XP Service Pack Does the Impossible

Peyna writes "This article over at C|net discusses the upcoming Microsoft Windows XP service pack, which will contain the normal bug fixes, but more importantly, will make XP more modular, allowing you to override their default products. I assume this means Internet Explorer and possibly some other apps as well."

Comments

Finally

[flewp]

Now maybe I'll consider installing XP, since it won't be so damned bloated, and I can choose what I want.

Re:Finally

[coryboehne]

Not to mention that it's build 2600 :)

On a serious note, I wonder why they did'nt do this a long time ago (read windows 95, or first anti-trust lawsuit) it seems that it would have saved them a great deal of headaches.

Re:Finally

[caluml]

So their marketing tactic has worked then? :)

Modular?

[MikeLRoy]

As in, you can remove all of windows as one big module?

Re:Modular?

[Bob McCown]

you can remove all of windows as one big module?

Yep...

fdisk /mbr works nicely for that...

Re:Modular?

[delta407]

You don't need a service pack, just fdisk.

Re:Modular?

[chuckcolby]

As in, you can remove all of windows as one big module?

Well, according to M$, you COULD do that, but any other OS you install on it would leave you open to serious security flaws. Flaws that could be very damaging, like increased reliability, leaner code, and (GASP!) only the products you want installed. It'll be anarchy.

Re:Modular?

[John Hasler]

"fdisk /mbr works nicely for that..."

fdisk /mbr workd for nothing but overwriting the boot loader.

Re:Modular?

[mrbester]

But fdisk is still too far into M$ sofware land (you've got to boot into DOS). Simply press F2 / Del / whatever to get to the BIOS on bootup and issue a low-level format. I'd like to see an unerase program get data back from that.

Re:Modular?

[delta407]

Low-level format in the BIOS is typically (in my experience) found for SCSI devices; very rarely is there a low-level format option for IDE drives. And besides, you're wrong, fdisk isn't a Microsoft thing; fdisk exists for *nix as well.

Furthermore, people can get data back after a low-level format. Forensic labs have been doing that for years. From the New York Times article "The Mole in the Macine":

"It's very difficult to be sure data is ever actually taken off a hard drive," Garfinkel says. "You might think you could just wipe the disk but that won't do it." The reason is that a six-gigabyte drive often has an additional four gigabytes of storage. The excess, which is invisible to the software, replaces "blocks" of storage capacity on the drive when they begin to fail. As a block goes bad, the disk copies data from the failing block to the reserve blocks. Disk-wiping software typically erases only the roster of good blocks, ignoring hidden blocks, which may still contain data.

Re:Modular?

[cicadia]

But fdisk is still too far into M$ sofware land (you've got to boot into DOS)

So use /sbin/fdisk then

might morphen power windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I picture bill gates as the left leg of the giant cat robot thingy.

Now there's a shock.....

[8127972]

Windows is actually modular enough to allow people to add their own apps. I'm amazed!

The next thing Microsoft will tell me is that the sky is blue.

Re:Now there's a shock.....

[Spudley]

The next thing Microsoft will tell me is that the sky is blue.

Naaah.... that's just a reflection from you Windows Desktop background.

Re:Now there's a shock.....

[Tobin]

Blue sky of death?

Re:Now there's a shock.....

[minusthink]

well actually the sky was always blue, but this service pack provides a convient way of telling you.

Modularized Windows

[Changer2002]

Insert mandatory joke involving jackets and hell freezing over.

Re:Modularized Windows

[sketchkid]

well i did think it was a bit chilly outside this morning

In other news....

[qurob]

Ford's releasing a kit for its newest Taurus allows you to easily install a Toyota or other competitors engine or transmission!

Re:In other news....

[kin_korn_karn]

Engine swaps used to be routine before computers took over cars. Go to your local dirt track and see what I mean :)

:slashdot redneck:

Re:In other news....

[Trillian_1138]

This is a totally invalid comparison. First, should you so desire, you *could* install a Toyota engine in a Ford Taurus. It may (or may not) void your warrenty, IANAL, but nothing other than lack of know-how prevents you from doing it. But engines aren't *meant* to be easily changeable by the average user. Software is.

The best comparison I've heard about the Microsoft monopoly is to VCRs. If Microsoft ran the VCR biz, you could buy any type of VCR you like (Sony, Mitsubishi, etc) but they could ONLY play tapes made by Microsoft, and Microsoft got to chose what was on the tapes.

When I bought Windows XP (and I admit, I use and, for the most part, enjoy it) I did *NOT* buy Messenger, IE, Outlook Express, or a host of other shitty products Microsoft forced down my throat. They're NOT part of the OS, I DON'T want them, and if they insist on including them, then I SHOULD be able to remove them easily, quickly, and painlessly. But I can't.

You have to go out of your way to get Messenger to stop popping up telling you to register. And god forbid you should actually want to *REMOVE* it. Becuase, while an uninstall command *is* burried in XP (although you have to enter it from the "RUN" prompt on the Start Menu and can not find it anywhere on the actual computer by searching) it's impossible for the average user to find, even with help. My aunt had her computer for MONTHS, closing Messenger every day when she went online, before I showed her how to remove it.

In addition, the article seems to say Microsoft isn't actually even allowing you to uninstall their programs. Just 'hide' them, which a comptetent user should be able to do simply by deleting the icons.

Microsoft has made some quality products. I'm honestly impressed with a number of features in XP. But it also continues the stranglehold Microsoft has on the software industry. Microsoft obviously has competent programers. But their business practices, especially when they exhibit themselves in their software in the form of programs that can't be removed and that demand registration, is unacceptable and ilegal.

Re:In other news....

[Darby]

And in the end that will be *bad* for most all users.

You spelled *good* wrong.

does this mean they are losing?

[fuqqer]

Does it mean they're losing their case against State ATTY's General? I hope so.

Still bloated

[TheVidiot]

Oh, it's still bloated. IE, OE, Messenger, etcetera aren't uninstalled, most likely because XP still depends on their DLLs. It seems like you could accomplish nearly the same thing by deleting the relevant icons from the Start menu...

Re:Still bloated

[flewp]

Arrrgh, you're right. It appears that it just "hides" the middleware (IE, oe, etc) from the user.
Another note, one will not be able to use a version of XP with a stolen key to get the update, and since I refuse to pay for XP, I wouldn't be able to upgrade, so it's a moot point anyway. (Not sure how they'd know ALL the stolen/hacked keys, but I'm guessing they know of a few of the larger warez releases.)

Re:Still bloated

[RagManX]

Arrrgh, you're right. It appears that it just "hides" the middleware (IE, oe, etc) from the user.

I read that as "just hides the malware" at first. I read it again to make sure, noticed you said middleware, then realized that reading it either way, the statement is correct.

RagManX

Re:Still bloated

[BiggyP]

well, if you obtained your copy of windows XP by less than legitimate means i'm sure you'll be able to get the service pack in a similar manner :P

Re:Still bloated

[ergo98]

It sounds like they don't know all the stolen keys, but rather that a large percentage of people installed a warez copy using one particular large customer serial number (for those who don't know: Microsoft made the normal versions of XP that require activation [and only one computer can activate with one key so that's intrinsically secure], but they also made a large customer copy that does not require activation, and allows an enterprise customer to install company wide with one key. It is those copies that made their way into the warez channels), so it sounds like the update will check if your system has that one serial number.

Microsoft will probably learn from the large vendor experience, and likely in the next iteration of product activation, non-activation enabled copies will have a key that is keyed against a certain domain tree, allowing only computers under the domain *.ibm.com for instance to install the enterprise copies with the IBM specific key, with reduced functionality until the computer joins the domain.

Re:Still bloated

[DragonPup]

Well, once you pay for your software, you are entitled to recieve a upgrade. See, in this system we have called capitalism, you exchange money for goods or services. See an example here. It's people who keep stealing Windows that caused MS to have to revert to a product activation like this in the first place, you know.

-Henry

Re:Still bloated

[pacc]

Once you pay for the software you are entitled to format your harddrive and reinstall it : )

Re:Still bloated

[Husaria]

not necessarily, universities also have one license key for XP, and some of those are online too, so the *.domainname.com thing would not work for them, because not everyone who uses XP will use it on campus

Re:Still bloated

[ergo98]

XP lets you re-activate if you format and reinstall on the same machine, does it not? I thought it only caused trouble (which merely required a call to Microsoft, though if you're in the midst of battling a hardware problem or something that could really piss one off) if the hardware profile of the machine significantly chaged (more than three items or something of that sort).

Re:Still bloated

[pokeyburro]

Well that sucks. Now, I like the DLLs, since if your system used only XP stuff, the shared DLLs keep the code from taking up even more space.

If Microsoft were really on the ball about this, they'd publish the APIs to their DLLs, and allow independent developers to then use those DLLs, or supply competing DLLs, etc. Then the consumer would truly have options when it comes to modularity. Naturally this would deflate Microsoft's revenue like a busted balloon, but that's another story.

Re:Still bloated

[ncc74656]

Another note, one will not be able to use a version of XP with a stolen key to get the update, and since I refuse to pay for XP, I wouldn't be able to upgrade, so it's a moot point anyway.

Given that a WinXP keygen exists, I somehow doubt that they'd be able to block everybody who's running a warez'd WinXP...unless they've built up a database of the millions of CD keys they've issued and check against that. (I suppose that wouldn't be too big a task...but what are the odds they've done that?)

(Not that it matters to me anyway. I tried XP, determined that it sucked, and went back to Win2K. I haven't run across anything yet that needs WinXP to run.)

Re:Still bloated

[Anonymous Coward]

Load up VS .Net or VB and LOOK at the damn interface! It's right there! In fact there are several example programs from MS and on the net that show you exactly how to use virtually all those features if you would just LOOK. I am an independant developer who HAS used those APIs and there are hundreds more like me that already have.

Naturally if you did a tiny bit of research it would bust the ballon of your self-richeous indignation. But that's another story.

Re:Still bloated

[Decimal]

So you're saying that build 2600 can't be upgraded?

Re:Still bloated

[nil_null]

If Microsoft were really on the ball about this, they'd publish the APIs to their DLLs

You mean like this: Windows API

Excellent

[psycht]

This is what I've been waiting for. I didn't install Win2k till the serivce packs came out. Now i can feel more comfortable with installing XP when the service pack comes out.

Re:Excellent

[Clue4All]

But XP was a service pack for Win2k, hell, it was just Win2k with themes added. In fact, this exact thing is mentioned in the article. Surely you read it, right?

Makes it more modular?

[RossyB]

I'm sure a read a story this morning which said they were only 'hidden', not removed.

So, are the core IE executables/DLLs actually deleted from the disk? Or are the just disabled?

Re:Makes it more modular?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think either happens. There was a funny bit in the story as told by AP:

"In a demonstration of its redesign for The Associated Press, Microsoft deleted all its Internet Explorer icons from one of the company's laptop computers, which preventing the Web browser from starting, then restored the icons later."

WOW! Either the MS guys are much better at BS than I thought, or the AP guys reporting in this tech issue are clueless. Possibly Both.

Re:Makes it more modular?

[saviorsloth]

"Critics say Microsoft is hiding access to its programs, but the fundamental code is still installed on the PC."
read the article here before posting please.

Re:Makes it more modular?

[Thing 1]

"In a demonstration of its redesign for The Associated Press, Microsoft deleted all its Internet Explorer icons from one of the company's laptop computers, which preventing the Web browser from starting, then restored the icons later."

Sounds like clever use of the Recycle Bin.

This isn't what they said was "impossible"

[jlower]

They're allowing some of their apps to be hidden or made not the default, not removed completely.

Less is more...

[Mattcelt]

It amazes me how incredibly clever Microsoft is as they twist words. They go by the letter of the law, not the spirit, and we all suffer.

This is a very enlightening article, I think:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/254 23.html

I honestly wish I were clever enough to use their own tactics against them, but looking at how difficult the courts have made it, it seems impossible. How do we keep them from doing this to us over and over again?

Re:Less is more...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do we keep them from doing this to us over and over again?

Uhm... don't use their products?

Re:Less is more...

[tonicBastard]

They go by the letter of the law, not the spirit, and we all suffer.

unfortunately, the letter of the law often defines it's spirits, in day-to-day affairs.

that's why having lawmakers in your pocket, and ace lawyers on staff has always been so profitable for the corporations with enough capital to pony up.

Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[gamorck]

It sounds to me like the update is really just allowing Windows to be shipped with third party applications links on the desktop. I guess Microsofts packaging tools used to remove these links (which would suck no doubt) and part of SP1 will change that "functionality".

As for it making Windows more modular - thats a load of crap. I love how the editors and the submitters around here intentionally embelish just so they can get more pageviews and comments. Oh well I guess they suceeded today... :-)

Whats really going to rock in SP1 for XP is the new Mira technology stuff. If you dont know what that is - I suggest you cruise on over to http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/mira_preview. asp and take a long hard look at some of the cool shit MS is doing.

J

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft invents remote display over wireless ethernet. News at 11.

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[Thomas M Hughes]

Yes, lets talk Mira, based on the very article that you sent.

But the most exciting possibility for Mira awaits its second iteration, which might occur with the "Longhorn" release of Windows, due in 2004. Mira version 2, Ballmer promised, will do away with the one user limit imposed by Windows XP, allowing up to two people to access the same desktop PC at the same time, one via the main display, and one via a remote Mira secondary display. "The [Mira] concept doesn't make sense otherwise, so that will be a version two feature," Ballmer said during a Q & A with the at CeBIT. "Well, it will be now." I spoke with Microsoft representatives about this, and they were unclear about the specifics, but indeed promised that the next version would support at least two concurrent users per desktop.

So, based on what's been said there, SP1 to XP only allows a single person to access a Mira device at any given time. Not only that, it seems you've been locked out of using your desktop as well, since XP disallows more than one user to use the machine at any given time. As such, I don't see this as any great 'revolution' in home electronics. Maybe a neat thing for a bachelor pad, yes, but hardly something that could be useful in corporate settings, where multiple people could have displays for a single machine.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[thesolo]

Whats really going to rock in SP1 for XP is the new Mira technology stuff. If you dont know what that is - I suggest you cruise on over to http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/mira_preview. asp and take a long hard look at some of the cool shit MS is doing.

OT, but here we go:
I frankly don't see the big deal about Mira's technology. It's really not much different from having a laptop with a 802.11 card in it; if you need to mirror your desktop's screen, open a VNC session, etc. A little lighter and fewer moving parts, but certainly not much cheaper; 15" Mira displays will be over $1000! Plus they are way too heavy to be user friendly right now.

It is certainly not technology I want either. I don't want to lug out a screen to show off pictures like a frame, which is how they envision these devices being used. And honestly, I'm tired of wireless devices; the more wireless devices you have, the harder it is to get away from them. How long before your office makes you carry a Mira screen with you at all times?? I don't want or need to answer emails in my kitchen, and I sure as hell don't want to bring Microsoft onto my computer, let alone into my living room.

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[kenthorvath]

Hrmm... Mira looks like an X terminal with a nifty little touchsensitive LCD display. I'd be willing to bet that you could make one for linux with minimal effort if you used 802.11b for the ethernet card. Maybe using one of those existing web tablets.

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[bryan1945]

Wow- it's like a crippled laptop!

Woo hoo, woopee doo..... ok idea, but I would hardly call this "cool shit".

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[rutledjw]

take a long hard look at some of the cool shit MS is doing.

Sorry, but I'm apparently not that smart. How is this ANY different from VNC or a remote X session? Actually is looks like it IS different. VNC and X allow multiple users, Mira allows -> 1?

"Cool sh*t"? I suppose some have a lower expectation of "cool sh*t" than others...

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[pmz]

While Mira is nifty, it is not that big of a deal. A tabletized X-terminal would be relatively trivial to produce. The only thing Microsoft brings to the table is traditional Microsoft marketing. This leads to the only problem I see with the Mira: Microsoft.

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[scrytch]

I frankly don't see the big deal about Mira's technology.

The technology, no. The fact that it's actually being done instead of theorized over and cobbled together out of a script here, a customization there, 125E+238 config edits there, such that the average home user will never experience such a thing ... Microsoft is getting it out the door. Apple probably could have done it first with Airport, and the new iMac was supposed to be a hub like that, except oops, they killed the Newton. Having the hub and no peripherals isn't too useful ... reminds me of when they shipped Macs without keyboards.

Re:Modular my *ss - Lets talk about Mira :-)

[Dwonis]

It probably uses RDP (ala rdesktop / Windows Terminal Services), which is more efficient than RFP (ala VNC).

What I'd like to see is some sort of open-source RDP server.

"allow consumers or PC makers to hide...IE"

[Jammer@CMH]

This service pack complies with the November settlement.

Quoting:

Among the changes is a new control that will allow PC makers or consumers to replace Microsoft software with third-party applications from Microsoft's competitors, such as AOL Time Warner and RealNetworks.

Under the Justice Department settlement, Microsoft must allow consumers or PC makers to hide user access to five pieces of so-called middleware: Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Microsoft's version of the Java Virtual Machine.

Fascinating.

assume?

[npietraniec]

I assume this means Internet Explorer and possibly some other apps as well.


When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

Re:assume?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

When you come out with trite little lines like that, you just make an ass out of you.

More info...

[flipflapflopflup]

This Register article has some more info on exactly what is in the update.

It mentions are which components are replaceable:

IE,

Outlook Express,

Messenger,

Windows Media Player

JVM.

There will be 4 configuration options: (from the article)"You can have the Microsoft option, the original machine configuration (i.e. what the OEM decided it would ship you, but this is going to be most obviously applicable to new machines shipped by OEMs post-SP1 release), a non-Microsoft option that allows you to substitute non-Microsoft middleware, and custom configuration."

Re:More info...

[Random Walk]

The article also mentions that software companies need to get on some M$ program in order to get the API for the control system disclosed to them ...

Re:More info...

[L-Wave]

There will be 4 configuration options: (from the article)"You can have the Microsoft option, the original machine configuration (i.e. what the OEM decided it would ship you, but this is going to be most obviously applicable to new machines shipped by OEMs post-SP1 release), a non-Microsoft option that allows you to substitute non-Microsoft middleware, and custom configuration."

First of all....that only lists three options...;), secondly, isn't the "non-microsoft option" the same as the "custom option" ??...therfore aren't there really only _TWO_ options? =)

Re:More info...

[kenthorvath]

I wonder what it would take to replace XP's version of the explorer shell with the simple plain version that 2K used. I know that there is an appearance option that does something similar, but it's not good enough.

That said, I would love to replace IE with Mozilla 1.0 (not here yet), Outlook Express with Evolution(not possible), Messenger would be stricken from the hard disk and replaced with gAIM (not possible). Media Player would get swapped for Xine (not possible), and I would use Sun's JVM. Y'Know, I have all of these things on my Mandrake partition, and I love it! Why bother with windows?

