bars, and your browsing history being periodically sent to their servers? Tough shit! You're not allowed to install another browser.

Solution would be to install another OS. But, surprise surprise! Acme Discounts Inc has done some weird shit on the motherboard that requires a special driver, only available as a part of their custom cut of 'modular windows'. It won't take any other OS. Attempts to write a driver to work around this are forbidden under the DMCA!

Welcome to the death of the standard PC, and the birth of the corporate controlled 'computing appliance'! Imagine Acme Discounts Inc selling such hobbled machines below cost for years to kill the competition.

Yes, M$ are bad bastards, yes, they have a history of unconscienable conduct in the marketplace, but there are people who are just waiting for the first opportunity to do much worse!

Re:Ooh - I can think of worse!

[cookd]

AFAIK MS never designed or wanted Embedded XP to be in general consumer PCs. That is why the demonstration makes so little sense to me. And that is why Embedded XP doesn't have add/remove program functionality -- it is designed for turnkey systems that get rolled out for a single purpose.

And computer appliances aren't such a bad idea, just a bad idea for you and me. I would hate to have a computer that I couldn't mess around with. On the other hand, my mom would love the same computer for the fact that she can't screw it up.

Re:Ooh - I can think of worse!

[weinerdog]

Is that what the states are asking for? I was under the impression that all they were asking for was a version of Windows that was not tightly coupled with components like IE and Media Player, allowing system vendors and end users alike to easily remove the Microsoft browser, media player, and whatnot, and replace it with an alternative of its own, much in the same way that standard PC architecture allows one to replace the IBM drive on an IBM PC with one made by Maxtor with no penalty, except inasmuch as the IBM drive might be intrinsically faster, more reliable, or whatnot.

That, it seems to me, is all that is being asked for. All of this rhetoric about billions of versions of Windows to support or less flexible system configurations seems like utter nonsense. Modular does not mean embedded. It means that components can be removed and, if desired, replaced by others without breaking the system as a whole.

It's Not About Dumping IE

[krmt]

If it's really so easy to rip out the shell, then why isn't Microsoft demonstrating this in court? If it's as easy as you imply, then this shouldn't be such an issue.

I've only known one person who ran Litestep, and it was apparently very crashy, which to me implies that it's not quite so easy a thing.

In reality, the problem isn't just ripping out IE, like you say. The problem is all the business practices surrounding it. The inability for OEM's to bundle a competing browser, like Netscape or now Opera, on their systems. I bet a lot of random desktop users would be quite pleased with a bundled Opera.

Frankly, I could care less about taking IE all the way out of my system. The libraries it brings with it provide a lot of nice functionality. I'd like for them to not be loaded at startup, but rather be loaded on demand since I use Mozilla and rarely go to help files, but that's a small thing. But what I really want as a consumer is to have some choice when I buy a system. I don't necessarily want all my bundled software to made by Microsoft, and it's quite astonishing in many ways that people are forgetting this. This is the whole point of the modular windows penalty. It's not to get rid of IE, but rather to provide choice to customers, and thereby allow competition to re-enter the market.

Bad feelings

[theolein]

This whole Microsoft trial has given everyone, pro- and anti- Microsoft a bad feeling. The pros because they feel that the world is out to get them and the antis because of all that MS has done to abuse it's position and it's total lack of respect of anyone and anything else. What saddens me is that it seems that MS will never lose any trial because even if they were to be broken up or whatever they would just ignore the judgement, as they have in the past and they would no doubt adapt by by moving all applications into the OS for example. It seems no American government will ever be able to or want to stop them.

In other words I think this trial is a waste of time. I think it would be better to fight MS's abuse there where one can, i.e. when they make a clear cut illegal licence or EULA and above all for OSS people to continue to improve the UI of Linux and to work towards making applications like OpenOffice and Mozilla better. At the same time it would be wise to continue the personal efforts to show schools and businesses that OSS can be just as good if not better.

Apart from that the one legal measure that would be the most telling would be an audit of MS' code to see where it truly comes from.

Microsoft lawyer demoted

[Alsee]

A previously promoted lawyer was demoted and returned to the US after Microsoft exceutives learned of the cancellation.

-

You can *ALLWAYS* hack a computer

[mangu]

For instance, take the first embedded systems to be offered to the general public: calculators. Check this article: "Buried Gold in the SR-52", by Cliff Penn, Byte magazine, Dec 1976, pp30-34, to see how you can hack a calculator to do things the designers had never thought of.

