Slashdot Mirror


BBC Hails "fair" Microsoft XP SP1

Richard Bown writes "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are these days. No mention of EULA changes."

458 comments

  1. Ignorance is bliss. by Kensaro · · Score: 1

    What you don't know can't hurt you, right?

    So if you don't read the EULA, it doesn't apply, right?

    1. Re:Ignorance is bliss. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, a contract is not valid if one of the parties is incapacitated through drink or drugs. So sign it after you`ve had a few!

      Who needs expensive scary lawyers when you can just have a guinness and a joint? Its a simple business decision!

    2. Re:Ignorance is bliss. by anarchima · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately accepting the EULA *kinda* says that you HAVE read it (even if you haven't, you are legally accepting it).

    3. Re:Ignorance is bliss. by Zamfir · · Score: 1

      Why is it that slashdotters always accuse microsoft of promoting FUD to sell their products, and you then turn around and CONSTANTLY push FUD about the EULAs?

    4. Re:Ignorance is bliss. by mijok · · Score: 0

      Slashdot discussing EULA:s again... Has any EULA been considered valid in court in the US yet? I know that they are definitely not valid in my country, Finland, and probably not in the rest of the EU. So I don't waste my time reading them. My colleague, however, does waste his time with them - not by reading, though. He reports them as bugs: "...the installer for 'Program-with-stupid-eula 1.0' quits when I click 'I don't agree', since I don't agree with the EULA, and then I have to click 'I agree' even though I don't, please fix this!"

      --
      Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
    5. Re:Ignorance is bliss. by rosewood · · Score: 2

      To combat ignorance might I say that if you slipstream the sp1

      ie

      servicepack.exe -s:C:\extractedwinxpcd\i386

      then do a repair install or just reinstall

      you are fine with any key

      or you can change your key with tools easily found on google to a legit generated key

    6. Re:Ignorance is bliss. by los+furtive · · Score: 2

      Awww yeah. That's the best post I've seen all day! Stick it to da man!

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

  2. Fair? by Professor+North · · Score: 1

    MS being fair? Oh, I should've known, as fair companies always see their customers doing this in regards to their product, "Windows users have turned to software produced by Lite PC that strips out unwanted applications from Windows 98, 2000 and XP.". Fair indeed.

    --
    - - Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand. - -
    1. Re:Fair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most of that crap has *nothing* to do with microsoft. it's not made by them, so stop trying to blame everything under the sun on microsoft. it's pathetic. Oh yeah, was that a company sponsored press release ? if so I wouldn't touch that place with a barge poll. cos of course they would fucking say that ! duh. thats like saying, "we make cars, so people everywhere tired of busses are buying cars". well duh.

  3. BBC's bias by slipgun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nice to see that slashdot is finally picking up the BBC's bias on certain issues. Those who watch/listen to BBC news will know how biased they are on, for example, the Euro. It seems the Americans can't do anything right in their eyes, either...

    --
    SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    1. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because Americans do things right ? thats news to me... check Kyoto, International law court, Johannesburg, ad nauseum....

    2. Re:BBC's bias by turgid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How was the parent offtopic? I can appreciate the BBCs bias in many issues. Yes, the Euro, the imminent war on Iraq ("Iraq could produce a nucelar bomb withing months" - well wake up and smell the coffee - so could we all if we had the raw materials), their rabid, incoherent rantings against and irrational fear of civillian nuclear power, Microsoft sycophancy, a whole "technology" section on their web site that is nothing more than adverts and positive propaganda for Microsoft intersperced with sensational "wow" articles about what you can do with mobile phones, email and web browsers.... ....and to think that I'm forced to pay for this crap because I watch Television here in the UK.

    3. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find me an unbiased news source and I'll find you a cure for blind American patriotism. Why is it that the "greatest country in the world" fails to make it into the top 10 countries in the world in which to live? The national anthem should be changed to "We Are the World," as Americans still seem to think they are. Talk about bias...

    4. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not biased really is it? It's just that they report what's said, rather than taint it with their own opinion. Some think tank says "Nukes within months", they report it. MS says "XP SP1 is DoJ compliant", they report that too.

      That said, good investigative journalism will dig deeper, but here in the UK, the general rule is that doing that, and doing it wrong gets you into big trouble and usually associated with the words "tabloid" and "libel"...

    5. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that the US has fecking thousands of nuclear weapons. Oh but Iraq can't have any because they can't be trusted. Like I trust the fecking US. Gimme a break...