Re:More info...

[Reckless Visionary]

I wonder what it would take to replace XP's version of the explorer shell with the simple plain version that 2K used. I know that there is an appearance option that does something similar, but it's not good enough.

Just curious, but what's not good enough about it? With 1 setting (if I remember correctly, I'm using NT 4 at work right now), I was able to disable the new UI features to a Win 2000 default. It sped up my machine considerably, and there was no noticeable difference between XP and Win 2000 in a UI sense. Did I miss something?

Hey!!!

[eyegor]

Wait a minute... didn't the Micro$oft guys just testify under oath that this couldn't be done?

I'll bet they're holding lotteries in the Federal Pen right now to see who gets to be Bill Gate's boyfriend.

Re:Hey!!!

[donnacha]

I'll bet they're holding lotteries in the Federal Pen right now to see who gets to be Bill Gate's boyfriend.

Kinda useful, then, the way he rocks back and forth.

Re:Hey!!!

[billybob]

didn't the Micro$oft guys just testify under oath that this couldn't be done?

No. This is not going to remove IE or anything else made by MS from windows. It will just allow PC makers to change the defaults through a standard interface.

It isn't anything you can't do now.

[the-banker]

This SP does NOT make Windows more modular. It simply is a convenient interface to override default applications.

You can't uninstall IE or its libraries - they still will load on startup. What you can do is associate URLs to Moz or whatever.

This can all be done now, just not very conveniently for the average user. All the SP adds is a Control Panel applet to facilitate the association changing.

Marc

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[DarkDust]

ACK... simply hiding IE and other things is not the same as removing them. Windoze XP does NOT get modular by tweaking some Registry entries about what program to use as default.

It's a very clever move by MS do release this SP as many people really will believe MS is moving in the right direction with this while they're in fact standing still.

I doubt we'll see any really modular Windows ever, and even if we do than surely not because of MS changing their mind but because they are forced by the DoJ... let's see how the trial turns out.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[David_Bloom]

I know that Microsoft is known for making programs that seem to have unneccesarily large filesizes, but I doubt that a 40MB patch - even from Microsoft - would only add a small Control Panel applet.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[NeoSkandranon]

To put it bluntly, So?

You people are all talking about giving third party apps a chance with Joe Average...well, guess what? He doesn't care if the code is still there, or the libs load or not. He also probably prefers there's a way to go back to MS if in fact he likes IE over Opera. Some of us really do like MS stuff better, and dont use 3rd party things on principal.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[SpaceJunkie]

And some of us must still think that Bill Gates is a nice man and Steve Balmer is his happy friend Big Ears. Some third party software is worse, some maybe even better. But I think the point they are making is the principle. Which I agree will probably only matter to pro-open source slashdotters like myself, but in the bigger picture its a step. Like allowing manufacturers to place other OS's on computers will be. Like WALMARTs OS'less computers are.
Joe Average will use what is convenient- what seems nice. As was posted earlier(discussing paint-comany POS systems) - a clean consistent GUI and on par functionality my be an excellent way to serve this. Especially if Joe average perceives good free beer. At the moment I use a combo until all my software works in Linux or has on par(if not better) equivalents.. Then that day my Windows drive will become new linux partitions. And I will have a few nice coffie coasters too. I sense that day getting closer as well.

BTW- Any Brit slashdotters know if those PC's are available in ASDA?(British chain owned by WALMART)

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[ruiner13]

So does that mean that the WMP web tracking will be on by default and be even harder to find to turn off? If there is no icon on the desktop, i think some users will be unable to stop M$ from tracking their moves. Seems to be a win-win situation for them, and another hurdle in the race for privacy for the average joe.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[Mozz Alimoz]

Merely hiding IE and Windows Media isn't enough. That doesn't allow a 3rd party vendor the same advantage as Microsoft for getting their product accepted. 3rd parties should get:

1. Equal access to distribution. When MS ships new applications on by default with the OS that gives them a huge advantage.
2. Equal access to the OS. My proposal is that if the comapny ins't broken up into an OS and an application company, then new MS applications must only use OS APIs that have been published for 6 months.
3. Equal access to getting included by default.

   Microsoft's Windows Media Player and IE can start quickly because parts of it has been built into the OS. Sure WMP and IE starts fast, but that's because the OS starts slower (whether or not you use WMP, IE or the other tools).

   To get the Real Player to start as fast as Microsoft Windows Media Player when the users click a link, Real Networks had to resort to installing a "StartCenter" application. StartCenter is a process that is autostarted on boot up (slowing down boot up) and just waits around in case the Real Player is started. Now I can remove startcenter, but not the builtin WMP start up equivalent.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[jasonbw]

So, in an effort to make windows more modifiable, they add more bloated software?

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[beleg777]

Interesting. I had two initial reactions.

1. This is a good thing. Regardless of the underlying functionality, it allows people to use the computer the way they want rather than the way MS wants them to. It's not nearly enough, but it's a step in the right direction.

2. This small step in the right direction took a lot of court time and negative PR to accomplish. Unfortunately it's more of a strategic decision on MS than a concession. It's so hard to get even the smallest thing from them that when we do it feels like a victory. So they give up an inconsequential victory like this to appease people and things just keep rolling with MS deciding the rules of the game.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[spectecjr]

So, in an effort to make windows more modifiable, they add more bloated software?

Hey, if you want to see bloated, statically link LS to glibc. 314kb for a directory lister? Give me a frickken break.

Simon

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[Yo Grark]

Control Panel Applet?

Hell, I've had x-setup in the control panel for years. Offers all the functionality I've ever needed. At it's most basic, it helps me avoid loading what I don't want loaded, and even better is when it helps me block MS from telling me what preferences are "mandatory". Even tells the average user when not to mess with a setting (unless you're a pro) A really good FREE app, made for the people, by the people.

http://www.xteq.com/products/xset/

-Yo Grark

Watzup with today's google doodle?

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[tshak]

You can't uninstall IE or its libraries

Ya, I hate how I can't remove DLL's shared by hundreds of applications and Windows features... :-)

It simply is a convenient interface to override default applications.


This is perfect. This promotes competition by allowing the common user to replace IE as their default browser or even an OEM (pending overthrowing MS's current draconian licensing) alowing a user to make the simple choice themselves.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[scotch]

Why the hell would you statically link your build of 'ls'? Maybe if you were building a rescue disk or something, but even then, I'm sure you could turn things off and trim the fat. If you don't statically link, the executable is only 48k. 'ls' has lot's of options that can be quite usefull. If you don't want the features, just use '/bin/echo'.

Sheeeesh - it's only 314k - give yourself a frickken break

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[spectecjr]

Why the hell would you statically link your build of 'ls'? Maybe if you were building a rescue disk or something, but even then, I'm sure you could turn things off and trim the fat. If you don't statically link, the executable is only 48k. 'ls' has lot's of options that can be quite usefull. If you don't want the features, just use '/bin/echo'.

Heck, don't ask me; that's the version I downloaded to run on my TiVo (I didn't fancy setting up a cross compiler).

Simon

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[Software]

Hey, if you want to see bloated, statically link LS to glibc. 314kb for a directory lister? Give me a frickken break.

How big is the statically liked dir command? Oops, I forgot, dir is part of cmd.exe. How big was the statically linked cmd.exe that you ran on your Tivo? You are comparing apples to apples, aren't you?

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[ThatTallGuy]

This SP does NOT make Windows more modular... You can't uninstall IE or its libraries - they still will load on startup.

Of course not. If you did, the "house of cards" would collapse.

A prior poster said it best: How in hell do these people get away with claiming incompetency as a defense?

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[Jon Howard]

This is perfect. This promotes competition by allowing the common user to replace IE as their default browser or even an OEM (pending overthrowing MS's current draconian licensing) alowing a user to make the simple choice themselves.

I disagree, I consider this to be a huge half-step. The problem I have is this: if programs are still (for example) relying on IE to render their html, a bug in IE will still affect your machine whether or not you use Mozilla as your primary browser.

This is nowhere near true modularity.

This might be beneficial in the sense that the Windows desktop is a billboard for big business, but it is not a true benefit to the consumer - running anything but IE (in my example) means that you've doubled the likelihood of system vulnerability, since you're running two separate browsers.

Eventually, MS will use market forces to regress to the old state of affairs: How long do you think it will be before MS points-out the fact that users of browsers other than IE are 2/3 more likely to have their systems exploited than straigh MS users?

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[Cyno]

I take it you've never deleted libc accidently. An OS should have a single user mode that runs in a chroot environment where all the binaries are staticly linked just in case you have a similar emergency on a production box and no spare media laying around. 'echo *' isn't a very useful interface and how would you rm, mv, tar or cp anything around unless you have staticly linked binaries.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[TheTurb]

I can't even begin to describe how criminal those three points are. Let me get this straight: your opinion is that, essentially, companies should not be allowed to use data and tools that they develop for their own products until 6 MONTHS has passed by? Because it's NOT FAIR to other companies? Do you have any grounding in reality at all?

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[scotch]

Well, I have accidently done something like that, but it's been about 8 years - since then it has never been an issue, and if it were, I always keep rescue media. A resonable set up is a separate directory of statically linked critical utilities (or a rescue disk, which I prefer). The utilities can be compiled with minimal features if you're worried about the executable size being too big (is 384k really too big for something that lives on your hard drive for emergencies?).

So I don't think the original posters has much of a point with respect to file size of 'ls'. I say the size is trivial for almost everyone in almost any situation - if the size matters, you can easily fix that yourself.

QED

(p.s. - if you're worried about deleting libc, aren't you worrried about deleting your statically linked tools, too?)

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[spectecjr]

How big is the statically liked dir command? Oops, I forgot, dir is part of cmd.exe. How big was the statically linked cmd.exe that you ran on your Tivo? You are comparing apples to apples, aren't you?

CMD.exe is 375kb long. It includes all of the support for batch scripting, as well as the DIR command, plus all of the help text for every single one of those commands, specifically about 60kb of text.

So... you were saying? CMD.exe is about the same size, yet it does a phenomenal amount more.

Simon

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[inquisitor]

That is what FreeBSD does.

[inq@aragorn /bin]> ls -l ls
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 299032 May 22 20:15 ls
[inq@aragorn /bin]> file ls
ls: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), statically linked, stripped
[inq@aragorn /bin]> uname -rs
FreeBSD 4.6-RC

Everything in /bin is statically linked. /sbin too. By doing this, you get a definite unmessed system if, say, someting Bad Happens - well apart from the fixme disk images on the CD-ROM set. One of many reasons FreeBSD is my favourite *nix variant, well apart from the comms/ltmdm port (bringing this message to you now) and the ports system in general.

As for the XPSP1 news: I look forward to trying the thing out. But it won't really do anything: Internet Explorer doesn't really exist as a separate product anymore, it's just a shell to the MSHTML engine with favourites features and media bars. This is similar to Mozilla's position: it's a pretty XUL-based shell to the Gecko engine. Windows Explorer uses MSHTML for folder display (very customisable), and there's a whole other raft of non-Microsoft products which do likewise: Microsoft won't want to disable them. So all this will do is not install IEXPLORE.EXE. Big deal.

WMP and the other products, however, aren't based on core operating system features and probably will be fully deleted. They might leave in the codecs that WMP uses, but that's about it for that one: their deletion will be more permanent. Let's face it, however, this isn't "impossible" by a long shot; getting rid of MSHTML entirely probably would be.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[tshak]

MS also forces you to use their TCP/IP stack, which is not modular (in the sense of what a customer can do, not in in the sense of XP embedded which is a completely different product with a totally different market). The bottom line is MS makes components for ubiquitous tasks (sending/recieving IP packets, rendering HTML, rendering graphics and sound) and they are all part of the everyday functions used by Windows customers. If you feel that MS has security problems with their TCP/IP stack, then you don't use their product. The same goes for the MSHTML DLL's.

Contrary to your opinion, you have not doubled the likelihood of system vulnerability by using two seperate browsers. Most all (if not all) browser security issues occur by visiting a site with offending code. MSHTML is not rendering the site when you are running Netscape.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[Jon Howard]

Contrary to your opinion, you have not doubled the likelihood of system vulnerability by using two seperate browsers. Most all (if not all) browser security issues occur by visiting a site with offending code. MSHTML is not rendering the site when you are running Netscape.

I don't believe this invalidates my statement. If you are using an email client which sends calls to MS HTML rendering dll's, you will be exposed to additional threat than if, say, Gecko was used for both browsing and other html rendering (were you to choose mozilla as your primary browser) - or exclusively IE, for that matter.

Simply put, I don't believe it's ever a good idea to use two different subsystems at the same time, to accomplish the same task, in a networked non-development environment. It's true for the same reason that bank vaults only have one door - fewer points of entry.

Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[Mozz Alimoz]

Let me get this straight: your opinion is that, essentially, companies should not be allowed to use data and tools that they develop for their own products until 6 MONTHS has passed by?

I'm only suggesting this radical idea for OS companies that have been found guilty of operating an illegal monopoly and claim that it is too hard to break up the OS and application side of the business.

BTW, the "extra data and tools" added to the monopoply OS presumably are useful features and so will have value and thus generate more rewards for the producers of these features. Companies should not expect to use their monopoly power to gain an advantage into other areas.

IE? I doubt it, but...

[David_Bloom]

I don't think it will actually allow you to remove IE, but, rather, make Windows more flexible in letting you choose your browser in more situations. Windows Help and stuff will still need to be rendered by IE, so components of it will probably always be a part of Windows. It is a step in the right direction, but, IMHO, it isn't as great as you might think it will be.

Re:IE? I doubt it, but...

[David_Bloom]

I'm right...as usual......EWEEK magazine confirms my suspicions

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[rackhamh]

Microsoft claimed that modular Windows was impossible. This has been reported on extensively.

Therefore, this service pack achieves the impossible. Makes sense to me .

Biting the hand that pirates it

[donnacha]

From the Cnet article:

Another change seeks to curb about 90 percent of Windows XP piracy. Microsoft introduced Product Activation with the operating system, which uses a numeric key to lock the software to the hardware. But code stolen from a large Microsoft customer allowed rampant illegal Windows XP copying. People using Windows XP with the stolen key will not be able to apply the service pack or any future updates available from Microsoft's Web site.

"Basically we're freezing their computer where it is," Cullinan said. "We're not preventing them from using it, but obviously one of the benefits of having a license is keeping your PC updated."

Not that any /.ers would use pirated software, but interesting nonetheless

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[edgrale]

Quite useless really, there has been keygens on the net for quite some time now.

They are fighting a battle they cannot win, for each key they disable 10 more will pop up on the net.

(mod me down if you wish, this not intended as a troll/flamebait.)

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[cheezedawg]

But code stolen from a large Microsoft customer allowed rampant illegal Windows XP copying

Does that mean that they are not letting one of their "large" customers install the service pack? I wonder how they will differentiate between the legit copies installed with that key and the pirated ones...

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[killmenow]

The legit ones will get/buy a new license.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Rogerborg]

• Not that any /.ers would use pirated software

Pirated? I dunno about that, I have a shared copy of WinXP Pro, probably with one of "those" keys. I'll pay for it when my refund arrives for the OEM copy of Win98SE that I was forced to pay for on my laptop (now running SuSE), i.e. the 2nd of Never.

If any Microserf are reading, the only reason that I still boot to Windows is to play games. Offer me a stripped down OS that presents an API subset limited to DirectX, OGL and enough of the WinAPI to let me install and start a game, at a reasonable price ($30) without any idiotic licensing or activation crap, and I'll buy it. Short of that, forget it. Every dumbed down "Telletubbies" new Windows version, every curate's egg upgrade, every bluster and threat and waved MicroFist just brings me closer to the point where I'll wipe the Windows partition and take my chance with WineX. When that happens, you lose any chance of getting any more money out of me, ever.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[AgentGray]

Not that any /.ers would use pirated software, but interesting nonetheless

I just wonder how many /.ers use Windows?

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer me a stripped down OS that presents an API subset limited to DirectX, OGL and enough of the WinAPI to let me install and start a game, at a reasonable price ($30) without any idiotic licensing or activation crap, and I'll buy it.

You just described the XBox.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[zaren]

People using Windows XP with the stolen key will not be able to apply the service pack or any future updates available from Microsoft's Web site.

So, not only are they are they known pirates, but they're going to be running software that cannot POSSIBLY be secured to prevent the spread of M$-virii. Great thinking, guys!

You know they're running stolen software based on the code they're using, surely it's within your power to actually *disable* the machine so it can't continue to spew it's Klez/CodeRed/Melissa crap into netspace.

-----
Apple hardware still too expensive? How about a raffle ticket?

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Dead Chicken]

If you work at MS you get a corprate discount. So you can by the Windows OS for about $25. When I was an intern there I said sure I'll get a copy $25 is a good price for a gaming platform.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[MonsterChicharo]

I would certainly buy an Xbox for $30. In fact, I think I would buy two of them. Are you selling them for that price?

Yes, I also thought that he was describing the Xbox, yet the price is quite different. However, if the Xbox OS were to be sold independently for $30... now that would be something.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[EnglishTim]

I was under the impression that the whole reasoning behind the product activation stuff was that your computer had to connect to Microsoft's servers to activate, thereby allowing them to check your key against a 'canonical' list of keys, which would stop you from being able to use keygens etc.

I don't know how this fits in with keys being leaked from Dell, though.

Can anybody shed some light?

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only have the keys been available for some time now, but have any of you really looked at the new desktops in your environment? They all come with OEM stickers on them that display cd keys for MS's operating systems. Stroll around the office and jot a few down.

g

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[asv108]

What about the OEM copies floating around with no product activation? They were out many months before winXP was available to the public.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Loligo]

>I just wonder how many /.ers use Windows?

An awful lot more than you seem to think.

I don't recall the story or the exact numbers, but a slashdot log showed something like over half the hits coming from Windows boxes.

This was a while back, of course, and it doesn't allow for browser ID spoofing, but it's still significant enough to mention.

-l

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Nimey]

Ah, that would likely be the famous "Corporate Edition" of XP that doesn't require activation.

*rubs beard thoughtfully*

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[karlm]

>I don't know how this fits in with keys being leaked from Dell, though.

MS gives big convinience breaks to big companies. Thier "datacenter" program makes you a custom XP install CD, and I think that requires no keys, to facilitate rapid installation without the admin having to sit there and type things in to the console.