Why not good States tactics?

[swb]

I think Microsoft may have played into the States' hands.

Announce XP modular demo. You wouldn't announce it if you couldn't do it; announcing you can do it and willingness to back it up are all you have to do. The actual demo is little more than yet another Windows desktop minus a few icons. Judge would have been bored and is probably smart enough to take a screen shot, delete the icons and see for herself.

And then Microsoft yells "Fire!" If modular Windows is such a "bad" idea, wouldn't Microsoft already have x^y reasons why it wouldn't work? Why would they need to go back to Redmond for a couple of years and root around in the attic for rebuttal info?

Getting them to want so much time to prepare rebuttal is pretty much an admission that "we tried it and it didn't work" or "it won't work" is a load of bullshit because they DO know it will work.

MS had to either put up -- rebut the demo -- or shut up. Now they don't get to rebut and they have to quit talking about it.

(There was a great Law and Order where the prosecutor did this kind of thing. He couldn't bring up a particular piece of evidence, but he could allude to it. Alluding to it was all he had to do since the awareness of its existence was 90% of the damage).

Blindsided?

[Black Parrot]

Didn't anyone tell Micorsoft what this trial is about?

The Mozilla control for ActiveX

[yerricde]

Microsoft could release the API

IE is an ActiveX control. Microsoft has already released IE's API; otherwise, no app would be able to embed the IE control. Look through the MSDN library for more information.

then a 3rd party could implement the interface.

Done. Here's a drop-in replacement for IE that uses Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine. However, it's missing a few IE proprietary features such as document.all and the VBScript language.

That would create the possibility of non-microsoft providers of mshtml.dll.

The Mozilla control page links to a tool that patches mshtml.dll apps (even IExplore itself) to use the Mozilla control instead.

X11 != KDE

[yerricde]

DOS doesn't require IE to run.

Now that Microsoft has discontinued Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition in favor of NT-based XP, it's no longer licensing MS-DOS for use on new mass-market PCs. All operating systems that are sold on new desktop machines include a shell that uses IE components and the Microsoft IE DOM.

Linux doesn't require KDE to run. Many KDE apps require konqueror components to run.

Most graphical apps on *BSD and *Linux don't need Konqueror because most X11 apps aren't KDE apps. On the other hand, Explorer is the only desktop environment on Win32 with any market share. Remember, when Microsoft gained a desktop OS monopoly, it had to start playing by different rules.

Many Win98 apps require IE to run.

Most of them don't really require Microsoft® brand IE but just an ActiveX control that exposes the IE API. Such controls include this Mozilla control, which implements everything in IE but document.all, VBScript, and security holes.

Re:Doesn't sound bad to me

[mr100percent]

I don't think the States can hurt MS. I doubt they can break them up or force them into bizarre licenses.

The best they could probably do is make it so that you could buy an IE-less version of WindowsXP. It might be only availible in that state, and probably not in the CompUSAs either.

Linux may not be up to par with Windows, but Mac OS X is.

Hurting MS might make it easier for other companies to develop products, and stick to open standards. MS usually developed their own closed standard and tried to kill development outside of it.

I think you're missing the point a bit

[GroundBounce]

Of course just deleting IE from win98 both is possible and will break some applications. But that's not really the point. Microsoft has integrated IE into the core functionailty of Windows and of course many app vendors have come to depend on that.

The point is that tightly integrating IE into the core functionality of Windows was a design decision rather than some inevitable law of nature as MS wants us to believe. If they wanted, they could have set things up so that browsers and HTML handlers other than MS's could be easily plugged in and integrated in place of the equivalent IE-based components in a way that would have been transparent to third party software, but they made a design decision not to do this.

The correct Linux example would not be glibc but, say, replacing Mozilla with Netscape or Konqueror. With modern desktops like GNOME (and I assume KDE too, although I don't use it much) things are set up so you can easily do this in such a way that any compliant application that needs an HTML URL handler will transparently use the one you specify.

Why MS Is Wrong

[jgoemat]

First off, they wanted to bring in this person as a rebuttal to Microsoft saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE to make a modular version of windows. There is no way to declare a rebuttal witness before you know they are needed. It's a common practice to call them in. I'm sure MS wants another huge delay because it would be so embarassing to be caught in a lie during such a high publicity trial.