    6. Re:BBC's bias by ites · · Score: 1

      [Offtopic, mod me as you must.]
      The BBC simply tend to accept the briefings they get.
      It's not deliberate bias, IMHO but laziness.
      The BBC survives off the status quo
      with UKP 2.5Bn annually from state TV licenses
      and has no interest in stirring the pot.

      --
      Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    7. Re:BBC's bias by turgid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the fecking US doesn't go around nuking people willy-nilly now, does it? Feck! Drink! Girls!

    8. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, what other countries have ever used a nuclear weapon in anger?
      Ummmm....
      Errr.....
      Hmmm.

    9. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a measured and legitimate act designed to bring about an early end to the War. They did it as an act of defense, not aggression. Anyway, I'm sure you disagree with that. Fuck off back to Greenpeace you ignorant smelly hippy.

    10. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, an early end to the war...using aggression. Act of defense? A little on the extreme side for defense, don'tcha think?

    11. Re:BBC's bias by reallocate · · Score: 2

      Last I heard, the BBC was the British Broadcasting Corporation, so I'd expect their news selection to reflect their perceptions of UK and European interests. Hence, they do things like run stories about the euro and interview actual Europeans.

      And, in the UK just as elsewhere, almost all their readers, listeners and viewers live in a Microsoft world. Why go off an a tangent about EULA's when it is a credible assumption that's of interest to only a tiny fraction of their audience.?

      No news organization can, or even needs to attempt to, provide every possible countervailing thread in every single news piece they release. If the BBC's selection of news offends you, go elsewhere.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    12. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Feck! Drink! Girls!

      Arse!

    13. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the US is a democracy.. so the US won't use nukes just to satisfy the desires of a single man or group of people. Iraq doesn't even pretend to be a democracy so there is hardly any restraint on the government.

      Of course, what I just wrote is mostly bullshit. In the USA, if the leader gets an idea he wants to attack another country, he just "markets" the idea and "makes his case" until the polls tell him a majority of people want it.
      I wouldn't be surprised if he starts putting hip, demographic-focused ads on TV telling us how wonderful our lives will be if we destroy Iraq. Never mind the fact that Iraq hasn't done a damn thing to us...................

    14. Re:BBC's bias by slipgun · · Score: 2

      because Americans do things right ? thats news to me... check Kyoto, International law court, Johannesburg, ad nauseum....

      Actually, I'm British, but I reckon America got it right on most of the above.

      I can see my karma dissipating before my eyes.

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    15. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Never mind the fact that Iraq hasn't done a damn thing to us...................

      But they have oil. That's enough reason in Bush & Co's eyes. Just ask why there are US Army Rangers guarding a pipeline in Afganistan. Jeez, they didn't waste any time there...

    16. Re:BBC's bias by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Just because they not agreeing with all what you think doesn't mean they're stupid or just mess up things for a laugh.
      Sure, I don't agree with alot of the later american politics, but they have done alot of good things as well while they been around. Credit were credits due, etc, etc

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    17. Re:BBC's bias by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Not sure you could call it defense really, but compared to a full-scale invasion of Japan, the cost of live was comparably small.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    18. Re:BBC's bias by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      I hope you can swim, then. And be carefull to avoid those patches of water which are hotter than the rest, due to being above certain bunkers which have been nuked...

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    19. Re:BBC's bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post had several spelling errors in it. I've taken the liberty of correcting them for you and reposting it. In the future please pay more attention.

      Yes, but the fucking US doesn't go around nuking people willy-nilly now, does it? Fuck! Drink! Girls!

    20. Re:BBC's bias by slipgun · · Score: 2

      So presumably Saddam will be nice to us if we're nice to him?

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    21. Re:BBC's bias by Darby · · Score: 2

      And, in the UK just as elsewhere, almost all their readers, listeners and viewers live in a Microsoft world. Why go off an a tangent about EULA's when it is a credible assumption that's of interest to only a tiny fraction of their audience.?


      Because it is not a tangent and it is critically important to anybody who uses MS software that if they want to patch their machine they have to give a convicted criminal organization free reign over their machine.

  4. Karma Whoring by Wind_Walker · · Score: 5, Informative
    I think I'll link to a similar article at CNN. It's a bit less biased.

    And, for anybody who is using XP, they say that the software (like IE, Media Player, etc) is hidden. But if I double-click on an HTML file, does it come up in IE anyways? Or does it say "File type not recognized"?