In similar ways, I wouldn't be surprised if the keys given to OEMs don't require acess to the outside world for verification. (You have to type in the product key from teh sticker the first time you boot a new Dell, right?) I would imagine MS would get swamped with calls if every Dell customer without an internet connection (and some people with modems that don't want to waste ISP minutes on registration) had to give them a call. It's a small percentage, but a small percentage of a lot of people.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[mdwebster]

That would be interesting to find out what the breakdown is for browser identifier codes attaching to slashdot. I suppose opera would throw it off by a bit but what are most linux people using these days, opera or mozilla?

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[netsharc]

I've heard about that fact a lot, could it be attributed to Windows-only company policies, and people reading from work? At any case, this is my personal PC and I'm using Windows at the moment. Surfing with Opera though!

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[joshki]

Oh yeah... except for the PRICE!!!

What is it now -- 199?

not quite equal to 30 bucks, is it?

I'd buy a stripped version of windows too -- if I could get it at a price that's less that 100 bucks... I just can't justify paying that much money for something I use once or twice a week to play games.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Rogerborg]

• • Offer me a stripped down OS that presents an API subset limited to DirectX, OGL and enough of the WinAPI [..] at a reasonable price ($30)
  You just described the XBox.

Wow! So I did! Apart from the $170 difference in price, the fixed (and already painfully obsolete) hardware and the lack of online and budget classic games for it, that's exactly what I described.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[joshki]

Fine, then pretend you're paying $170 for a sweet-looking 733 MHZ Celeron /64MB RAM box that comes with a mid-range GeForce, hi-quality sound and video outputs, A DVD player, and an 8GB HDD.

I was referring to the operating system -- that's what the original poster was talking about. I HATE console game systems. Ever tried to play quake or UT on a console? It's just not the same as on a real pc with a really nice monitor -- and it never will be. So... 199 bucks just isn't what I want to pay for a system like that. If it were a real computer, ran real dx8 games(pc versions, I mean), and hooked up to a keyboard, mouse, and SVGA monitor.... Maybe.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[andrewski]

Not quite, unless you know where to get an XBox for $30.

Come on now, don't hold out on us.

Re:Biting the hand that pirates it

[Technician]

without any idiotic licensing
Actualy it does have some of that. Ever notice how the OS on XBox is encrypted preventing backing it up? It is very much locked to the hardware even more so than XP. I also doubt it will play any of your existing (Non MS taxed) PC games.

Please correct me if I am wrong here. Will it play the PC versions of Daiblo II, Need for Speed, or Unreal?
Will it work at a LAN party? If it will play my existing PC games at a LAN party, this dude will be my next LAN party box! I was under the impression it would play titles made for it (at about $50 a pop) and nothing else.

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[Pave Low]

to the mod who marked this as troll:
having an actual opinion that diverges from slashbot dogma is not a troll.

I was making an honest and on topic comment about this story.

Mod points are not for you to mark down opinions you don't like.

This has nothing to do about being modular

[Bravid98]

This service pack will do nothing to make windows modular, it simply will allow the user to change the default program associated with a file extension simpler. It does not remove any MS software from Windows. The default program thing isn't anything spectacular, I'm more interested in the part that says that XP won't bug you until you sign up for passport. That right now has to be the biggest pain related to XP, the damn thing just won't go away!

Could this keep Mozilla OUT???

[dr_funk]

According to this article, XP SP1 doesn't remove the apps, it just hides them. One of the FEATURES of the middleware hiding app is that other programs need to register themselves through a new API to be the default web browser or email client or media player etc... My question is will the API documentation have the same "Anti-OpenSource" clauses that MS has grown so fond of recently??? Would this prevent Mozilla from being the default browser??

Re:Could this keep Mozilla OUT???

[RealisticWeb.com]

I was wondering that myself. They said

But for the choices to appear, software developers must write programs "so that they can register here,"

My question is will they actually tell us how to properly use the API and will it have anti-OSS like you said.

Re:Microsoft lied?

[Palmguy]

They said it!

And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[HeUnique]

You really don't want to upgrade, since the new SP1 will make your WinXP unusable, as MS knows about illegal keys (like the one which escaped from a company who are good friends of MS and their name starts with D) (thats according to the-register)...

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[GeckoX]

Wrong, rtfa please.
If you had you'd see that it will NOT make these versions unuseable. Rather, you will just not be able to install the update at all.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[Mockura]

Nope... The article says: "People using Windows XP with the stolen key will not be able to apply the service pack or any future updates available from Microsoft's Web site."

(emphasis mine)

The way I read it, you'll just be stuck at a non-service-packed XP.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[kenthorvath]

I wonder if the key is in plain text inside of the service pack's binary. Can I change the key that it looks for in the code and have a working copy with a hex editor?

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[SpaceJunkie]

Interesting... And then new software,games etc will be encouraged or maybe even built upon technology which requires it. Ie directX 10 or something. Therefore the pirates are left unable to use that software. Effectively cutting them off from that. Of course some hacker will figure it out- and post it. Cat and mouse.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[Cutriss]

If you bought one properly licensed copy, and then used the Corporate Edition with that key, and didn't spread your key around, then you'd have several pirated versions of XP, and Microsoft would be none the wiser. With that in mind, you should probably be careful if you're sharing your key with your friends.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[Matts]

Probably.

You could also create a new operating system based on a modified version of Linux, sell the binaries, and refuse to give away the source code when asked for it.

Both would be illegal, and for similar reasons.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[Chanc_Gorkon]

And within days of the release of the patch...a warez version of the patch is going to come out. What's going to change? WPA just pisses people off. I would love to install it on my refurbed laptop I bought but noooo....I can only install it on one machine. That's bogus. WPA just pisses of the people who use it the most....the home hobbyists who only have one or two machines.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Nope. DMCA Violation. Stay where you are, and the police will be there in a few minutes.

Thank you,

The BSA.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[j0b0o]

i figure i will need to be formating around then anyway...

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[shepd]

>so buy another goddamned copy

Spend another $150 on a machine worth $50?

You have no clue about economics, do you?

There's a reason why it costs more to fix a new car than an old one -- a new car is a bigger investment and the parts shop knows it can charge top dollar for parts. The shop knows that getting another $2000 out of someone for a car valued at $1000 will be like getting blood from a stone.

MS should have a special "old technology" license for sub-300 Mhz machines.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[Thing 1]

You really don't want to upgrade, since the new SP1 will make your WinXP unusable, as MS knows about illegal keys (like the one which escaped from a company who are good friends of MS and their name starts with D) (thats according to the-register)...

Which key? This one?

FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8

I always thought it hilarious that the first block is an insult to our current president.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[Chanc_Gorkon]

OH...I will reply because I have NO idea what the hell your point is. Microsoft is NOT going to hurt if I install 1 extra copy of XP on ONE machine. I DID buy the damn thing you know. You metaphor is inapprpriate for teh subject at hand. The BIGGEST pirates of XP are the guys selling it for 5 bucks per disk in the streets of Hing Kong and New York. Also, the companies who buy the non-wpa version but don't pay for enough client license's also are bigger pirates then the few (and I mean few) Home users who have more then one machine. I estimate that there are some of the non techie guys who have more then one machine, but they usually leave whatever is on them and do not upgrade old machines when the new machine they have comes with the new OS. No, the home builders who build their own machines are the ones who are truely hurt by WPA. THEY BUY Windows and never get a copy for free with their machine (or supposedly for free). They PAY full price instead of the discounted OEM price. They should at least be able to install it on at LEAST 2 machines. Then if they have 4 machines they only need two licenses, or if they have only 2 (a desktop and a new or seminew laptop) they can have the same os on both. I understand econmics and it does not make sense for an OS. If what they were doing with WPA with say Office..that makes more sense, but it still penalizes those that actually buy the stuff legally. In any case, when there's a will there is a way and Microsoft's measures to stop or slow down piracy won't actually do anything to slow it down, it will just make things more difficult for those of us who have to explain to their neighbor why their desktop no longer works because Microsoft disabled it when hey installed it on thier other desktop doing what I like to call a little neighborly IS work.

Re:And if you're using a warez copy of Win XP

[shepd]

Woah there! I'm not saying don't pirate (I couldn't care less), I'm saying that if MS expects all computers to be properly registered they need a program that offers licences for old computers at reasonable prices... :-)

No more updates for pirates

[wik]

Microsoft has made a horrible mistake in this update. It disables further updates/patches for users who run XP with pirated activation numbers. I think this is horribly irresponsible, because the people who pirate are probably never going to pay for the full product. As a result, not only will they suffer from not having security udpates, but the rest of the internet will suffer from their vulnerable machines when the next Code Red comes around.

Personally, I do not run unlicensed software, but the people I know who do pirate software are more than willing to run a vulnerable machine, rather than pay money to keep from being a public nuisance.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[mblase]

I think this is horribly irresponsible, because the people who pirate are probably never going to pay for the full product.

So, what, MS is morally obligated to give their software away for free to keep the Internet secure? Please. The problem with Code Red wasn't software pirates, it was (and is) ordinary users who either don't know enough to keep their bug patches up-to-date, or don't care. If pirates were the only reason viruses spread on the Internet, we wouldn't even have a problem.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[JoeGrind]

> Microsoft has made a horrible mistake in this
> update. It disables further updates/patches for
> users who run XP with pirated activation
> numbers.

While that might be the case, I don't think MS can be held responsible for that. We blame them for a lot of things but I don't think we can expect any company to try to facilitate the ability to upgrade for people who haven't purchased the product.

Now, I do have issue with how much of an nuisance their copy protection measures are. But once again, that's their prerogative. If you don't like it, vote with your dollars.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[Geeyzus]

It disables further updates/patches for users who run XP with pirated activation numbers. I think this is horribly irresponsible

So let me get this straight, not only should a company be OK with people using pirated copies of their software, they should also offer software updates to those people? Maybe 24-hour tech support too just in case?

I don't run XP and don't plan to. However, they are offering an update to their paying customers, I have NO clue why you think they should cater to people stealing their software too.

Mark

Re:No more updates for pirates

[JimDabell]

So, what, MS is morally obligated to give their software away for free to keep the Internet secure? Please.

You don't have to pay for the service pack - it is an update to the existing software. The service pack on it's own is useless. Stopping people with unauthorised copies of Windows from installing it will not magically make them pay for the software they already have a copy of.

The problem with Code Red wasn't software pirates...

Correct.

it was (and is) ordinary users who either don't know enough to keep their bug patches up-to-date, or don't care.

Right. Now, what has changed here? A hell of a lot more people will simply not have the option of installing the updates.

So, before MS did this, the number of people using an unauthorised copy of Windows was u million. Afterwards, it's still u million. Before, the number of people with wide-open Windows was c (clueless) million + a (apathetic) million. Afterwards, it is now c million + a million + u million.

Now, where is the benefit to Microsoft? The vast majority of people who are affected by this will simply leave their software as it is, because every time a service pack comes out, they are going to look at the hundreds of pounds it costs to buy a legitimate copy, and measure the value against the updated features in the service pack, and not the features of the whole OS.

All this will do is vastly increase the effect of worms like Code Red. The only possible benefit I can see of this is that in the future, if Code Red 5 (or whatever) breaks out, Microsoft can blame pirates rather than admitting the average Windows server isn't maintained by somebody who isn't remotely qualified to do so.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[3.5 stripes]

Ah, whatever, someone will crack this too.. if it can be engineered, someone will reverse engineer it.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[Mr_Silver]

As a result, not only will they suffer from not having security udpates, but the rest of the internet will suffer from their vulnerable machines when the next Code Red comes around.

Despite the "horribly irresponsible" comment which is a load of rubbish, this point is pretty important.

If people are running a pirated version of XP and install SP1 and are prevented from applying any fixes then the next time some virus starts crawling all over the web that requires a patch to be applied then they won't be able to apply it.

This means that the virus will stay rampant in the wild for longer because a large number of people won't patch it because they can't.

Having said that, getting SP1 to just prevent WinXP from running again causes just the same problems. People with cracked keys won't run the SP update - but at least they will be able to use the emergency patches MS often requires releasing.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[Kredal]

I would think that this would make the next Code Red even easier to code and distribute. Once the worm is on a computer, it just has to make a simple check, does the product key on this machine corrospond to the one that Microsoft locked out with SP1?

If not, delete self.

If so, run payload, know that the computer will NEVER be secure, and keep the back door open for whatever the worm writer wants to do with it.

Ouch.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[indiigo]

no, People with cracked keys that cannot apply the update will one hour after the release find out what keys are not valid, and reinstall with an alternative. This is a 2-3 hour process.

If someone is brainless enough to find a cracked key that doesn't work, they certainly are brainless enough to put the effort forward to get a key that does work.

A minor hindrance.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[Jucius Maximus]

"Ah, whatever, someone will crack this too.. if it can be engineered, someone will reverse engineer it."

Maybe it just checks the registry for the product key and then locks you out if it finds a pirated match. Pirates can just get X-Setup and change the key stored in the registry. This would probably get them home free.

Of course I don't run XP so I have not tried this idea and I don't know if it works.

But I *can* tell you that in the WPA for office2k, if you delete the key from the registry and then run the SP1 update, the product activation will be activated without actually doing the activation. I discovered this by accident. The cool part is that you're not doing any hex editing or reverse engineering or anything ... just using MS tools (regedit and sp1 patch) on you machines. Probably something similarly simple exists for Winxp.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[Junta]

Judging from the description, they only disable a number of OEM keys. Of course, I wonder how many *legitimate* systems there are out there that use this key and will be screwed over. That is the boneheaded part of this move, not some silly obligation to pirates. While turning a mostly blind eye to home piracy helped Windows acheive the monopolistic power it has today, piracy is probably no longer necessary to keep the platform alive like it once was. The number of people who absolutely would not buy the version is probably small compared to the ones that would pay some way or another.

Personally, I got a copy free from MSDNAA licensing with my school, but I keep those records on file and use a corp edition lifted from work because I don't want to submit any information to MS about usage. If someone comes knocking at the door I can show them my legitimate licensing and say leave me alone, though I'd probably refuse admittance to begin with. Not that anyone would bother, but at least I have a legally licensed copy that is unused.

My scenario, and many others out there will be left unaffected by such a crippling, as that sort of cripple would royally piss off some of MS's biggest companies. Say what they will about piracy and their bottom line, but all the piracy going on doesn't hurt them nearly as much as losing some big corporate customers would.

I think the bottom line with piracy is that a lot of people I know went out of their way to obtain pirated versions *because* of WPA. Every one of those friends also had a legitimate path to the software (same as mine), but most chose not to even obtain a valid key on principle, favoring the illegal channels.

I'd much prefer some dongle arrangement than some central database tracking this stuff. For the money MS wants per copy of XP, they sure could afford the hardware costs...

Re:No more updates for pirates

[wik]

Permitting and even encouraging unpatched machines is a bad policy. Pirated software or not, the machines are a hazard to local networks and the internet as a whole. They serve as launching points and targets for worms and viruses. I believe it is irresponsible to leave these machines on the internet, but it is even more responsible to deny them patches. If not for the sake of their machine, then for the sake of MY machine and my email quota.

This is similar giving fresh needles to drug users. It is not just to protect the users, but also those around them who would otherwise share dirty needles. Is it just helping the pirates (drug users)? No way! It's better for the your network (your adventureous son/daughter), too.

I understand that some people would prefer not to deal with these problems in this way and it's okay to disagree. I'm surprised to see my comment moderated as a troll. Everyone take off your blinders for a second and think a little about the problem.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[wik]

So, what, MS is morally obligated to give their software away for free to keep the Internet secure?

Sure, why not? They are releasing a buggy product that periodically becomes a menace to the internet (pirated or not). They should take steps to correct the damage that has been caused because of their product. These patches aren't costly in comparison to the damage that a swarm of infected XP machines could cause. In the same way that we have support services for drug users (in many cases, drug use is illegal), the internet community should make updates available so that these users won't be a menace to me or themselves.

The problem with Code Red wasn't software pirates, it was (and is) ordinary users who either don't know enough to keep their bug patches up-to-date, or don't care.

The point is now, they can't keep their patches up-to-date. I think that is a crime. We still have X thousand machines infected with Code Red (I recently from some Berkeley research that X ~= 2). X will be much larger for future attacks because of this change.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[dasunt]

So, in some parts of the world (the Far East, for example), we have a lot of pirated windows. Which means, with no security updates, we have a fertile breading ground for worms, viruses, and other fun things.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[mslinux]

I know a lawyer who would try that ;)

Re:No more updates for pirates

[ryszards]

From what I can tell, it stops you getting patches from Windows Update automatically right?

What's to stop people from just getting the individual patches from their download locations linked from the Knowledge Base and applying them manually, basically doing by hand what Windows Update does for you with a few clicks of the mouse?

I doubt MS will stop patches from being downloadable from everywhere bar Windows Update. They may be a lot of things to a lot of people but they aren't stupid enough to think that 100% of Windows users use Windows Update.

What about people like me that do things manually or systems admins that download their own copies and push manually to desktops using SMS or some other mechanism?

Windows Update isn't the only source for updating a recent Windows box. Please don't be so naive in commentary about this new measure. It probably affects less people than you think, is easily worked around if need be and in any case, is a legitimate measure for MS against piracy of their products.

Rys

Re:No more updates for pirates

[wik]

That's not how I understood the article (in fact, it said nothing about "windows update"):

People using Windows XP with the stolen key will not be able to apply the service pack or any future updates available from Microsoft's Web site.

Maybe there is more information somewhere else, but I certainly don't see it.

Re:No more updates for pirates

[ryszards]

So Windows PC's around the world already know that they are being used with pirate Product Keys and will prevent the Service Pack being installed?

Why don't they already prevent use of pre-SP1 patches then?

I can only see the Service Pack blocking software updates by means of collaberation with Windows Update. It can't see it preventing use of patches created in the future that it can't know about yet without scanning all executables run on the system for a tell tale "MS Official Patch" signature or whatever.

It will almost certainly require Windows Update to function and prevent updates from that service only.

Rys

Re:No more updates for pirates

[wik]

> Why don't they already prevent use of pre-SP1 patches then?

Probably because they're changing their policy now, not yesterday, and they'd have to re-qualify and re-release older patches in order to do this. That's a big deal.

> I can only see the Service Pack blocking software updates by means of collaberation with Windows Update. It can't see it preventing use of patches created in the future that it can't know about yet without scanning all executables run on the system for a tell tale "MS Official Patch" signature or whatever.

I don't see how windows update needs to be a part of this. Every patch has an integrated installer. Why can't Microsoft (a) require SP1 to be installed (certainly not unheard of in the world of software patches) and (b) require that SP1 has validated the installation key? I don't see where the Windows Update utility needs to fit in here. There are plenty of other variants on this idea. You could also have each patch check the validity of the registration number, just as the service pack must do. This is probably not a complex check.

what's the big deal?