Microsoft didn't say that it would cost one billion dollars to make a modular version, they said it COULDN'T be done. Here comes a guy that did it for very little money (I'm not sure of the specifics, but I guarantee he didn't spend a billion dollars on it). Doesn't that show that Microsoft outright lied? If he did spend a billion dollars on it, that's still less than 1/2 (closer to 1/3) of Microsoft's FIRST QUARTER PROFITS. And whose fault is it that Windows isn't modular in the first place?

Sure it's possible to make a modular version of Windows, it's just that Microsoft wouldn't be in control anymore, people could choose what they want for a web browser, media player, or chat program. The problem with that for Microsoft is that if other standards become widespread, people might be more likely to choose another operating system and they would begin to lose money. I know they just hate the popularity of MP3. Anyone with Linux or a Mac can use those files. They wish everyone was using the proprietary windows media format so they'd have to be running Windows. MP3 became popular before MS could strike however, and the world is a better place for it.

As for support, why can't they just say that they won't support audio players that are not theirs if an OEM installs it? I'm sure they don't now since other ones are available. I see no difference in installing a different audio player as a consumer and having an OEM manufacturer do it.

Consumer: I can't play MP3 files.
MS: Are you using Windows Media Player (R)?
Consumer: No...
MS: Sorry, that is not our product, use Windows Media Player next time

If someone installs Winamp now, does microsoft stop supporting their Windows operating system? Maybe that's the next step in the MS plan: "You have to use what we give you and install only MS products, or we will not give you support."

Consumers are not being helped by this philosophy, they are being robbed of more and more choices as the years go on. Microsoft is trying to move towards a time when every developer works for them and they are in control of every piece of software. Frankly as a developer, that scares the pants off me.

Jason Goemaat
jasong@netins.net

MSHTML is not IE

[os2fan]

But then, MSHTML is not IE, no more tha Adobe Acrobat. Most programs that require IE only need the MSHTML subsystem. Since MS has fostered IE APIs as "standard windows", then these DLLs should be removed from IE and made part of Windows. And yes, 98lite makes MSHTML separate from IE.

Next, you may as well say that programs that require WP 5.1 or MS-Office or Ventura installed make these applications part of the Operating System.

The 98lite product shows that it is the installation of windows, not whether all of IE is part of Windows, that is the issue.

It's not that this is the first or last time that MS has blurred a monopoly product and one they they ultimately monopolised.

DOS Bits of DOS [eg DOS32] were shipped with Windows 3.x, and Windows shipped with DOS. You needed both bits to get Windows to work together. Even under Win95, you do not get the full DOS until Windows GUI is loaded: eg "cd ..." does not work in Dos95, nor do long file names.

Messenger Once a loose addon, programs are now being threaded through msmsg.exe.

glibc is modular in the sense that it can be replaced separately in an update. In this sense, it is more modular than command.com. Nothing stops a rival from making a faster or better "glibc".

Re:MSHTML is not IE

[mpe]

Since MS has fostered IE APIs as "standard windows", then these DLLs should be removed from IE and made part of Windows.

Especially any APIs they contain which have no obvious conection to rendering HTML anyway. There much be some of these, since there are programs which require IE to be present to either install or run. Even though they have no web browsing capability at all.

Re:MSHTML is not IE

[os2fan]

cd ... works perfectly well under 4DOS under vanilla DOS, eg 5.00+. The point is is that command.com from Windows 95 behaves differently under Windows than DOS. This is because cd is in command.com, and not the dos kernel. 4DOS would expand it out, if it is anything other than . or .., so that should give you a clue.

The usual way to handle EA's is to rely on the fact that FAT supports no more than 65530 names. This is handled by two bytes, which are used in the FAT. They are also used to handle EA's, which is how Windows and OS/2 knows how to reattach attributes to the correct file.

As for not supporting long file names under Windows...

LFN can be supported under plain DOS, and there are TSRs and so on that do just that. If the LFN name interface is present, PKZIP, 4DOS, etc will quite happily use it.

And given that it's easy to drop the Windows directory into another folder [yes, this happened], you NEED lfn support under DOS to fix this up.

LOCK simply locks the drive to everything except the DOS session. This allows dos utilities access to the hard drive. Previously, you would have done this outside of Windows.