    </Karma Whoring>

    1. Re:Karma Whoring by Wind_Walker · · Score: 5, Funny
      So it really is more that just a lip-service update... interesting...

      (Now that I have an XP user in my grasp...) How difficult is it to turn those programs off? Is it hidden in an obscure Control Panel setting, three pages deep in the "Uber-Advanced Options", with a dozen warnings saying "This will break your computer and ruin your marriage, not to mention bring war to peaceful nations and kill a dozen kittens"?

    2. Re:Karma Whoring by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I think I'll link to a similar article at CNN [cnn.com]. It's a bit less biased."

      Less biased in Microsoft's favor != less biased overall.

      Let's not forget who owns CNN nw...

    3. Re:Karma Whoring by clontzman · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's actually at the root of the Start Menu and has been added to the left-hand nav of the Add/Remove Programs dialogue. I looked at it and it seemed fairly free of threats. You can say, "Use Microsoft programs," "Use current programs" or "Custom."

    4. Re:Karma Whoring by NineNine · · Score: 2

      I think I'll link to a similar article at CNN [cnn.com]. It's a bit less biased.

      How is it less biased? It says the same damn thing.


      And, for anybody who is using XP, they say that the software (like IE, Media Player, etc) is hidden. But if I double-click on an HTML file, does it come up in IE anyways? Or does it say "File type not recognized"?

      Ok, you obviously didn't read the articles, either. The agreement was for NEW computers to be able to come with different default programs. The Service Patch isn't going to remove IE completely, and install Netscape for you!

      And as far as "hiding" goes, you don't need a damn service pack to do it. It's called the "delete" button. Any shortcut anywhere (including the IE icons) can be deleted.

      Jesus, the gov't has no business having anything to do with technology.

    5. Re:Karma Whoring by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      Yep, it can't be more obvious then were it is now. Well, perhaps on an icon in the middle of the desktop. But the Start Menu root is extremely visible...

      I wonder if this was a requirement MS had from the antitrust case. To have it easily accessible. I mean -- I would be less surprised if they placed an icon of the Windows Media Player on the start menu root.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Karma Whoring by Schnapple · · Score: 2
      According to the aricle at CNN:
      More significantly, though, it will allow computer manufacturers and consumers to switch off and conceal Microsoft's e-mail, Web browser, Internet audio-video player and other software programs. That gives computer vendors and users the option to select rival software -- instead of Microsoft applications -- as default programs.
      Which is all fine and dandy, except for the unfortunate reports that, since XP shipped with few bugs, PC makers are going to be slow to implement it. And to think this was exactly what they wanted a while back...
    7. Re:Karma Whoring by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      While AO-HELL Time Warner owns CNN, and is a public opponent of MS, the fact is that AOL depends on MS for it's lifeblood.

      What percent of AOL users use something other than an MS operating system?

      The truth is that AOL is not in direct competition with the OS, just the internet service. For some stupid reason, they promote the OS by way of making the newest, latest versions of their software come out first for Windows, then maybe later for Mac, and they don't bother with anything else. Pretty ironic since they are in a position to help change things dramatically.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    8. Re:Karma Whoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as long as my media files don't open in Real Player, its fine with me.

    9. Re:Karma Whoring by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 2
      I think I'll link to a similar article at CNN [cnn.com]. It's a bit less biased.


      CNN = AOL Time Warner = Big Microsoft competitor

      But of course, this is the media so they would never be biased.
    10. Re:Karma Whoring by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      She is expected to make her decision in both cases within the next several months.

      That's legalese for "will make an announcement by May, 2003 concerning another delaying tactic by Msft while they continue to abuse their monopoly position".

      It's like when RCA infringed on the Armstrong patent on FM - when Armstrong sued, RCA's batallion of legal begals tied up the case so thoroughly, so that RCA could go blissfully ahead making zillions in Television, that the inventor of FM could only go broke and commit suicide.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    11. Re:Karma Whoring by erth · · Score: 1

      Amen.

    12. Re:Karma Whoring by metacosm · · Score: 2

      I don't think that how "Easy it is to turn off" matters much -- the real change will happen if the people who distribute XP on new PCs start bundling different apps for the defaults.. ie: mozilla as the browser -- Real as the media player -- Winamp to play mp3s/oggs... etc.

      That is who this new feature really targets.