[Quasar1999]

All this does is HIDE the icons for internet explorer and outlook express and windows media player.

I can already do that. Tweak UI does it. And as for file associations, who here thinks that if you accidentally start up windows media player even after this service pack, that it will still redo all your file associations without asking...

This is not a plea of guilt on Microsoft's part, hell this supports their case, they aren't removing anything, they are just hiding it (since of course, windows would stop functioning if you removed it)...

Re:what's the big deal?

[linderdm]

Actually, if you read the article, the Service Pakc not provides aninterface for setting "default" middleware applications for certain media types. I know you have seen the annoying dialog boxes that proclaim something is not your default, would you like to change it to be default. This allows users to choose from a menu what they want their defaults to be.

Re:what's the big deal?

[tshak]

I can already do that. Tweak UI does it.

But the average user doesn't have a clue as to what TweakUI is or even how to hide an icon (believe it or not). This move on MS's not only promotes competition, but it promotes their right to use integrated DHTML/Media components in their apps and third party apps.

Re:what's the big deal?

[Quasar1999]

But the average user doesn't have a clue as to what TweakUI is or even how to hide an icon (believe it or not). This move on MS's not only promotes competition, but it promotes their right to use integrated DHTML/Media components in their apps and third party apps.

Oh, I believe that the average user may not know how to use tweak UI. But how does that promote competition?

I know exactly what registry settings tweak UI changes when it does its thing. So would it not make sense for those companies (or individuals) who wish to compete to do the same thing that tweak UI does, in their application, or during their applications installation?

Businesses could have done this long ago (back in the ol' 98 days), so I fail to see how this promotes competition.

Re:what's the big deal?

[The Cat]

Yeah, but the average user.... blah blah blah

The average user doesn't know what a service pack is either, right? They do? Then why don't they know about TweakUI?

This "the average user is an empty-minded moron" elitism only serves to hold users (and developers) back. Instead of dumbing everything down, how about encouraging people to improve their knowledge? Know how to do that? Well, you start by NOT calling them morons.

..and people actually *complain* that everything is dumbed-down...

Re:what's the big deal?

[sean23007]

This is totally offtopic, but what media players do you people use (on Windows) in lieu of the windows media player? Quicktime for PC is a veritable piece of crap, RealPlayer is absolutely the most abhorrent software ever written, and Windows Media isn't actually that bad. I use it for all my video needs, which are extensive. Out of curiosity, I want to know what other people use.

Re:what's the big deal?

[Dwonis]

Perhaps no good media players exist for Windows because they can't compete against Microsoft.

The 3rd parties are still screwed

[sacremon]

As mentioned in The Register article, 3rd party apps will appear as choices if they are coded so that they interface with XP to appear as choices. They will not automatically appear just because they are installed; it will require some registration with MS to have the app appear as a choice, perhaps even having to use some shared library from MS.

Re:The 3rd parties are still screwed

[mccalli]

3rd party apps will appear as choices if they are coded so that they interface with XP to appear as choices...perhaps even having to use some shared library from MS.

Well of course.

How else am I, as the operating system, supposed to know that this completely unknown executable you've just stuck on the drive handles foodlewidgets unless you tell me that it handles foodlewidgets?

No conspiracy here people. Move along now...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:The 3rd parties are still screwed

[mccalli]

You mean that application that has already registered with the OS that it can handle files with the extension .xyz and .abc, that match those handled by the MS application? Gee, I dunno.

Despite Unix, there's more to life than files you know.

Modular means that I can programatically get a component that handles foodlewidgets. Not foodlewidget.fwdg documents, but the actual live thingies themselves.

Example: I need a component to play some streamed media. I go to the new registry, find out what the user has told me handles this kind of media, and I play it.

Not a million miles away from MIME types, is it? And the MIME system is good...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:The 3rd parties are still screwed

[homer_ca]

But for the choices to appear, software developers must write programs "so that they can register here," he said. When no third-party middleware installed, Microsoft software would appear in the list.

So this looks like a new and different API that 3rd partys will use to register their file associations. And how is this different from the API that Windows already has to register file associations? If it's new and different, all the middleware vendors will have to roll out new versions to be listed.

Re:The 3rd parties are still screwed

[Decimal]

How else am I, as the operating system, supposed to know that this completely unknown executable you've just stuck on the drive handles foodlewidgets unless you tell me that it handles foodlewidgets?

So you are the voice of my operating system. Finally! I've been waiting to communicate with you for a long time. I've already emptied it, but would you now please let me delete the Outlook Express folder from C:\Program Files\?

This is too funny

[zaqattack911]

I find it a little amusing that MS needs to hire a team of programmers to "HIDE" the MS middleware that'll be installed with Windows XP.

OOOoooo.. a fancy ass little control panel option to trash icons for IE MSN , and outlook. 700megs later, we have people with so much crap on the HD who are oblivious to whats installed.

Another thing... MS claims they have "locked" a WinXP installation to the hardware. If I get a new PC... does that mean I can't uninstall from my old PC, and reinstall on the other? or what if I swap a harddisk?
Someone please fill me in here.

--Me

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[Pave Low]

Does this Service Pack raise the dead? What about walking on water? Does it do cold fusion? Because all those things are "impossible" to achieve to. So without any context, the title is meaningless.

MS isn't really the problem....

[mblase]

I use Yahoo! Messenger all the time on my PC. I like it, I use it, it gives me handy access to my account there.

But it's annoying because YM uses IE as its HTML rendering engine. If I uninstalled IE completely, YM wouldn't work. HomeSite has (or at least, had) similar problems; it advertised "experimental" Gecko integration, but I never did get it to work. If I wanted to preview my pages without launching a browser, IE needs to be installed.

Other third-party apps do the same thing, because IE's engine is so easy for them to integrate. It's not my fault they rely entirely on MS's browser to make their application work, but there you are.

So we keep IE installed and just deal with the memory bloat. I don't use IE anymore except for browser testing, not since Mozilla became so friendly and I convinced Windows to make it the default browser for everything. (This took some time.) But it'd be nice if third-party apps didn't agree with MS that the browser is an "integrated" part of the OS.

Re:MS isn't really the problem....

[phossie]

and this, my dear, is why the api's need to be fully documented, fully public, fully free. i don't care about the code in this case, but if somebody wants to be able to write a nice little rendering engine to replace ie, that should be *possible*. yes, that means trying to keep up with microsoft. but then you do get to use their own tactics against them, which no one can do right now. embrace and extend ie, what do you lose? what does microsoft lose? what do you lose if you're just embracing and extending ie's api? ;)

Let's stop all the "now I can install XP" comments

[PanBanger]

The article mentions that:

"Another change seeks to curb about 90 percent of Windows XP piracy. Microsoft introduced Product Activation with the operating system, which uses a numeric key to lock the software to the hardware. But code stolen from a large Microsoft customer allowed rampant illegal Windows XP copying. People using Windows XP with the stolen key will not be able to apply the service pack or any future updates available from Microsoft's Web site."

This means that the CD you have in your cube with XP written on it with a Sharpie will not take the service pack.

Other than the security issues this service pack claims to rectify, seems like issues that the average slashdot reader can solve his/herself. I mean, do we really need help making Netscape the default rather than I.E.?

What about Windows 2000?

[edgrale]

What about Windows 2000 Service Pack 3? Will it allow me to choose to uninstall the software that was mentioned?

If the answer is no, then why is it not possible?
Clearly it _CAN_ be done.

Re:What about Windows 2000?

[flatrock]

Because there's no reason for Microsoft to go back and retrofit a 2 year old product to do this when they already have had a new version out for a while. This is mainly a tool for OEMs to be able to ship systems with different middleware. OEMs aren't shipping many systems with Win2k.

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[darien]

Well, I thought it was quite funny.

But, as several commentators have already pointed out, this isn't really modularising Windows at all - MS have been using the word "hide", which strongly suggests that all their stuff will be installed, it just won't have icons (rather like NetMeeting in XP).

So far so redundant.

But I was interested in the bit at the end of the article where it mentions "freezing" copies that have been activated with a known pirate key. I thought most pirate copies of XP were the corporate edition, that doesn't need activating, and should therefore be indistinguishable from legit copies? Or do they really mean the Product Key, which you enter when you install Windows? In which case, what's to stop you simply changing it in the registry - or, very worst case, simply finding a working Product Key on the net and reinstalling? Still far far easier and cheaper than going out and buying XP.

Just a ploy?

[interiot]

Is this a ploy so they can say things like "Only 2% of the users actually removed IE"?

Other apps use IE within themselves using IE's API. Until there is a generalized API that will allow Netscape/Opera/etc. to work in the same places IE does now, such a feature is mostly useless.

I can imagine MS may want to shorten that statement down to "this feature is mostly useless".

Dang it........

[the_2nd_coming]

the service pack willnot install on those Corprate versions that were floating around becasue MS locked out that Product ID key.

to bad for those that have it......

Wrong.

[billybob]

"Basically we're freezing their computer where it is," Cullinan said. "We're not preventing them from using it, but obviously one of the benefits of having a license is keeping your PC updated."

You still be able to use your current pirated version just fine. The upgrade will not disable it from working. It's just that it won't let you upgrade.

Dont post FUD

What about the EULA?

[toupsie]

While this is a welcomed change for Microsoft to open up their operating system and play nice with third party companies, what has Microsoft done with the EULA for SP1? That is the real reason not to use XP -- not because it doesn't play nice with RealAudio. The XP EULA is affront to an individual's right to cpu privacy.

do you want to pay for crap you do not want?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Do you really want to pay for something you have said you do not want?

Under the States' remedy you would get a discount of $50 or more.

Re:do you want to pay for crap you do not want?

[flewp]

I would never pay for XP anyway. In fact, I haven't paid for an MS Product in years. Last time I guess you could say I paid was when I bought a new machine about 4-5 years ago. It came with Windows, so I had to pay the obligatory Windows tax. After that, used a pirated 98SE, now Win2k pro, which was supplied from a company I do work for.

Now that Pirates cant upgrade to SP2...

[Zo0ok]

...I wonder how many people currently running a pirated version of XP will reconsider and actually BUY XP to be able to apply the service pack.

My guess: probably fewer than those who will switch to a free OS ;)

The idea with those select versions of the OS is that no key should be required anywhere. Large organisations cannot call Microsoft every time the upgrade or reinstall a computer.

And for those who didnt read the article and runs a pirated version of XP: M$ says 90% of you wont be able to upgrade to SP1...

Re:Now that Pirates cant upgrade to SP2...

[thesfinx]

Just wait for a pirated version of SP1

Re:Now that Pirates cant upgrade to SP2...

[stinkydog]

How long until Kazaa is buzzing with XPSP1Cracked.zip. I give it about three days (a week until a real version that is not 30mb of virii is 'released').

Good luck MS.

SD

Register Article is More Interesting

[donnacha]

Don't know why /. chose to use the Cnet story to highlight this subject, there's a more interesting article over at The Reg.

Re:Register Article is More Interesting

[Yankovic]

i would respectfully disagree. the register article is biased as always.

back in the olden days (i.e. 1997) there was a great application for the mac called internet config. it was a centralized place to handle all the handlers for a given os, and was *super* simple to configure. i haven't used a mac os in a long time, but if i remember right, this was brought forward into future mac versions as well.

to me, this seems to be *exactly* what ms is doing, except rather than listing their own middleware first, they're not listing it at all if someone else has correctly registered.

so what is "correctly registered"? it's incredibly simple; it's even built into the default installer that comes with vs.net. the register is making a big production out of nothing.

Re:Register Article is More Interesting

[donnacha]

i would respectfully disagree. the register article is biased as always.

Well, I guess what I meant by "more interesting" was "more entertaining".

And, somehow, I always find biased entertaining.

CNet is so deadly dull and earnest these days, especially those video reports. That blonde lady they had reporting from E3, she's easy on the eyes but, God, I'd give anything to see her just once looks as if she realizes that 90% of what she's reporting is complete arse.

Modular? or new File Associations UI?

[simetra]

It sounds more like they made the file associations interface more end-user-friendly. I don't think it's ever been the case that any 3rd party apps were prohibited from running.

A tad worried

[MarvinMouse]

"The control offers four different choices for changing the Windows desktop and Start Menu: "Computer Manufacturer Configuration," "Microsoft Windows," "Non-Microsoft" and "Custom."

When I change my setting to Non-Microsoft, will microsoft know? If so, will I not get updates for certain things because I am "Non-Microsoft"? Why does the system need to know that the program is "Non-Microsoft"

(I am not trying to flamebait or troll, just stating my worries considering previous Microsoft practices.)

Re:A tad worried

[GnomeKing]

Thats a very interesting point...

microsoft have already used the lack of ability to test things in all combinations as an excuse for not modularising windows, so who knows, maybe the next thing they say is that they only recommend this critical security update for people who have all 5 set to the microsoft option - because thats the only one they tested it with

Re:A tad worried

[Amazing Quantum Man]

And what would the difference between "Non-Microsoft" and "Custom" be?

Re:Let's stop all the "now I can install XP" comme

[mccalli]

service pack claims to rectify...issues that the average slashdot reader can solve his/herself. I mean, do we really need help making Netscape the default rather than I.E.?

Yes.

You see, you might think that setting Netscape to launch when you click on a hyperlink or double-click an HTML file means you've set the default. What I call setting the default is having the OS itself decide that when an app has programmatically requested an HTML-rendering component, it gets that component from Netscape and not from IE.

No user intervention can achieve that right now. Not even by a Slashdotter.

Cheers,
Ian

What about progress?!

[itomato]

If they had, they wouldn't be where they are today.

Uhhh...

[blixel]

From the article: Another change seeks to curb about 90 percent of Windows XP piracy. Microsoft introduced Product Activation with the operating system, which uses a numeric key to lock the software to the hardware. But code stolen from a large Microsoft customer allowed rampant illegal Windows XP copying. People using Windows XP with the stolen key will not be able to apply the service pack or any future updates available from Microsoft's Web site.

Any bets on how long it takes for a crack to appear for the Service Pack? Or new ISO's of Windows XP with the Service Pack already applied?

Finally...NOT

[pythorlh]

Actually, the article says that it will be just as bloated as before, but you won't necessarily see it all. This is the smallest step MS could make in the right direction, but its not big enough. The ability to actually remove the various components, not just hide them, for both OEMs and consumers, that is what I'm waiting for.

Re:Finally...NOT

[drew]

it may not be a big step, but it is a useful step. now i can finally keep windows messenger from starting up everytime i start up outlook express, for example.

while the programs wll still be installed, preventing them from running does mean more than just deleting the start menu shortcut....

Re:Finally...NOT

[caspper69]

Or you could just follow MS's instructions (handily available in the knowledge base) for disabling messenger. But they do get you a little -> you must also disable the registry key within Outlook Express that searches for messenger on startup (which will cause Outlook to take about 2 minutes to start while looking for Messenger if you do not).

Re:Finally...NOT

[martyn s]

That's not true. I remove the string "hide," from the sysoc.inf file on the line starting msmgs (windows messenger). After that I removed windows messenger, and outlook express doesn't search for it anymore. You've always been able to do that.

Re:Finally...NOT

[Bungie]

I had also done the sysoc.inf trick and it worked...for a while. After visiting Windows update, it seems that messenger starts up again, and even worse I can't close it while Outlook Express is running (it gives some lame message about shared components). Also, if you kill the process from task manager, it just respawns after about a minute.

I can see it now..

[MongooseCN]

Please select the default browser you would like to use:

• Netscape

Please press OK to continue.

This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. No changes will be saved.

Re:I can see it now..

[anpe]

Considering to the degree of stability and speed reached by Netscape 7.0 RC1, this would be a real threat to open source advocates :)

Re:I can see it now..

[Jonny Ringo]

You for got a step.

"Are you REALLY REALLY sure you want to continue?"

Re:I can see it now..

[MisterBlister]

Well, based on past experience, Netscape is going to be performing illegal operations and crashing with or without the help of Microsoft's fancy new wizard.

And yes, I did 'get your point', but you can't exactly mention the name 'netscape' in any serious discussion over how badly programmed/bloated Microsoft's software is and get away with it...

Re:I can see it now..

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Please select the default browser you would like to use:

Netscape

Please press OK to continue.

This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. No changes will be saved.

No, it'll go:


Please select the default browser you would like to use:

Netscape
Are you sure?

Yes
Are you really sure?

Yes
Microsoft products offer advanced features such as integration into the system. Wouldn't you rather use Internet Explorer instead of Netscape?

Yes
WARNING: Use of non-Microsoft products may lead to instability in your system. Are you sure?

Yes
Setting preferences.

This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. No changes will be saved.

Re:I can see it now..

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Whoops! The answer to the IE Question should have been no!

Modular, eh?

[Swannie]

Why should we believe that it will continue to work after it's been modularized? I think we all know that Windows can work without IE, but it seems to me that Microsoft is going to use this as a way to say, "See? People de-install the Internet Explorer module, and Windows becomes (unstable|doesn't work)! I told you so!"

Classic Microsoft manuevering if you ask me... but then I'm a cynic. :)

Re:Modular, eh?

[Swannie]

I realize that this is easier said then done, but technically, why couldn't Netscape server the same functions? I realize that "politically" microsoft would never open up their API/whatever to allow that to happen, but none the less, hypothetically it is possible.

yay!

[Lag Master]

sweet! now i have a reason to stop using win2000 and use xp =)

You could add all the apps you want...

[Pachy]

... But XP would still default to the MS app. For example in IE under XP, each time you click a "mailto" link it lauches Outlook, even if you have Netscape as your default email application.

Same if you install an image viewer/browser such as Irfanview, XP will insist on opening images in its own preview application.

Re:You could add all the apps you want...

[Enzondio]

There are options in IE to determine which E-mail application you want to use for mailto links. As far as it defaulting to Outlook that's not much different from Netscape defaulting to Messenger.

Also you can change the associations for images as you have been able to do in all versions of Windows. Many programs when they install either change these associations or ask if you want to change them.

Re:You could add all the apps you want...

[MrAl]

I don't know about other versions of Windows, but it's not 100% in Win98. I've given up on several PC's here that still try to pull up Outlook Express even though we're using Outlook2000! It's absolutely ridiculous that even associations don't guarantee the right program will launch. Something's hard-coded somewhere...

Does it matter to MS?

[Black_Logic]

I mean, after you've paid for the whole MS package, then you go out and pick up / download netscape, haven't your already paid for IE? I guess they do give away IE free, but I'd be willing to bet that some of the money you spend on the windowsXP os is for the work they put into these programs (windows media player, IE, outlook)

How 'bout a partial refund? :)

I guess I shouldn't wine since i don't even use windows.. but, that's how I am, always keeping YOUR interests in mind! :)

Re:Now for office

[agallagh42]

There is!