Embedded lies

[leonbrooks]

Sad that the judge has to believe Microsoft's `more time' lies (methinks he protesteth overmuch).

Windows XP Embedded requires 64M to boot. Urk. Not much missing from that, except maybe MS-Office.

Lotus Notes... now there's an ironic choice. Who here remembers `DOS ain't done 'til Lotus [123] won't run?'

Windows FL is a great badge idea. Truth-in-advertising laws might compel them to use it. (-:

This is the *classic* urban legend

[Ethelred Unraed]

That is not an urban legend. Kennedy technically did call himself a jelly filled pastry, but people understood what he meant since it wasn't an obvious error to people who don't speak German. The correct way to say "I am a Berliner" is "Ich bin Berliner." The "a" or "an" is implied when stating that you are a citizen of a particular place. It is a minor error, and most people will still understand the intent of the sentence.

This has been discussed to death by a lot of German linguists. Any native speaker will tell you (and my wife is one, and I speak German fluenty as well) that the form "ich bin ein Berliner" is perfectly acceptable, indeed in the sense in which Kennedy was speaking, it was the *only* correct way of saying it.

A German would say of a person who *is* from Berlin, "er ist Berliner" (without the article "ein"). But a German who means figuratively that a person is from Berlin would say "er ist EIN Berliner". Kennedy was not from Berlin, therefore he had to say "ich bin ein Berliner". There was no error, except on the part of non-German speakers who thought they caught Kennedy making an embarrassing mistake.

Take a look at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa021 700b.htm to get the full explanation.

Furthermore, a person from Hamburg says "ich bin Hamburger". But no one would really think twice about saying it. A person from Frankfurt says "ich bin Frankfurter". So what? Just about any German city has a kind of food -- sausage (Braunschweiger, Frankfurter), beer (Dortmunder, or Berliner -- yes, it's also a type of beer) and so on -- associated with the name. That's not a reason to avoid saying "ich bin [insert city name here]". That's ridiculous. If the Wall had been in Rüdesheim instead of Berlin, Kennedy would in your theory have been saying "ich bin ein Rüdesheimer" and therefore saying he's a German version of Irish coffee -- which is silly. And wrong. If that were the case, there are a lot of German Irish coffees running around.

I have yet to hear a German say that Kennedy was wrong to say it the way he did -- on the contrary, all Germans I've spoken to (and given that I have lived in Germany for years, that's a lot) think it was a great speech.

This is, in fact, a classic urban legend. In other words, something that has been repeated so often that people believe it regardless of what the evidence may show -- and in spite of the fact that it's just plain wrong.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Ummm, your honor? I have a question:

[NeuroManson]

Doesn't making and demonstrating a reverse engineered version of Windows XP (or any Windows for that matter) fall directly in violation of the DMCA? That would make not only the programmer who's making the "XP Lite" operating system, and the court that ordered him to do so, criminals...

As the ol' saying goes, live by the sword, etc etc etc...

Re:Ummm, your honor? I have a question:

[karmawarrior]

No, it doesn't. Windows is not a product whose copyright is protected through the use of an access control mechanism, and even if it were, producing a modular version, per-se, is not manufacturing a mechanism to bypass such a control mechanism.

I see your point...

[GroundBounce]

But still, MS *could have* designed a widget (or control or whatever) with a standardized API in such a way that another API compatable control (e.g., gecko) could have been easily substituted by simply replacing a dll, or even adding a new, differently named dll. They could have, for example, had the main HTML control be simply a wrapper that looks in the registry to find out which actual API-compatable dll to call to implement the control via their component embedding mechanism (COM? I don't know windows terminology that well). I would think this could have been done in a way that could be transparent to the app and hence binary compatible.

Again, the point is things could have been modularized by design and still be easy and transparent for app vendors, but for seemingly obvious reasons, the decision was made not to do this.

infinite = indefinite / 0

[cgenman]

If I remember my calculus correctly (and this is nitpicking, btw), if an input variable is approaching another number, and it can be proven to get as close to the number as you could ask for, and that the function is continuous (contiguous?) at that point, then for all mathematical purposes a number infinitely close to another number behaves exactly like that other number, and QED is equal.

With an indefinite period of time, one can get as close to an infinite period of time as another person could ask for. Likewise, the outcome of the process will be the same. Therefore the slope of the function is the same, and QED the OJ defence has worked yet again.