    13. Re:Karma Whoring by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2

      Ok, you obviously didn't read the articles, either. The agreement was for NEW computers to be able to come with different default programs. The Service Patch isn't going to remove IE completely, and install Netscape for you!

      It's still a valid question, and from the other questions, and experience with the Win2k release of this thing that occured a couple weeks ago, it does pretty much what he's asking about, which is ignore the fact that there's a program that can open it until you install something else that will.

      And as far as "hiding" goes, you don't need a damn service pack to do it. It's called the "delete" button. Any shortcut anywhere (including the IE icons) can be deleted.


      That isn't quite the same thing, as double-clicking an html file would bring up IE unless you also removed the IE files themselves (not just the shortcuts). You'd have to go into the registry and edit/remove the file type associations.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    14. Re:Karma Whoring by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

      I'm confused... I've never had a problem with XP and setting my defaults as other-than-Micorsoft. I use Mozilla as my browser and several different programs for media (my default being QuickTime).
      If I double click on a JPG, then PhotoShop opens (my default setting). If I click on an HTML or HTM page, then Mozilla or Dreamweaver opens (depending on the file folder). ......

    15. Re:Karma Whoring by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      The only problem with this is that MS is going out of their way to make other browsers look bad. For example, if you visit support.microsoft.com and view an article with bullet in it... in IE, it looks like the lines in the list are a little too close together. Under Mozilla, they are an unreadable mess. Upshot: If you want to browse MS's support site, you have to use IE. I wonder how long it will be before they use similar tricks on their other sites, too... like the X-Box site.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    16. Re:Karma Whoring by glesga_kiss · · Score: 0, Troll
      I would be less surprised if they placed an icon of the Windows Media Player on the start menu root.

      I think they do. I've noticed several bookmarks/start menu items that re-appear eventially when deleted. Just try deleting the "Links" folder in the Favourites menu...it will be back soon enough...

    17. Re:Karma Whoring by Phil+Wilkins · · Score: 2

      Dunno why you've been modded as troll, cause it's true. The links menu can only be permenantly removed by the use of TweakUI, or direct registry manipulation. Similarly, WMP shortcuts will often mysteriosly appear on your desktop after making unrelated patches. Not that Real or Quicktime or WinAmp is any better though.

    18. Re:Karma Whoring by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's actually at the root of the Start Menu and has been added to the left-hand nav of the Add/Remove Programs dialogue.

      Win2K SP3 adds a similar feature...but I'd recommend against installing it. In addition to the issues previously noted WRT SP3, I've found it's great at destabilizing Win2K. Two of my machines started bluescreening whenever a DirectShow filter graph involving their webcams (Orange Micro iBots) was closed, and I just spent the past weekend in Phoenix reloading everything on my father's computer because SP3 hosed his MSN setup and caused printing to run at a glacial pace. Now that all of the affected machines have been put back to SP2, all is well with the world again.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    19. Re:Karma Whoring by Wiener · · Score: 1
      SP3 adds a similar feature...but I'd recommend against installing it

      Remember...even numbered service packs only ;)

    20. Re:Karma Whoring by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Hehe....
      You forgot NT4-SP4... Many, many people stayed on SP3 for a loooong time. Ugly one, or the original NT-SP6 (not 6a)... Perhaps for NT4 it was "the uneven service packs only". But of course exceptions confirm the rule.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    21. Re:Karma Whoring by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      I wish that I could also force other programs from opening up webpages in explorer for me. Other than that I've never had a problem with file type properties.

    22. Re:Karma Whoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't quite get it either. I use Trillian, OpenOffice, XNews, Mozilla, Eudora, WinAmp, LeechFTP and so on as "defaults", and never felt too harrassed by their respective MS counterparts.

      Except I can't delete, say, Media Player. It keeps cropping up. (There must be some checkmark I've failed to notice...)

      Oh, and pointing Windows Explorer (as opposed to clicking HTML files or entering URLs in one of those taskbar widgets) at a website still brings up IE for some reason.

      "Uninstalling" (hiding) MS' clutter doesn't actually remove it, and it doesn't sound as though the SP was going to change that. Sure, without the SP you'll have to remove a couple parameters from some obscure text file somewhere that the new, lazy or unexperienced just won't find, but the functionality (or lack thereof) has been there all along. Hm.

    23. Re:Karma Whoring by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      SP3 adds a similar feature...but I'd recommend against installing it

      Remember...even numbered service packs only ;)

      I thought the "even's good, odd sucks" rule only applied to Star Trek movies...