HIDE?!?!!?

[Marqui]

Hide the unwanted apps? Was the recycle bin too full already? Why can't they be DELETED!?!?!? Oh great, now I'll be stuck with a bunch of "recycle proof" apps.

Actually this may apply to Win2K SP3 too...

[frleong]

This link contains some API and registry changes that allow OEMs and other vendors to change the default programs from e-mail, JavaVM to media player within Windows.

So, Who Leaked Their Activation Key?

[donnacha]

...it won't work on a widely-warezed activation key, which as we recall escaped form a large friend of Microsoft beginning with D.

So, who was that?

Dell?

Re:So, Who Leaked Their Activation Key?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was DHewlett Packard.

Like the "Compaq", the "D" is silent.

Re:So, Who Leaked Their Activation Key?

[gimpboy]

no it wast the german version of gateway: Degateway
the one with decow. yep it was dell. bad dell, (smack, smack) now get back in the box bitch.

Re:So, Who Leaked Their Activation Key?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it was Dilbert.

Re:So, Who Leaked Their Activation Key?

[teamhasnoi]

...it won't work on a widely-warezed activation key, which as we recall escaped form a large friend of Microsoft beginning with D.

Fool! Large friend of Microsoft? It's the Devil. THE DEVIL!

then your company should get the $50

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Somebody bought it, right?

Well. Who ever it was deserves a $50 or more discount if they do not want the Microsoft branded products.

It is just like when a friend of yours buys the happy meal but you did not want the toy. You should have advised them to buy a meal without the toy.

Re:then your company should get the $50

[TheAwfulTruth]

Your happy meal example is the perfect anology to TOTALLY DISPROVE your inane theories. The happy meal DOES NOT COST MORE because it contains a toy!!! In fact it ususally costs a LOT LESS that a regular meal.

Are you saying that McD now has to sell the happy meal without the toy for 50 cents less? That's EXACTLY what you are asking Microsft to do!

Win98/XP Home IS the happy meal of the microsoft OSes! Cutting out 3 cents worth of plastic does not mean that 50% of the cost should be refunded. And of course you have completely overlooked the the problems caused by undoing the integration which has HELPED many many small developers bring fully featured apps to windows. Myself included. Spoken like the true laywer that you are. All twisted logic and a complete lack of common sense.

LAWYERS GET OUT OF SOFTWARE DESIGN NOW!

Even with this, MS is pulling their usual tricks..

[GORDOOM]

Mod the parent to this up! He almost stole the words from my mouth!

On the Mac OS, when specifying the apps to be used as http/ftp/mailto/etc. helpers, literally *any* app can be specified, just by browsing to it. And yet, now Microsoft is saying that you have to use their APIs to register as a helper, but they've said nothing about how you get access to the documentation for those APIs!

And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of anti-GPL clause in the access agreement for the documentation...

Anti-Anti-trust

[BreakWindows]

This is essentially useless. Great, you can remove the icons if they were really bothering you so much...but can the OEM's?

Doubt it.

Middleware apps are only Hidden:

[eGuy]

http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=701&a=27311, 00.asp explains that the icons are only hidden and the and the default views in the start menu are now more configurable.
You can still run IE - the executibles and dll's are all there. That is why the rest of the 9 states didn't jump for joy and say 'good microsoft... now play dead!'

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[BradleyUffner]

you are right, it's not a troll, it's offtopic.

This is stupid

[johnburton]

This is just stupid. First of all, hardly anyone is going to disable these things, and secondly I expect that the first thing that most products will do in future is make you turn them back on before they install so they know what environment they are running in.

Re:Register is a better source

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

TheRegister article is better.

meh...

[AnimeFreak]

Remember how you could "fuse" NT 4's and 2000's service packs into the installer so you wouldn't have to update it when you made a fresh install? How much do you want to bet that this will the next method that the piraters will use to circumvent the piracy control method?

In a nutshell, this is quite easy to do. You extract the contents of the service pack to a directory, copy the contents of the Windows CD to some random folder, place the updated files in the appopriate places, burn a CD with the updated contents and make it bootable, and voila! You have an updated Windows CD.

Re:meh...

[Corporate Gadfly]

Good idea...

Its called Integrated Installaion. Here's the procedure:

1. You extract the service pack files using the "/x" parameter (Installing from a Network Drive)
2. Use update.exe with the "-s" flag (Using Command-Line Switches with Update.exe) to point to the full path of where you're about to burn the CD from:
update.exe -s:c:\path\to\cd\contents

Bart's way to create bootable CD-Roms has loads of information on making bootable CDs.

Define "pirated"

[swb]

I'll bet loads of people run pirated versions of XP that aren't well-known stolen activation keys or other cracks that attempt to override it.

I'll bet lots of them are grey-area pirates -- people with Select agreements that have a copy that doesn't require online authorization and can be used on lots of computers. I'm sure there are other similar distributions that are in the wild that don't require this and won't get caught by XP SP1.

Unless (when?) Microsoft starts limiting how these versions can be used, there will still be large numbers of illicit copies of XP and other software on the market. I wouldn't be suprised to see a MS licensing service in .net server that would manage (contain?) the spread of select CDs.

PC Makers

[jaymz168]

Several PC makers have already indicated that they would consider swapping out Microsoft middleware, such as Windows Media Player or Windows Messenger, for competing software. But many are still evaluating their options. Well I suppose Dell, etc. will be making more money now that Netscape, etc. can compete for product positioning in Windows systems.

Re:AOL will jump on this...yay

[Zapdos]

You act as if the consumer will be forced into a package he/she does not want. That is so short sighted.

I bet the software package sold with the PC can be as interesting as the hardware itself. This may give some real difference between Dell, Gateway, Hp ect.

Future statement" I bought a System X because it comes with Media Planet Version 5"
Get the drift that maybe this could create some new and alive software companies.

You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[fstanchina]

since I refuse to pay for XP, I wouldn't be able to upgrade

If you didn't pay, you shouldn't have anything to upgrade in the first place. The fact that software should be free doesn't mean that we can refuse to pay companies who want us to. As silly as Microsoft sometimes are, I entirely approve the anti-piracy part of this.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Oculus Habent]

I agree.

The simple fact is software, music, art, etc, can only be free if we live in one of two types of societies:

1. Communism/Socialism: If the government has the ability to support people who are furthering the minds of the people/state, then art, music, and software can be free to us, even if we are not free oursleves.

2. Social Democracy: This concept is much harder for Americans than others, as it is contrary to pure capitalism. We would have to support those who make a contribution to our state, but whose contribution should be free. In this model, the government funds artists, music costs are virtually non-existant (you would still have to pay "cost" for physical media, and a "artist tax") and we can get all the music and software for nothing.

The US is a social/capitalist democracy, and very often we are living in the No Man's Land between the two sides.

Sorry for the rant.--
Freedom of Information doesn't mean that information is free.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[julesh]

Except for the fact that the way it is disabled is based on your registration CD key. What if it was *your* CD key that was swiped by some warez person and stuck on their latest serialz list?

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[leucadiadude]

One correction, the USA is NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A significant difference.

I.e., it's not "mob rule", but the Constitution, and the resulting body of law from it that rule.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[JamesOfTheDesert]

If the government has the ability to support people who are furthering the minds of the people/state, then art, music, and software can be free to us, even if we are not free oursleves.

Free? Just where does the money to pay for this software come from? Trees? It may be free for certain individuals, but it sure ain't free to others.

In this model, the government funds artists, music costs are virtually non-existant (you would still have to pay "cost" for physical media, and a "artist tax") and we can get all the music and software for nothing.

Again, in "this model", *somebody* has to pay for all this. Shifting costs doesn't make anything free; all this means is some people can make other people pay for things.

Sort of like if I rob you so I can buy new clothing. From my point of view it's free, but you, of course, may think otherwise ....

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Moridineas]

Then you call microsoft and get a new one--they have a specific phone number setup for this (it's referenced in the XP install procedure I would believe). I'd also be curious if you have any anecdotal evidence of this ever happening (warez stealing keys from indivudals).

The stolen keys are for instance OEM keys that are bulk licences, not individual users.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[evilmonkey_666]

Last I checked, Gore was elected, but Bush is president.

Sound's more like a dictatorship to me.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[ichimunki]

Um, while I'm not happy with the outcome of the last election myself, the fact is that the USA is a federation of states, which are given unequal voting representation in the presidential election (just like they have unequal numbers of representatives in one part of the legislature). The problem with the last election was not a failure in the overall (macro) system, but a detail problem (micro) having to do with counting irregularities in one (or more) of the states. While post-election information indicates that at least one state's counting problems may have resulted in that state voting the wrong way, most of us will never truly know-- given the extremely close nature of the race in that state and the highly inaccurate methods used to tally the votes.

It will become a dictatorship, if and only if, the current administration uses their position to effect political changes (i.e. assassinations, intimidations, etc) or simply finds a way to prevent future elections (i.e. state of war, whatever). Until that occurs, which seems highly unlikely, the United States is a democratic/constitutional republic and your so-called free citizenry is safe from tyranny, ok?

Note that even a constitutional republic is susceptible to degradation of rights for minorities and recognition of protections for acts like free speech. The overriding dependency is the tolerance of citizens to the behavior of police and the final decisions of judicial oversight. Since people are involved both as actors and in a judgement capacity there are bound to be mistakes, inaccuracies, disagreements, misunderstandings, etc.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[jazman_777]

One correction, the USA is NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

The Republic died in 1861. We are now an Empire.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[leucadiadude]

Buuuurp.

A/C postings are SO unintelligent.

One way of curing your wearyness is stop reading slashdot, or any other public forumn. Gasp, you might be offended!

Grow up.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[leucadiadude]

Thanks for the chuckle. Your reply was quite amusing, and with a kernal of truth to it.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Darby]

. The problem with the last election was not a failure in the overall (macro) system, but a detail problem (micro) having to do with counting irregularities in one (or more) of the states. While post-election information indicates that at least one state's counting problems may have resulted in that state voting the wrong way, most of us will never truly know-- given the extremely close nature of the race in that state and the highly inaccurate methods used to tally the votes.

This is a frighteningly uninformed statement.
In the first place, we do *truly* know at this point. Bush lost in Florida, Gore won. This has been proven and certified. It isn't drilled into your head over and over on all the networks, but it has been reported.

The second and far more critical point is that this isn't even the real issue with the election.
The most sickening part of the election scam happened months before the election. Jeb Bush, brother of GW and governor of Florida stripped 10s of thousands of Florida voters of their most basic right as a citizen of a democracy (ignoring the whole "form of government" issue and just using the common parlance). The only reason he had for doing this is that they were largely black and *all* registered democrats. He did this in violation of Florida law and the US Constitution.
Information is available at www.gregpalast.com
among many other places.

Take this together with the fact that since in office Bush has raped the freedom of information act.
The few rights left to we the people under this act he has specifically ordered all government offices to fight to the best of their abilities.

Now I agree that we do not live under a "tyranny" per se, but neither do we live under the government described in the constitution.
When you have a member of a organized crime family who rigged an election and used the supreme court to gain a position where he could cement his power before the truth could come out as president, then it certainly isn't a democracy/republic or anything similar.

When the criminal thug proceeds to use his illegally attained office to strip our rights away in part to protect his father from criminal prosecution for his illegal actions while president, *allow* the single worst terrorist attack in the country's history so he could further strip our rights (patriot act etc.), and bomb the shit out of a stone age country because they wouldn't allow his oil company buddies to build a pipeline through their country, then it is much closer to a tyranny then you have the courage to allow yourself to see.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[discstickers]

Are you THAT idiotic? Really.. I mean have you read the Constitution? Whoever wins the majority of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE becomes president, which is what Bush did. Sure, Gore won the majority of the popular vote, but he didn't win the electoral college, as required by the Constitution. You can talk til you're blue in face about Florida, but as the recounts have shown there, Bush would have one.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[NovaX]

Okay, I have to ask you, because I see this a lot on slashdot. Why should art, music, and programming be free? Now the first two are definately art forms, but the latter being claimed art is a pure fallace. Even saying art should be free doesn't seem right, especially in a capalistic society. If you say the government should pay the people creating it, then you set their salaries based on a system (such as popularity with a fixed cost per use).

Yes, I agree that the music industry is severly flawed, but what do you consitute art? Writing, and if so to what degree, sci-fi, technical, magazines? How about my school books?

And why lump programming with it, why not add chemistry, so we can get access to drugs cheaper? I mean, our DNA and that of animals should be free? Why should they be allowed to create geneticaly engineered foods, since they just made some slight changes to a plant.. make it free.

The FSF and so many people on slashdot keep saying programming should be free, and then neglect to say how people should be compensated in our capalistic society, unless they take a hit on their salary for some moral reason, a reason no one explains. Someone goes to school for 4-8 yrs to become an expert, and works hard - why should they be obligated to take a lower salary then the free market allows so you can have it free? When someone parties through school with a political science major, and earns the same or more because you forced a lower salary on on job class.

This is becoming to much of a rant and getting offtopic.. so I'll stop now. cheers!

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Retief-CDT]

You are a complete Boob! Obviously you have no clue about the facts of the Election. Bush won in Florida the numbers prove it. Just because crooked Democrats have tried to "cook the books", does not mean that facts are facts. Go back to your U.F.O. sightings and crop circles and leave the real world to the rest of us.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[istartedi]

The US is a social/capitalist democracy, and very often we are living in the No Man's Land between the two sides.

The US is a republic with a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. Actually, most countries have mixed socialist/capitalist economies, even the Soviet Union had some capitalism. I agree with the second part of your statement. It is a strange brew indeed sometimes...

Social security, some utilities, transportation, education: usually socialist. You can't opt out of social security. Opting out of utilities is usually impractical for technical reasons. You can't opt out of transportation subsidies. You can opt out of socialized education in the US, but you still have to pay for it. The arts are partially socialized (PBS, NEA) but most art is produced by the free market. Actually, finding an industry that is not to some extent socialized in the US is rather difficult! Just look at the recent farm subsidy. Radical hippy music festivals aren't subsidized... rather ironic considering the leftist leanings of people you often find at such events. Let's see... talk radio isn't subsidized. I'd like to see Rush Limbaugh apply for an NEA grant, just for the humor value.

Actually, in economic terms Russia is probably now more capitalist than the USA. In terms of free speech though, they have shut down some media outlets in ways that would never happen here. The only way a media outlet could get shut down here is to go bankrupt, broadcast porn/filth in the wrong way, or steal somebody else's content. It's fair enough for me.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Darby]

Obviously you have no clue about the facts of the Election. Bush won in Florida the numbers prove it. Just because crooked Democrats have tried to "cook the books", does not mean that facts are facts. Go back to your U.F.O. sightings and crop circles and leave the real world to the rest of us.

I notice you fail to find anything to back yourself up with. Typical of cowards afraid to entertain any ideas besides those drummed into them to attack anyone who takes their responsibilities as a citizen of a free society seriously, to accuse them of being crazy when you are, through your death grip on your ignorance, the worst threat to the country I love.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Apparissus]

In "this model" (socialism/communism) the idea is that the government is only paying for the cost of developing the software, not making the authors rich. Software would be a whole bunch cheaper if al that was being paid for was the cost of developing the software, and not the cost of lining the developer's pockets. Nobody gets rich in real social/communism, but that's the idea - this crazy notion that people would create art and science and goods and services for the betterment of themselves, their society, and their fellow man, and not just for the holy dollar.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[CyberAxe]

Also programing is a work of someone's mind, and should belong to that person. If I come up with some program (IE.. Windows, Mac, DOS) Why shouldn't I make people pay for the hard work I've done to make the program. What about all the people slaving over a keyboard just to make it easyer on you so you don't have to go learn the langage to make using your computer easyer... Come on, if you think about what these programs are doing and how they make your life easyer. and if you think it's not a big deal then format your hard drive and start making your own program with 0's and 1's and stop complanning about a few $100's which save you 10's of years in programing time, schooling and brain power to do the same thing. I want to see someone flip 1000's of switches on a computer and keep up with me moveing my mouse, or even typing commands on a non-gui os. The only time I think these programs should be free or cheeper is for the people having to learn them to support other people or work for these company. Say I want to work for IBM. Well I would have to spend 1000's to get the software and hardware to learn on and work with so I can have the experiance and know how to work for them... or how about a graphic artest, that great you need like atleast 4 programs to make a great photos but there 1000's each... with out any hardware. company should be helping us out more, so we can know the software before we go work for them and that way be better IT people......

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Fjandr]

Yay, someone else reads /. who's not an utter moron where the US's political structure comes in. I haven't read all the replies beneath this one, but judging from my own experiences on /., it will be filled with rantings about "the US is so a democracy" blah, blah, blah. There is hope that /. is not entirely overrun with those doomed to repeat stupid historical mistakes.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Fjandr]

I have to say that I agree that this is now practice, even if it is not legally the case. Got a chuckle out of it. :)

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[Fjandr]

Actually, you can opt out of Social Security, it just takes some work. The only people who have you in a strangelhold to provide an SS# are employers and the military. You don't have to join the military, and you just have to put yourself in a position to not enter covered employment. Contract with one of several national employee leasing companies who send out 1099s, bill an employer through them (no withholding, payroll taxes, etc.), and don't provide an SS# for the 1099 (perfectly legal).
Since the right to happiness (ie lawful employment) and the right to life (you can't live without some means of support) are inalienable, and the power to tax (in this case employment) is the power to destroy, and the government cannot destroy an inalienable right (I know this is circular, but people can be so slow where these issues are concerned), the government cannot legally tax your income without your consent (legally a tax /based/ on income, not directly on the income, but the Supreme Court ruled that if they are functionally the same, they're legally the same. Probably only those who understand tax law will understand why this is important though. :) Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that using legal means to avoid paying taxes of any sort is legal. Since this is a legal means of avoiding taxes, and most taxes are inherently wrong (most laws are without the scope of the Constitution anyway), I have absolutely no problem not providing the government with my income. :) Ta-ta!

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[reverius]

Umm... seems that you don't know much about Free software. You're arguing about "free" software.

Nobody (even RMS) is saying that software should be free an in beer (except some of the slashdot crowd who doesn't want to pay for anything).

What the argument is about is whether software should be "Free" as in liberty. Read the GPL sometime... it never says you can't charge money for software.

Mostly it just says that you have to distribute source with any binaries... meaning, you can charge money for said binaries, but you have to distribute source along with them.

I don't know why this is so often misunderstood.

-- Reverius

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[JLinden]

But once it is free, meaning that you distribute source with the binaries, anyone can give away the software for free (price) after that, effectively making it free as in beer.

Re:You don't pay for it, you don't use it

[reverius]

Not necessarily...

