Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
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.
Once upon a time...
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.
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.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
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.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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?
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
"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."
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
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.
-pyrrho
[/mnt/win_ntfs/program files/internet explorer]% more 98lite.bat
/y "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe"
deltree
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"!
You need to think a little bit more like lawyer to see how they can score points in the trial.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
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.)
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
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?
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....
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!
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
A previously promoted lawyer was demoted and returned to the US after Microsoft exceutives learned of the cancellation.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?