Although you are allowed to change the source any way you want (and must distribute said changes), and can re-distribute the original or modified source, you can never:

a) distributed binaries without permission
b) USE the software

if the algorithms/methods in the program are patented or copyrighted, and hence their use is limited.

For instance, LAME can never be distributed in binary form (legally) because certain people hold patents on the mp3 decoding algorithms. The situation would not be any different if the copyright holders of LAME -were- those people... except maybe that they would charge money for binaries in that case. But since they don't own the patent on the algorithms, they can't distributed binaries at all. (NOTE: This was true back when they were still using mp3 decoding reference code... I don't know if it's still true now that they're using all their own code).

Re:And all this time...

[Oculus Habent]

Guilt? There is no guilt. In an attempt show good faith efforts being made, Microsoft will start modularizing their OS.

Soon, spurred by the concept of modularity, they will make the jump to encapsulation. Further moved by the benefits this produces, they will convert all Microsoft codebases to Visual C++.

After the massive outcry from all the people who really hate C++ because few things need the OOP that C++ gives you (and b/c Microsoft's default OS install will have bloated to 2GB) Microsoft will slowly convert everything over to C#, and the entire operating system will then be based on .Net.

Spurred on by this, Microsoft will then drop the current licensing scheme, and offer operating systems as .Net service only - .Net boot loaders will be free.

Soon, licensing will be directly attached to your .Net Passport, and corporate logins will be another service of Windows.Net. Companies will pay exorbitant fees to set up XP.Net Networks. No one will need Exchange anymore, as we will all have Hotmail.Net accounts, now a pay-per-message service. There will be surcharges for leaving a company, as your Identity.Net profile will have to be updated.

Microsoft will then make the push to DataCenter.Net - ending support for hard disks in client computers accidentally when a particularly malicious .Net virus they can't seem to kill prevents any fixed drives from functioning on computers with a video card. All companies will be required to license DataCenter.Net on a Hardware.Net compliant server to be able to store any files on fixed media, or they can purchase private space on Microsoft's CentralFile.Net.

The need for bandwidth will increase exponentially, as your will need to download an operating system everytime you log in. To improvie the bandwidth situation at your company, you will be able to license OSProxy.Net. To cope with the ever-increasing need for their own bandwidth, starting up a computer will become a "service" of Microsoft, as will OS updates, even minor builds. To prevent version conflicts, you will only be able to have the most recent version of Windows.Net. If an upgrade occurs and your computer is not capable of handling the new version (which you just paid for by attempting to download it), you will receive a message directing you to both local stores where you can purchase acceptable hardware and computer recycling centers.

Excited by the money Microsoft is making with this method, software vendors will flock to join the Software.Net program, allowing you to pay usage licensing instead of flat rates for almost any program or utility. Many gaming companies will stick with CDs, with increased development for Macintosh and Linux. Sadly, installing from a CD will require a small per-use fee for Add/Remove Programs.Net

On the upside, though. Windows.Net will be completely modular, ensuring that you can use any browser you wish to take the time of loading each time you start up.

Kool

[oliverthered]

Now i can replace Explorer with KDE3.0.1

Bug Fixes

[Mistah Blue]

What ever happened to the plan for only bug fixes in SP's? :-)

How many new new bugs will be introduced with this SP? I'm thinking it might be wise to wait until SP1 has been released for a period of time (weeks at least, if not a month or so) to see if there are any major problems.

fake settlement overrides your defaults

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

The fake settlement does not permit your defaults to work anyway.

The fake settlement spells out the circumstances when the OS (Microsoft) can ignore your settings. And, everything that determines that is under the unilateral control of Microsoft.

As a user, you are out of the picture completely.

Read the fake settlement. Locate the discussion explaining the circumstances when Microsoft branded technology can be triggered by the OS (written by Microsoft, right?).

It is right there in the fake settlement. If the data format for key files changes for whatever reason and only the Microsoft brand supports the changed format or data, the Microsoft branded product will fire up.

As a user you have no choice at all. The DOJ gave that power to Microsoft Corporation.

Re:fake settlement overrides your defaults

[Zone5]

If the data format for key files changes for whatever reason and only the Microsoft brand supports the changed format or data, the Microsoft branded product will fire up.

Oh my dear god, do you mean that in the case that only a Microsoft application can handle the data file, we'll be FORCED to use that Microsoft application to open the file, instead of righteously spinning our wheels and doing nothing, thereby asserting our independence?

Get a grip. Now, had you made the inference that by simply "embracing and extending" those data formats and moving them slightly to the left Microsoft could in fact reassert its prominence, you might have had something. As it is, you whined pointlessly and accomplished nothing but pushing hot air around.

Re:fake settlement overrides your defaults

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

The point is that Microsoft decides the issue for you.

If you land upon a RealMedia file or some other data and you do not have the appropriate reader, then yes, you will paused.

But, if the same event takes place with Microsoft applications or Microsoft media, you are forced to run the application you were forced to buy, install, maintain and support.

You also falsely concluded that only the Microsoft application could support it. That may not be the case at all. But, the fake settlement grants to Microsoft the unilateral choice of claiming that is the case and forcing the user to run the Microsoft application. The fake settlement does not require Microsoft to be correct, reasonable or anything else.

Anything from help files to short media clips can be used by the OS to force the use of the Microsoft brand of product.

RealMedia can not do that. Neither can anyone else. It may be that you are denied using some data in some other format, but Microsoft Corporation and only Microsoft Corporation will in fact force all consumers to buy its products and have the ability to force their use.

Hint: Forced use would not be employed nor would it work if consumers were given discounts to leave the Microsoft applications at the store would it?

And, deleting a few icons also means nothing.

So, all the developers who want to benefit from the forced sale of Microsoft products will continue to rely upon them. And, screw all consumers in the process.

The point being that it is the forced sale and distribution of Microsoft technology that is protected by the fake settlement. And, the fake settlement also grants to Microsoft the ability to force the use of that same technology.

Icon removal only fools the fools.

The fake settlement and any compliance with the fake settlement likewise only fools the fools.

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[NeoSkandranon]

Or all you pirates can sit back for a few minutes and wait on someone to figure out how to download and crack the SP...Bliz's WC3 patches were cracked in under 20 minutes, i'm betting 15 or so for XPSP1 ;)

On pirating

[PolyDwarf]

Does MS really think that by shutting down the current crop of warezed XP's out there, that another crop won't appear?
Come on, how much ingenuity will it take for someone to make a copy of another XP Corporate disk and/or key (I'm not sure if the disks are somehow tagged, but the keys certainly are) and put it up on an FTP server somewhere?
It doesn't even need to be an IT guy that does it, though it will probably be an IT guy's head that rolls when MS figures out which company had it.

I can see it now.. Bill the Janitor is declared Hero of the Warez Realms by Sir Hax0r for courage and valor above and beyond that of all janitors, for swiping an XP Corporate CD and key for a night.

They want to break 3rd party apps?

[LordKronos]

Critics say Microsoft is hiding access to its programs, but the fundamental code is still installed on the PC. If the code is still there, developers could take advantage of it over other middleware, they charge

So what they are saying is they would prefer that Microsoft break as many 3rd party applications as possible? If they took out the code to internet explorer, what happens when hundreds of apps try to load the IE browser activeX control, or how about the stuff in media player.

Re:They want to break 3rd party apps?

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

If the code is still there, developers could take advantage of it over other middleware, they charge

Are those critics trying to imply that developers shouldn't be ALLOWED to use Microsoft's code even if they want to? If so, then they're no better than Microsoft. Blocking Microsoft's code for the sake of third-party software is no better than blocking 3rd-party code for the sake of Microsoft's software.

Re:And all this time...

[twilightzero]

They're scared because the continuing trial has been going very badly for them. If you follow the daily coverage, just about every day one of their witnesses ended up making a fool of themselves in one way or another. The gov't lawyers on the case have been effective enough in getting information that at one point MS had to cut almost 1/3 of their witnesses to avoid even more debacles.

They still swear they did nothing wrong and still continue to file motions to get the case dismissed summarily, but they're also obviously aware that the case is going not in their favor at the moment. Now I'm not saying the gov't lawyers have been angelic either, they've gotten caught with their share of knuckle slaps by the judge also. But from the perspective I see from the daily coverage, MS is keenly aware that they've been made fools of repeatedly and many of their key witnesses have been discredited. They probably view this as a way to try and stave off more penalties by appearing to have a change of heart (in the face of stiffer penalties, of course) just long enough to get the trial done with.

Oh please...

[strAtEdgE]

Under the Justice Department settlement, Microsoft must allow consumers or PC makers to hide user access to five pieces of so-called middleware: Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Microsoft's version of the Java Virtual Machine.

Reading the article, it sounds to me like if you've already deleted the shortcuts to these applications, you stand to gain nothing from this service pack. The bloat is still there.

Re:AOL will jump on this...yay

[evilned]

Netscape? yeah, real? nope. Winamp 3 will most probably be their choice for media players. Nullsoft is owned by AOL.

Old News

[Daftspaniel]

MSDN had this a couple of days ago - that is the technical details of what you can do. Basically it let you sets the default browser, media player etc for XP.
Actually it is not much new but will help MS disarm critics.

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[PotPieMan]

No, this service pack merely hides apps like Internet Explorer. From the article:

Microsoft must allow consumers or PC makers to hide user access to five pieces of so-called middleware: Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Microsoft's version of the Java Virtual Machine.

In other words, it doesn't delete those apps. Portions of Windows still depend on the DLLs that come with Internet Explorer. Windows Media files will still require Windows Media DLLs.

The service pack doesn't make Windows modular, it just makes it look like Windows is modular. As many others have said, Microsoft is being pretty smart by making this move. They're trying to blow a hole in the case continued by the nine other states and DC.

Duh, this changes absolutely nothing

[PierceLabs]

They aren't making the system more modular - they're stuff is still their. All that has happened is that they allow other applications to set themselves as the default, which other applications already have the ability to do!

The fact that anyone would see this as making Windows modular simply defies logic!

Re:Bill Gates Dirty Tricks SneakAttack On LinuxGNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Scheme is you have to register with the Borg to be able to run your code. New api that you have to use if you do not then your product is like it was never installed it is but your users will not be able to find it because it is now hidden. Of course you will have to pay Microsoft for using their API and of course you will have to include their code along with their EULA with your code so in effect it is forcing users to accept their EULA if they do not they cannot run your code period even if its not your EULA. By doing this Microsoft can continue to inovate the EULAS to what they seem to like. New name for Windows Update "Windows Destroyer" it kills your computer if you do not agree to assimilate into the Borg and zaps all those who would take on the Borg like GNULinux. Microsoft new slogan "We Own Your A$$".

Re:Now for office

[Wizri]

First of all we are forced to use mircosoft office on almost daily basis at work, many of us recieve documents that are in word (or other microsoft formats) and it is esintial for us to be able to open them. (This is a reply to a -1 msg) Linux has good busnises case even though you may not see it at the momement, and in my experience running Windows 2000 on my desktop at home or at work causes too much downtime, which I can not afford. So there you have it, Widnows is not all that great and powerful and you really want to tell me that you never had a crash or had to reinstall? Linux isn't perfect either, and I'm not an idiolist or Richard Stalman, and the last thing that I'm is a zealot. But I do use the tools to make my job easier, and Linux does...

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[TheCaptain]

You haven't figured this place out yet. "News for Nerds" is not to be confused with any kind of actual journalism. It's really just little twists on actual happenings...usually to try to reaffirm the equally twisted world views of the editors and apparently a fair number of the readers.

Sadly...I am not even trying to troll here. I'll never be able to mod with this account again because I disagreed with them and modded up one of the forbidden posts they were trying to bury.

In other news...

[segfaultdot]

Bill Gates was quoted saying, "Four feet good, two feet better."

less expensive XP

[NoahsMyBro]

I don't know about upgrading from the pirate install, but...

This offer is only valid 'while supplies last', but if it's still good, you might be able to get a legal copy for $49.

http://www.microsoft.com/partner/campaign/Winpro 1. asp

Yes, the top of the page says it's only for registered partners, but the smaller print near the bottom says you will be prompted to register if necessary.

And, no I haven't tried this myself, so I can't actually vouch for it, sorry.

The Impossible

[Chacham]

What, it runs infinite loops in less than five seconds?

curious

[waspleg]

i'm reading a lot of posts about how the new patch cripples pirated keys

i'm wondering how this affects the different flavors of XP?

as everyone knows that Professional is not supposed to be subject to the key bullshit whereas the home version is

personally i'm using a pirated copy of XP pro and while it would be trivial for me to get a legal copy for $5 thanks to a collegiate cocksucking arrangement with M$ that one of my ex-colleges had, i'd rather not since that would mean re-installing and the fact that M$ might see a penny of my money (which is unacceptable)

in fact the last legal copy of windows i think i purchased was of '98, and that wasn't by choice

fuck M$, if they cripple my desk i'll just have another *nix desktop with a 98 SE partition for gaming, maybe eventually they will learn to stop treating their customers like criminals (although they seem to have taken a lesson from US law enforcement on that one, since you are presumed guilty until proven innocent in most cases these days)

hopefully the DoJ will give them a vasectomy and people won't have to worry about selling their souls to .Net

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Default Settings?

[Husaria]

I don't know about that service pack, but I can make netscape my default browser by the pop up that asks so when I open it, or I can go to tools, folder options, and go under file types and mess around with the file extensions...

just another service pack to fix some holes and create more

Re:Default Settings?

[SuiteSisterMary]

I think the idea here is that, to follow your example, Netscape would now be able to create a replacement for mshtml.dll, the core rendering engine, that's used by explorer, the help system, active desktop, and so on.

Re:They can't do that

[twilightzero]

I don't believe so because internet explorer IS the interface. The IE DLL's are doing double duty as also core O/S files. It's similar to what would happen if you took the Mozilla shared libraries and built them into the base kernel. Yes, Mozilla will run faster and it will boot up when you start the machine and make it look pretty (it would also probably replace window managers and X). However, you would then be totally unable to uninstall Mozilla because it's now intermingled with the kernel code.

I don't think /.ers use XP

[purpledinoz]

Who here uses XP anyway, /.ers all use Linux, so it seems to me... I used XP tho, Linux is too much of a pain in the ars.

Re:I don't think /.ers use XP

[Winterblink]

I use XP myself. I thought I'd hate it, but it's actually pretty slick. It SCARES me to think I just said that, but I've found it to be a pretty damn stable product.

Re:I don't think /.ers use XP

[WildBeast]

XP is the king of all desktops
Linux is the king of all servers

I use XP to browse the web, play games, do my accounting, word processing, coding, etc.

I use Linux as a web, email, ftp, mysql and ssh server.

Re:I don't think /.ers use XP

[hawkline]

I'm willing to be a good chunk of /.ers are surfing from work where the company likely deployted WinNT/2K/XP systems.

New XP Activation Key!

[teamhasnoi]

Y0USO-34R3A-P1R4T-1N6B45-T4RD5

Re:New XP Activation Key!

[zztzed]

L1NUX-KRNLH-ACKRS-AREWE-ENIES

Re:New XP Activation Key!

[ShavenYak]

4LLY0-UR3A5-E4RE3-EL0N6-T0U51

Re:New XP Activation Key!

[smeeze]

can someone translate this parent for me?

please?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

XP tech support will love this

[k.ross]

I work XP Home/Pro tech support (I love RedHat too, so don't pidgeon-hole me as a borg drone), and the news of this service pack is good news to me. Hopefully they will fix a lot of issues we come across frequently at work, at the same time I hope that they don't create more problems.

The OS, surprisingly is not bad. I use redhat for Apache/Perl/mySQL, but I use XP for the obvious reasons - they pay me to know it and it is a decent desktop enviroment.

Many of the problems we tackle every day fall under usually two categories: Hardware, Third-Party software.

Once in a while you'll get a really weired one that needs to be researched further, and it has to be bumped up to the next level. What happens to it there? Who knows? Probably a format-clean install.

Over the past few months we've seen some of the more common problems dwindle away. Hopefully with this pack's release more issues will disappear.

Most of all, I hope with the new feature to remove components people start ripping out Windows Media Player so they won't ask us to troubleshoot it. =]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"fundamental code is still installed on the PC"

[drinkypoo]

Some state trustbusters and Microsoft's chief rivals have complained that the changes being made to Windows XP do not go far enough to ensure a level playing field in the computer software market. Critics say Microsoft is hiding access to its programs, but the fundamental code is still installed on the PC. If the code is still there, developers could take advantage of it over other middleware, they charge. In the case of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, a U.S. Court of Appeals determined that Microsoft "commingled" code in this way for anticompetitive purposes.

This may come as a shock, but I REALLY don't want yahoo!messenger's weather pane to embed mozilla even if I am using mozilla as my primary browser. I *want* it to continue using the embedded IE.

If I didn't, I would patch it to load mozilla-embed, which is possible now.

So what?

[rutledjw]

Then BUY a copy of the OS! Look, I'm no MS fan - PERIOD. But I don't agree with using stolen SW. If you don't like MS or their prices then use something else!

Example: My roommate and I traded a months rent for an IBM laptop with '98. XP would bring this machine to its knees. That and I'm not shelling out the $$$ to a company I find dishonest for a product I feel is inferior for the money and resources it demands. Soooo, I put Slack, Mozilla and OpenOffice on there and guess what? Except for games (which I don't really play anyway) I have a laptop that works better (IMHO) than most laptops with Windows and provides the same function!

I think people need to start "walking the walk" a little more. People bitch about MS, tout *nix, but then most use IE and Win to read /. ! I don't get it. I have to use Win2K (but installed Mozilla) at work, but other than that...

so... uhm ...

[Bake]

If I steal a car from the dealership, the dealership is MORALLY OBLIGATED to give me warranty on the stolen car?

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy on /. ... but this is ridiculous.

Re:so... uhm ...

[Nindalf]

If I steal a car from the dealership, the dealership is MORALLY OBLIGATED to give me warranty on the stolen car?

If you steal a car from the dealership, the dealership is MORALLY ENTITLED to remotely cut the brake lines on the stolen car?

The issue here is that unpatched machines are a public hazard. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the original poster, but it's a complicated issue.

Re:Let's stop all the "now I can install XP" comme

[mccalli]

There is nothing prevent someone from writing a drop in replacement for the MSHTML API.

I stand corrected on that example. However, I'm sure you see my point - it could be applied to, say, streaming media, viewing image files, launching Java apps...whatever.

Curious - with the drop-in replacement, who sets the the choice? The user? At install time or whilst running? Would an app requesting an HTML rendering component have to specifically request the replacement? Or could it just say 'Give me an HTML component' and the OS would supply it with Mozilla.

However, as I say I stand corrected on the MSHTML stuff.

Cheers,
Ian

Actually, this is going to be painful for some

[Anonymous Coward]

See, there is one really big warez release of XP that this targets. It is the OEM version that comes without activation and hardware lockout. This SUCKS honestly since I use this on my hardware test machine at home (I am not an OEM and can't buy that version off the shelf), even though I have three licensed XP machines otherwise. See, MS forgot the press (at least the small guys) and we here in the press who do hardware reviews swap hardware in and out five or more times daily, but we can't get this version of XP legally, forcing us to steal it or go through the innordinate pain associated with calling MS once or twice a day to unlock our systems. For home use this has no impact at all, but in this case it surely does.

I am SURE there will be a fix/patch from the warezers within an hour of SP1 hitting the market, if not before since quite a few 'beta' testers are warezers themselves and will share the code to those who can hack it and fix it back. Still, what a pain. Thanks MS.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, by your own admission, you are a criminal. A bad one since you don't even realize or classify yourself as such. What a piece of shit... get real punk.

Re:Huh?

[waspleg]

i grew up in an environment of freely flowing information

i feel no guilt and no conscience for "pirating" software, if i make a copy you still have your original, that is not, by definition, theft

Theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e,
[thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.]
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

which i felt like providing since you're a fuckwit

notice the last sentence, WITH INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE SAME

when i make a copy i have not deprived you of anything

just because something is a law doesn't make it right, learn the difference before you open yoru cock-socket next time

Re:Huh?

[Da VinMan]

when i make a copy i have not deprived you of anything

Well, actually you have. Does the word 'revenue' mean anything to you?

Re:Huh?

[dissy]

The AC never said you were a thief, so i dont understand your post at all?

Way to point out something that has nothing to do with the thread though :}

He said you were a criminal.. by the fact you said you were using a pirated version in your post.

Piracy is a crime as well.

Now, if anyone other than MS cares you are a criminal, thats a different story all together.

But if you live in the USA, you are a criminal anyway. It is not possible to go a day without breaking a law, or doing something (or not doing something) where the govt. can throw you in a catch-all law and convict you anyways.

You my friend are indeed a criminal, but then again 95% of all /. readers are by what the 'law' defines a criminal.. so who cares :}

Re:Huh?

[waspleg]

you assume i would ahve paid for the product to begin with, which is too much

How modular?

[archen]

Can I uninstall Pinball in WinXP? I was going through my Win2k machine deleting junk the other day, and looked at my logs:

"Pinball.exe has been restored to maintain system stability"

Me: ehh.....

Re:YOu are too shortsighted

[MrResistor]

you have that computer loaded with Longhorn and a dozen or so Mirya tablets, one for each meeting attendee. They can work on materials being shared on one desktop in the same room, ala a whiteboard.

No they can't, because Mira only allows one user per machine at a time. Version 2, which will likely be released in 2004, will allow... 2 users! So no, it will be impossible to do what you discribe using Mira in the forseeable future.

I won't argue that Mira could be something cool, but it is hamstrung by Microsofts absurd user licensing policies. I expect that it will be possible to do what you describe once these devices are hacked to run Linux, but Microsoft has no plans to give you that functionality any time soon.

That said, though, it would be easy enough to create similar functionality using Linux with much cheaper hardware. Those web tablets have been mentioned, which seem to run about half the price of a Mira tablet, or a laptop would also work, and there are some laptops with touchscreens.

In short, there is nothing particularly cool or innovative about Mira. MS is taking something that's simple to do with *nix/X windows and hamstrung it to fit their licensing model.

Re:Let's stop all the "now I can install XP" comme

[|<amikaze]

Does netscape even provide this functionality? I think IE is the only browser that actually has an embeddable rendering component (on Win32 at least, I realize that mozilla does on *nix)

Re:Even with this, MS is pulling their usual trick

[spectecjr]

On the Mac OS, when specifying the apps to be used as http/ftp/mailto/etc. helpers, literally *any* app can be specified, just by browsing to it. And yet, now Microsoft is saying that you have to use their APIs to register as a helper, but they've said nothing about how you get access to the documentation for those APIs!


Yes, and the same applies today under Windows. Microsoft are talking about adding ANOTHER layer to make it easier for people who don't know what mailto or MIME types or helper apps actually are, which will do the registration step you describe above automatically.

Otherwise, you have three choices: (1) do it by hand, (2) hope that your app asks you every time you run it whether you want it to be the default or not, or (3) reinstall the app every time you want to make it the default.

Pick one.

Simon

Why the hell is it middleware all of a sudden?

[zodar]

The fact that Microsoft has gotten everyone to call an *application* like Windows Media Player "middleware" is a victory in itself for them. This is *not* middleware. There is no good goddamn reason why WMP has parts of its code in the OS and vice versa. The only reason MS has done that is to make the OS and their (not) middleware apps so inextricably intertwined that they can truly claim that it's impossible to remove the apps without destroying the OS. They take chunks of code from the browser and other apps and put it into the OS. Then they take chunks of the OS code and put it into the browser. That's the only reason why they can call those apps middleware with a straight face. Go read the Findings of Fact from the last antitrust trial (Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's) and you'll see what I mean. What I need is a link to the page. Karma whores! Fetch me a link!

The Reg have a good take on this

[gagravarr]

As ever, The Register have a good article on this. Has a bit more detail on how the modularisation will work

Re:And all this time...

[Capt. DrunkenBum]

The above is the most frightening thing I have ever read.

Bloated? Compared to what?

[JohnTheFisherman]

My XP install is downright tiny compared to a full Mandrake Linux install, and from what I hear, OS-X is around 3X as big.

Bloated? Compared to DOS6.22, yeah, but not compared to anything current.

Easiest way to get a legit key...

[sheetsda]

Go and listen to an hour of their brain-wa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing drivel about .NET development and they'll give you a free copy of XP Professional, key and all. That's where I got mine.

Re:Easiest way to get a legit key...

[scrytch]

Go and listen to an hour of their brain-wa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing drivel about .NET development and they'll give you a free copy of XP Professional, key and all. That's where I got mine.

Awesome. Where do I sign up for one of these marketing things? Using win2k now, but I could really use the multiple logins thing for letting my SO check her mail (no, I'm not switching this box to Linux until I get a new machine)

Re:Easiest way to get a legit key...

[sheetsda]

My university sent out a newsletter to all the Computer Science students and faculty, then we had to go register on MS's site. As for what part of the site, sorry, I got the email back in February, its long gone. You might try looking around on MS's site for some sort of promotional developer meeting.

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[gspeare]

Yeah, when I read "XP Service Pack Does the Impossible", I thought...

-- Actually fixes crash bugs?
-- Patches security holes?
-- Comes with source code under GPL?

It's a trick... don't do it...

[micq]

I don't use XP, thank god... I think this is a trick... they're going to release the service pack, and come back to the trial when tons of people call in with problems saying "see?? SEE??? I told you we couldn't do it!!"

They're going to use this as their proof of concept, at the expense of all XP users...

Tread lightly.

XP Service Pack == Potential Spyware Installation

[hacker]

Even more interesting... if they can tell who is pirating the software, via the serial numbers, what is to stop them from adding some spyware to send out a few packets from the machine, which can be tracked by the source IP address, and send the BSA to your door for your software violation, shortly followed by the FBI and the RIAA to seize your machines to check for "copyright violations", and so on.

I see this as an excuse for Microsoft to deliver "legitimate" spyware to your machine. If they can shut you down from updates, there is nothing stopping them from "adding" a little update that notifies Microsoft that you are using the software illegally from IP address 12.34.56.78, through whatever ISP you use.

No thanks, not for me. Microsoft Window is still the "Duplo" block of the operating system world.

wrong? my 5 minutes of hate for the day.

[twitter]

You still be able to use your current pirated version just fine.

Really? Didn't Cullian say "Basically we're freezing their computer where it is," ? I've got several M$ hard drives like that. You know, won't boot. No, they were not pirated. Most of them have been reformatted to Debian and the computers work much better that way. The infamous instability of M$ OS is wholly the fault of M$.

Don't confuse unpleasant truth with FUD.

1. All M$ EULA have a unilateral temination clause where M$ may terminate your license to use their OS and demand that you destroy all the coppies of "thier" software that you own.

2. XP EULA explictly gives M$ permision to inspect your computer at will and replace "components and modules". This simply augments the BSA way of doing things: on foot. That's innovation for you. It's not about "piracy", they want you to use their software, it's about control.

3. XP has hardware checkers and what not that attempt to detect coppies to other computers. This will mainly be a nuisance to legitimate users who change their software.

So, they said they would, they built the tools to make sure they could, they even made it so they would when they did not mean to. Do you think they don't mean to now with that 40MB "patch"?

Someone here once compared XP to a blimp ride with adverts stapled to his face. I got to see the beast first hand the other day. The other fellow forgot the handcuffs, gag, ball and chain you get to wear on that ride and that you don't get to chose the destination. It was very difficult to use and will be a real turn off to anyone buying a new computer.

tcl/tk on xp

[atvspid]

My new HP Pavillion computer came with XP pre-installed. Last night I found tcl/tk was also pre-installed ( no kidding).

Isn't this a competitor of .Net ?

you really should upgrade

[twitter]

You really don't want to upgrade, since the new SP1 will make your WinXP unusable

If XP has all the stability of w2k, nt, 98, 95, and 3.1, by all means you should upgrade. Try this wink, and never worry about "piracy" again. Yo-ho, yo-ho, a Disney life for me.

Re:They can't do that

[Weh]

I know that there's some common ground between windows explorer end internet explorer. But it seems to me that all the html rendering stuff belongs to ie and that that could at least be removed/disabled.

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[roccothegreat]

If cost is an issue for XP, why dont people just by the OEM versions. All you have to do is go to your local Fry's Electronics, buy a small piece of hardware, and presto your eligable to by an OEM version. At last recall the OEM Home Edition is about 89 - 99 US dollars and the OEM Professional Edition is about 150 US dollars. This is about half the cost of the full Non OEM products!

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[Decimal]

It sounds worse. If the service pack "hides" certain components, they will be harder to find and rip out won't they?

Actually, that's not quite right.

[SlashChick]

"as everyone knows that Professional is not supposed to be subject to the key bullshit whereas the home version is..."

No. The OEM version of Windows XP is not subject to the activation crap that the retail version is. That means that if you buy your software from Pricewatch (search "Microsoft Windows XP Professional"), you'll not only pay half-price ($89 for XP Home; $140 for XP Pro), but you will escape the activation crap completely.

As to the warez part, I'd bet $100 it is at least partially based on this registry key:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cu rr entVersion (ignore stupid /.-added space)

In there you'll see a key called ProductId. (This is in Windows 2000, at least... I'm assuming it's in XP as well.) Change that to a legal (as in, non-warez) value, and I bet that your system will magically update again.

Back in the Windows 95 days, Microsoft used to make it simple and hand out those Product IDs as the keys on your CD case, but recently they have gotten smarter about it. The new stuff translates from that 25-character gobbletygook to these oldschool product IDs. Figure out the translation algorithm (I believe several warez groups already have) and you're set.

Or stop being such a cheapass and go spend $89 for an OEM copy of XP Home. That's what I did for Windows 2000. :P

Re:Actually, that's not quite right.

[Night Goat]

I have the OEM version of XP Pro, and it does require you to activate it. The version that does not is the corporate or volume license version. I forget the exact terminology. Even people who buy their OSes preloaded on their PCs have to do the stupid verification stuff. Maybe not with Dell, HP, or some of the other big OEMs, but the supplier my company gets our PCs from does require you to do an activation.

and that is why the discount is based on cost

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Read the proposed remedy.

If the toy is only $.02 worth, then that is your discount. If the toy adds $.50 then that is your discount.

Check out the facts before you use false information to deceive others.

Hint: The $50 is the max discount based upon an allocation related to R&D expenses. So, if the R&D for the crap is less than 25% of the total R&D, then your discount is less.

Unless the products are sold separately. Then the discound has to adjust for the separate prices charged.

It is pretty simple. And, unlike your suggestion it is not requiring a $50 discount for a $.02 toy.

It doesnt matter

[billybob]

Look, even if they do disable XP when you try to install the service pack, you can always just reinstall. I have dual boot linux/XP machine at home, and I will definitely try to install the service pack when it comes out. If it gives me shit and disables XP, big deal, I'll reinstall. Installing and setting up windows to the way I like only takes like an hour.

Not to say that I'm using the pirated corporate version or anything. :)

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[TobyWong]

Yeah when I read your comment, I thought...

--Does he think he's funny?
--Is he really that stupid?
--Does he dress and feed himself?

Course, what's the API for this?

[elBart0]

My favorite part of the article:
But for the choices to appear, software developers must write programs "so that they can register here," he said. When no third-party middleware installed, Microsoft software would appear in the list.

I'd be interested to see how difficult Microsoft makes it to register your program. And, I also find it interesting that they won't simply pick a different .exe file to use. You can only pick one from "the list."

Not very modular.

Re:level playing field?

[pkesel]

I don't care if you like the Windows defaults, and it's not a relevant issue if you like it. Nothing about the suit says you won't be able to get just what you've always had.

And regarding communism, there is no playing field there, because there's no playing! It's all marching, and just where they tell you to.

What microsoft should do about Windows XP

[Penn]

Everyone is screaming for an OS from microsoft that isn't so compounded with all the software that microsoft includes...They should take the final release version of Win95c and change the gui to mimic windows XP and then release that and all the support with it...If people don't want all the goodies of winXP then they should go back to 95/98

Re:level playing field?

[Mattcelt]

Level playing field means that MS can't use its monopoly position to crush otherwise viable competitors. When a monopoly's power gets too great, it actually creates a threat to a capitalist economy. That's why we have antitrust laws.

"I can open a URL from the same window I open my File Manager console from. I like that."

I don't use IE at all, and I still have those features. Those features are in fact incidental to integration.

Does Opera "just keep up"? Opera's had a MDI for two versions now. I can use mouse gestures. I can even put a picture of Anna Kournikova in my browser's background. And Opera had the best cookie control of any browser for a long time.

How long did it take for IE to have any of those features? So who's playing catch up now?

"Resistance is futile only for those who refuse to resist."

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[showboat]

No, I thought it was something more spectacular, too, than being able to hide freakin' icons on the start menu. After all, those things he listed are impossible, so....

Re:VNC has been doing this, and better

[Curt Cox]

I've used VNC, and I find it pokey when Windows is serving. It is quite fast, however, when Linux is serving. TightVNC is faster still. And then there is X, which trumps everything in terms of speed, but doesn't serve from Windows AFAIK.

I would have no problem checking email, editing documents etc... using any of these when Linux is serving.

Anyone can hide icons

[watkins]

From what I gather, this 'miracle' service pack only hides the icons to Microsoft middleware, and allows users to change the default handling program for various filetypes. This, of course, can already be done, so this 'feature' of the service pack really means jack - the underlying code for the middleware still remains in the operating system. Sounds to me like some evil corporation is just brown-nosing on a certain judge before she makes some important decisions.

Other annoying anticompetitive dialog boxes

[Wolfier]

Such as "Your security settings have disabled ActiveX. The site may not display properly" KEEPS popping up and there is no way to disable it (well, I hexed a DLL to do so, but it seems to be the only way)

It is so obvious a propaganda has been going on. If I'm disabling ActiveX on an untrusted site, I mean it! Why keep bugging me?

Hope they'll do something about it.

You've always been able to do this

[martyn s]

There's a file called sysoc.inf. This file describes what will appear in add/remove programs pane. So what you do is hit ctrl-h (find-replace). Then put ,hide in the find box, and leave the other box empty. Hit replace all, and save the file and then you'll be able to remove annoying stuff like Windows messenger, and if you wish, IE. The ones that are not hidden by default.

NtComponents=ntoc.dll,NtOcSetupProc,,4
WBEM=ocg en.dll,OcEntry,wbemoc.inf,7
Display=desk.cpl,Disp layOcSetupProc,,7
Fax=fxsocm.dll,FaxOcmSetupProc, fxsocm.inf,,7
NetOC=netoc.dll,NetOcSetupProc,neto c.inf,,7
iis=iis.dll,OcEntry,iis.inf,,7
com=coms etup.dll,OcEntry,comnt5.inf,hide,7
dtc=msdtcstp.d ll,OcEntry,dtcnt5.inf,hide,7
IndexSrv_System = setupqry.dll,IndexSrv,setupqry.inf,,7
TerminalSer ver=TsOc.dll, HydraOc, TsOc.inf,2
msmq=msmqocm.dll,MsmqOcm,msmqocm.inf,, 6
ims=imsinsnt.dll,OcEntry,ims.inf,,7
fp_extensi ons=fp40ext.dll,FrontPage4Extensions,fp4 0ext.inf,,7
AutoUpdate=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,au.inf,7
msmsgs=ms grocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7
RootAutoUpdat e=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,rootau.inf,,7
IEAccess=ocgen. dll,OcEntry,ieaccess.inf,,7

Games=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,games.inf,,7
AccessUtil =ocgen.dll,OcEntry,accessor.inf,,7
CommApps=ocgen .dll,OcEntry,communic.inf,7
MultiM=ocgen.dll,OcEn try,multimed.inf,7
AccessOpt=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,op tional.inf,7
Pinball=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,pinball.in f,7
MSWordPad=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,wordpad.inf,7
Zo neGames=zoneoc.dll,ZoneSetupProc,igames.inf,,7

Basically the ones with two commas in a row are not hidden by default, but when you delete the word hide you have to also delete a comma, so there's only one comma. Don't ask me why this is what works.

Not suprisingly, for IE, it doesn't actually allow you to remove it, it says "remove access to internet explorer". If you open up the file tree browser thing, ("windows explorer") or just any file folder, and type in a URL in the address field, it just turns into IE.

This is my small service pack...

[psi]

It works in win2k and winXP,

/winnt/inf/sysoc.inf

in there to a replace all for the world "hide"
once those are blank (leave the , marks... just remove the "hide" part) you can go into control panel and do add/remove windows componants. That's how I was able to get snmp loaded on Win2k Professional. It also lists COM+ componants and other fun stuff.

Dell and keys.

[popoutman]

The rolls of stickers that are provided to Dell are generic keys, and as far as I remember are not tied to Dell, i.e. a Dell key will install a generic retail cd. The key is not tied in any way to the particular copy of the OS on the machine.

Closed-source solution

[cpeterso]

If Microsoft tries to legally prevent open-source programs from using their helper-app registration APIs, then just write a closed-source proxy app that will register the open-source app as the helper. This is the reverse strategy that some companies try to use to create open-source proxies to dynamically load GPL libraries. :-)

CORRECT!!

[systemaster]

Mod parent up, I am one of those people. Those people who use XP off campus, but am still part of the schools bulk license. Note that this is legal and OK under the MS license. My question is how does MS know if I am allowed to be part of the college license. If I gave the CD to my friend there is no way that MS would know he is not allowed to use it under the college license, only he and I would know it was wrong. Not that I did that, but I don't see how they could tell the difference, and I'm also not sure where it talks about how warez will not work with this, if its legit at all.

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[j0b0o]

hummmm dl a hacked version of XPSP1 and i am sure all the security patches will still be there...yep

Re:you have to be kidding

[someonehasmyname]

This is true, a friend of mine made the mistake of trying to update his warez copy of office 2000 from the officeupdate site.. What a nightmare.. He wound up having to format and re-install windows/office..

hmm.

[Chris Johnson]

To register as default anything you have to interoperate with Microsoft code or do SOMETHING involving Microsoft code.

Does this cost money, or is it 'free'?

Here's the kicker: what are the licensing terms for this 'registration'? ...acceptance of the Microsoft 'shared source' license, perhaps?

That would be a _sweet_ boobytrap.

Typical M$

[Tiado]

The articles says that all they allow you to do is merely hide the Micrsoft Middleware, So you still can't actually remove anything. So in other words, it is still no different from Windows 98, except that you don't have to activate W98, also W98 doesn't take up a full gigabyte of disk space.

In my Windows 98 partition, I was able to hide the icons to IE, Outlook, MSN, etc., but I know that the programs are still there.

Something Impossible?

[Eric Damron]

"XP Service Pack Does the Impossible"

Makes a Microsoft OS Secure and reliable???

XP can be forgotten, for sure

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Sure you can forget XP.

But, that is not the same as condoning illegal business practices.

Microsoft's illegal practices harm all consumers and all developers in the industry as well.

i need one of this SP for my application

[fabiolrs]

true... we have a app here on the company i work for that were dying to make more modular... were analysing and coding it for months and it is not 10% as complex as windows! MS may have all of the most brilliant softwares engineers in the world because I thought doing such thing AFTER the app is already done was truly hard! :)) MS is so good that they do that in a 30mb patch! :))

But can oems USE this?

[nmos]

The real question is will M$ allow OEMs to actually use this new functionality. In the past M$ has been pretty strict about what OEMs can put on the user's desktop and what screens can be displayed during initial bootup.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

They could be up to something fishy...

[Phleg]

...I'd like to see how this turns out. This might simply be a ploy by Microsoft. They can make Windows XP modular, but intentionally cause it to be unstable as hell. This might give them leverage to say, "Look! We made it modular and it didn't work. We're going back to the old way of doing things!"

Wouldn't surprise me in the least...

Re:And all this time...

[Reziac]

The above may have been modded as Funny, but I think it's dead-on accurate as to where M$ ultimately wants us all to go. And now that we've got them right where they want us, it'll be easier than ever for them to implement.

OT - Re:It isn't anything you can't do now.

[ScoLgo]

I'm not in Britain, but can tell you that here in the states, the MicroTel PC's are only available via Wal-Mart's website. As for international orders, here's what their site had to say about that...

"International Shipping

We're sorry, at this time we do not ship internationally. The only exceptions are APO/ FPO addresses and major offshore territories and possessions of the United States."

Maybe you can see if ASDA has a website and if the MicroTel's are available from there?

Re:They can't do that

[Sj0]

The UI and the Kernel are seperate entities. That is why, using 98lite, you can completely remove Internet Explorer by switching to the Windows 95 GUI.

Charged for stuff you dont use, big deal

[Boojum137]

Companies put the costs of development into everything they sell. If you go to McDonalds and bring your own cup, they'll still charge you for the 1/2 cent paper cup that you're not using. If you buy a newspaper and don't read it all, too bad, you paid for the whole thing. Thats just the way things are.

Re:Even with this, MS is pulling their usual trick

[Anonymous Coward]

FUD FUD FUD, FUD FUD FUD, FUD, wonderful FUD

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur l= / ibrary/en-us/shellcc/platform/Shell/programmersgui de/shell_adv/registeringapps.asp

Re:New Improved EULA Bill Gates Owns Your DATA

[toupsie]

Thats why I use MacOS X!

Re:New Improved EULA Bill Gates Owns Your DATA

[wedg]

But what if I need to actually get work done? Guess XP is where it's at.

Uh... no? I don't even know where to start with a comment like that.

Re:Bloated? Compared to what?

[questionlp]

Although a Windows XP install (be it Home or Professional) can be smaller than a full install of [insert-your-favorite-distribution] Linux, Mac OS X with Developer Tools, or FreeBSD... but what you don't get in a standard Windows XP install are:

• C/C++ Compiler
• Perl, Python, or any other scripting languages
• source files or balls
• A lot of utilities and tools that can do anything to your liking
• Mail client and server software (like Sendmail, Pine, Mutt, etc.)

and many other things that I just can't think of off of the top of my head. There are some things that are quite bloated in a full Linux or FreeBSD install (KDE 2/3, Gnome, StarOffice) but Windows XP doesn't even include basic spreadsheet, presentation or decent graphics programs (think of KOffice as an equivalent to Microsoft Works or the like).

Just my $0.015

Re:And all this time...

[liquid_schwartz]

In reality though Microsoft has already won this case. By dragging the case on for so long the issues are de facto settled. As long as this case is slowly grinding it's way to completion, M$ can do whatever they want without even being bound by a legal agreement.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[Sj0]

I'm forced to walk on water all winter...

It isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bloated? Compared to what?

[Com2Kid]

Hell it isn't even that so much as the sheer number of dependencies.

Of the 2GB standard install (or 1.5GB, depending on which version of XP you have), you can remove MAYBE 500Megs of that.

Oh joy. . . .

Of a standard Linux/BSD install all but a few MEGABYTES can be removed and you will still have yourself a stable OS.

If you just want a server machine and not a lot of crud, why even go for the GUI? Hell just one more thing to break and take up resources. Even if it is not very many resources, they are still MINE damnit, and I would like the option to have them back.

This is why I refuse to go from 2K to XP, XP is basicaly 2K with a few kernal tweaks to make users think that it is not bloated, and then 500Megs of blue curvy CRAP that is installed along side everything else.

Yes I can DISABLE the blue curvy crap but it will still be there, and that is what upsets me. That MS sees fit to install blue curvy crap that I do not want nor need.

Actualy the entire WinNT line has tons of extra applications installed, it is just that hardly any of them are documented. . . . Very few productivity apps though.

Re:VNC has been doing this, and better

[Professor J Frink]

That's odd, we don't have any problem running our hardware control machines across VNC. Ok, on a modem it isn't fun fun fun but on anything better than that it's perfectly acceptable.

And running X-ray diffractometers and SQUID magnetometers isn't exactly simple text-based stuff either (a proper unix program would be but you know what Windows programmers are like: let's make it all buttons and clicking contrary to the fact that most people just want a freaking cli interface that works and doesn't require you to pick out high resolution objects with the mouse instead of just typing in the exact angles for example).

Although we have PC-Anywhere on there as well (which may be better, I dunno) it means we can connect up to those machines from practically any type of modern platform, ie we don't have to piss about rebooting into Windows just to control a couple of windows on another box. Added to that the fact that you can sling VNC quite happily onto anything else for serving and you're set: the users don't have to learn anything new they still use the same old clients.

You can compare the bandwidth requirements and cpu requirements and blah blah blah but the fact that VNC is here, has been for years and works on any system we use (Unix, Windows, Macs, even RISC OS) makes it a sure fire winner.

Anyway, at least nobody here has been sucker enough to get XP in the first place which must be a goddamn record for this dept (I'm ignoring the pirating scum and the ripped-off copies they had within days, naturally).

Anything else is X, and I don't need to point out the sheer Joy of its network transparency now do I? (Seeing as I'm often doing graphical analysis/editing and sometimes using OpenOffice to look at people's PowerPoint presentations at home via our cable connection without using anything other than my default desktop).

It's quite simple really

[dumbArtMajor]

How do we keep them from doing this to us over and over again?

Buy OS X...

Good and Bad

[zmender]

Personally though, I don't mind the microsoft crap too much. At least they are somewhat useful. I am worried about what the computer manufacturers are going to put on the computers once they have the right to do so. I don't want bunch of uselss shareware crap on my computer.
The software Microsoft bundles are at least somewhat quality software. For example, Windows Media Player can do almost everying a jukebox is suppose to. The free version of real player is total crap comparing to media player.
I think what is installed onto computer should be choosen by computer buyers when they pay for the machine. People may be offended to have Microsoft application preinstalled, there are also people who are offended to have third party software installed without their permission.

I really hate to agree with Microsoft, but...

[newerbob]

...allowing OEMs to "customize" windows is bad news for consumers.

I just bought a Compaq PC that was "Enhanced" by Compaq. Most of these enhancements were annoying at best, and detrimental at worst.

For example, it came bundled with Roxio EZ-CD creator preinstalled. This breaks windows XP's built in CD-ROM burning that lets you simply drop files on the CD-ROM icon in the explorer.

It came with about 6 useless programs that all took up space in the toolbar tray. I spent about an hour getting rid of them.

The browser came with some silly browser-bar extensions (how often do I need to visit Compaq.com?) and the toolbar is set to say "Microsoft Internet Explorer--Enhanced by Compaq")

It came with some stupid imaging packacge preinstalled that broke the "filmstrip" preview mode that XP has.

Considering all of this, I shudder when I think of all the "enhancements" that vendors will add if given the chance.

Apple doesn't let vendors much with the OS when it sells boxes. Why should Microsoft?

do you mean XP is all about crapola?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

If XP is just 95 plus the illegal crap, then maybe it should be banned altogether?

Or, did you mean to suggest that if you want a better product over time you must also give up your right to pick and choose the software you buy and use?

What about the security fixes?

[teslatug]

People seem to be bashing this SP, but don't forget that it will also have a ton of security fixes. What I want to know is if they'll allow you to install just the fixes without the useless hide-and-seek part that has been rightfully bashed.

Re:They can't do that

[twilightzero]

You already have to have their blessing every time you start up - after all, what is the Activation Code? If you don't enter it, you get shut down after a 30 day trial period, basically. And you have to get a new activation code every time you make 3 or more hardware changes. Another little tiny baby step and they can just change the "3 or more major hardware changes" to "1 year since install date" or something like that.

And they're already doing this anyway. If you've read their latest round of corporate licenses, you pay per seat per year. You don't own the software, you own a yearly license to USE the software. Now there are other perks that come with this, i.e. you get a shoebox size package that contains cd's of every MS product ever made (not including Bob...we checked) and you get new products shipped to you every time they come out, complete with the license to use them. But the point is, you HAVE to upgrade, even if you don't need to. You're tied to that yearly fee, and yes they DO check up on you.

Re:Let's stop all the "now I can install XP" comme

[jafac]

This means that the CD you have in your cube with XP written on it with a Sharpie will not take the service pack.

It will if the key is my company's valid bulk lic #.

Perjury??

[cannonball_D]

Microsoft has testified under oath that modularization of Windows is impossible. Who's up for a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for perjury? These are my tax dollars going into the prosecution's case, and I'd like to get that money back -- put it to use in public education.

Re:Uhhh.....

[Darby]

Is this the result of a court order, or is Microsoft actually trying to do something about their (bad) reputation as a psychotic monopolistic company?

The keyword is: Reputation.

What was it Allchin said about shouldn't have mentioned the fatal flaws cause they're workin' on their reputation.

I never called anyone a moron, moron!

[tshak]

Unfortunately this is not a realistic philosophy. This is not elitism, rather, it's reality based on experience as a tech support and helpdesk professional (years ago - average user savvyness has improved a little). I always make a point to teach people, not just hand-hold them (the whole "give a man a fish, teach him how to fish" comes into play). However, A) Many users (especially in the American "every NOW NOW NOW" culture) don't really care and B) Many users don't have the time to care.

The following are generalizations and obviously don't apply to every single person:

Things have to be "dumbed-down" because people are comfortable being ignorant. This has nothing to do with software but with every single aspect of society. Talk to a contracter who builds houses and they'll tell you how hard it is to communicate relatively trivial concepts to their customers. Their customers just have no desire to be educated about the process. People want to be "right", and they can't humble themselves nor get the patience to gain a basic level of understanding. We have experts for a reason, and the customer need not be an expert. Again, ask a car mechanic how frustrating his job is when he has to deal with the customers.

Personally, as a software developer and designer, I want to do everything I can to make computers as DUH as possible without making them dumb. This is kind of why I really like MacOSX, because it's a reasonably userfriendly (needs some matureing) UI without sacrificing power. This is also why I _don't_ like WinXP, because it's the dumbest UI I've seen yet. Dumb in the sense that it's stupid-easy which is what MS customers want, but is not what's best for them, IMHO, becuase not only will they never learn, but things will always be inefficient due to the 800 step wizards required just to copy a file (exageration, for the anal retentive). So, I'll try to make software as intuitive and easy as possible, without making it dumb. I'm also very patient with the users of my software (interal employees) and I am always more then happy to educate someone willing to learn. However, I'm never willing to put up with impatient, arrogant people who really don't care about anything but NOW.

PS

[tshak]

Sorry for the quickly typed and poorly worded and structured post. I'm in a hurry to leave so I skipped preview mode before realizing that this was quite scattered!

Re:Wrong...

[waspleg]

i had intent to copy not to steal, i'm glad to see you can make the leap from fuckwit to absolutely fucking retarded

let me repeat since you still don't seem to grasp this concept, if you have 3 M&M's and I eat 1 you have 2 M&M's you have suffered a physical and accountable loss, the M&M costs money to replace

however if you have 3 floppies and i copy the contents of one onto one of mine YOU STILL HAVE YOUR ORIGINAL which means you have suffered *NO* loss

as for the software manufacturer, they automatically assume that because you copied their software that you were going to buy it anyway, which is also false

the same concept can be applied liberally to all forms of information, be it medicine or law or anything else

by your definition having a brain should be illegal because i could use it to steal (store) (copywritten) information
(ie could tell someone the end of a new movie and by your definition i have deprived the movie theatre of their money becuase that person didn't pay to see it even though they may not have anyway and i have used my brain as the vehicle of "theft")

perhaps you should wake up from the dreamland in which you live and smell reality

Reuters has an article too.

[gusnz]

I spotted this yesterday at Retuers, which has another article on it. One of the more interesting quotes from Jim Cullinan, lead product manager:

Service packs are meant to fix critical compatibility, reliability and security issues in a product until an updated version of it can be released.

"We've never issued a service pack for a general consumer" product, he said.

Hmm, I guess it must have been a case of mistaken identity when I downloaded that "Windows 98 Service Pack 1" at home from that renowned hax0r site "Windows Update".

Good to see Microsoft on the ball again, I'd hate to see them spreading FUD to look like they were going to extreme lengths to comply with the antitrust provisions.

Re:VNC has been doing this, and better

[Dwonis]

You're right. Terminal services is faster than VNC because it's based on RDP (see http://www.rdesktop.org/ for more info), but there's nothing particularly new or innovative about it.

Re:VNC has been doing this, and better

[bertok]

I'm currently employed at a company in Sydney that specialises in thin-client networks using Windows and Citrix. I have news for you, VNC is useless for most real-world applications. It's useful for small administrative tasks, but it's useless for more than one user. VNC is a bandwidth hog, even the improved versions like TightVNC can saturate anything less than ethernet, and it's a CPU hog too.

Windows uses the much smarter RDP protocol for thin-clients. RDP is hooked into the GDI at a low level, and transfers only the minimum information required to clients. Clients can cache images, and expose their local files and devices to the server. There are clients available for every platform imaginable.

The new Mira technology is basically a dumbed-down version of the professional thin-client stuff for home users. Some friends already have similar networks running at home, and I've experimented too. It's amazing to access your full desktop from any computer, anywhere, anytime. Over ADSL it's fast enough to do most typical office tasks like reading email or writing documents.

The Windows XP "Remote Assistance" tool uses RDP, so it can give you an idea of what Mira will be like.

Re:Still bloated (so what)

[crimsontiger6]

So what, if you've got half a brain you can use 3rd party apps now and set them as default. This whole M$ is evil thing just shits me. If you don't like it customise it or use Linux or Apple just stop bitchin' about it.

Re:XP SP1

[blixel]

"when we should all be running LINUX anyway!"

Sorry but my mom has no business running Linux.

Re:Google Doodle

[Yo Grark]

No, I'm referring to today specifically.

Can't SEE?

What kind of crap is that?

Re:They can't do that

[Babbster]

You have to get a new activation code, but you don't have to PAY for a new activation code. It's inconvenient, but it's not quite as evil as some folks imply.

-Aaron

Score 1? That was _insightful_, you dolts!

[leonbrooks]

Got points? Mod the man up! (-:

Microsoft have done stranger things... no, let me rephrase that... Microsoft have done many stranger things, but I wouldn't expect them to make an OS truly more modular immediately after telling a court that this was impossible, and before the hearings had ended.

Microsoft don't care, they just...

[leonbrooks]

...sue your ass off if you're caught with a dud copy. No carrot, just a very big stick. In some countries, you can face a mandatory minimum of 8 years in jail for software piracy, regardless of the actual value (or sticker price) of the software.

Of course, the other kind of software piracy - actions by large software companies which are effectively extortion, stealing or dumping - goes widely unpunished by the courts. We-the-people have started to take matters into their own hands, worldwide. For example, Australian schools, having just paid tens of millions of dollars to Microsoft, are eyeing off the `$100 million' worth of Microsoft software donated (with attendant tax writeoff) to South African schools, and starting to ask questions. Soth Africans are starting to ask questions, too, like `why did they wait until it lookerd like an Open Source alternative was going to take off in SA?' and `how long will this deal really last, and what will it cost afterwards?'

regardless of rating, the statements are true

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Regardless of the rating, the statements are true.

That is why Microsoft likes the fake settlement so much. It grants to them more than they had before they began violating the law.

MS prevent security patching

[hcstudt]

So if this is true, then Micosoft go out of its way just to make sure the secury holes stay open !!!

Re:Please Can you Stop the Headline as Commentary?

[TheCaptain]

Sometimes making a post that is offtopic somewhere is actually important.

Sometimes something needs to be said and heard, and there was no good place to say it. The offtopic post in question was rather relavent as it was reveiling some shadey behavior on the part of some of the editors. Alot of people deserve to know what is going on, so they can see and judge the frequent hypocracy on the part of the management and make better judgements for themselves.

Guess what...if you submit an article detailing an investigation into shadey management practices on slashdot...it's going to get rejected...and the readers have no say in it.

Don't even get me started on their rediculous biases and lack of objectivity. Oh well...as long as they can keep convincing themselves they don't exist....