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    24. Re:Karma Whoring by ozbird · · Score: 2

      I followed the instructions for the "Express" installation, which just bounced me to WindowsUpdate. I already had all of the available patches installed (except .NET and Euro support), but I don't see these options in the Start Menu or Add/Remove Programs dialog. Are they only visible if you have a rival product (e.g. Mozilla) configured as the default handler for those file types?

    25. Re:Karma Whoring by geekee · · Score: 1

      Where's this bias? All both articles are saying is that MS implemented a patch to comply with a govt. ruling. None claim anything elese except possibly in the title of the BBC article.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    26. Re:Karma Whoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't be more obvious then

      or did you mean more obvious now?

      where the hell is the grammar fascist?!?!?

    27. Re:Karma Whoring by nathanm · · Score: 2
      SP3 adds a similar feature...but I'd recommend against installing it
      Remember...even numbered service packs only ;)
      I thought the "even's good, odd sucks" rule only applied to Star Trek movies... Applies to many other things as well. Another good example is AutoCAD. Release 12 was great, 13 blew until the 4th update, and 14 was good. So instead of naming the next release 15, they made an abrupt change and went with Microsoft's braindead naming scheme, 2000 (2000i & 2002 since then).
    28. Re:Karma Whoring by unitron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nice to see someone else who knows about Major Armstrong and that it wasn't just Farnsworth that got screwed over by "General" Sarnoff. A good biography of Armstrong (if you haven't read it yet and can find an old copy somewhere) is "Man of High Fidelity" by Lawrence Lessing.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    29. Re:Karma Whoring by Bartmoss · · Score: 1

      I just installed SP3 this morning and lo and behold after reboot it couldn't find some login dll and said "replace dll or reinstall system", something like this.

      Luckily for me, it was in vmware. power down machine, discard changes to filesystem, back to working config in 90 seconds. :)

    30. Re:Karma Whoring by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Technet isn't worth a shit in IE anymore, either. With IE6, it reaches new depths of unusability. The conspiracy theory of course would be they'd rather have people call and spend bucks instead of use the free resources. (Yes, MS has free support resources.)

    31. Re:Karma Whoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nwgina.dll or something like that?

      Its a race in win2k SP3. vmware's "hard drive" will sometimes return blocks in a few cycles. microsoft relies on some other DLL being loaded first, on the basis of disk timing. The same thing can happen if you have a solid state boot drive.

      There is an undocumented workaround you can put in the vmware config file that will make it slow itself down enough that win2k won't get confused. Call support and ask about it.

      Thank god for VMWare undoable disks though. Too bad that Microsoft still hasn't gotten the hang of concurrent programming.

  5. Bah! by Quasar1999 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Trust the English Not... with their Tea Tax and what not...

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
  6. Not that this is a warez site or anything by Powercntrl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But I'm curious (and not running XP)... Is there any truth to the rumor that Windows XP with a hacked/unauthorized serial number won't allow you to install the service pack?

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Schnapple · · Score: 3, Informative

      The word is that there are two widely circulated keys in particular that are targeted. Not sure if SP1 will disable those systems or if it will just refuse to install

    2. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by crazyarab · · Score: 1

      good move by M$, I won't be upgrading the 25 workstations here to XP SP1.

    3. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by fregga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A friend of mine has the "devils own" version of XP installed, and it refused to install the service pack, so to be able to install it he would have to reinstall XP with a different serialnumber.

    4. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Timinithis · · Score: 1

      Well, according to this article: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/19188.htm l The two corporate keys released have been specifically targeted. I am glad that my office has an MSDN subscription that I was able to use to install XP at home. All in all, this is just an annoyance, as an attempt to install SP1 on a 'hacked' copy will not break the computer/format C:, but will deny updates from this point on. The corporate keys that were leaked were replaced with legitimate keys, because at least one, was from an actual corporate license and not just some typical generic windows key like under 95 where the serial 111-1234567890 was a vaild key, and office was all 1's.

      --
      Sig? What's a Sig?
    5. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP SP1 will not install on systems currently using the FCKGW-##### key, nor on systems who's PID number includes 640 or another such number that they are cracking down on. Currently it will install and let the user use Windows Update with keys generated via the commonly distributed Blue list Keygen.

    6. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by BiggyP · · Score: 2, Informative

      nope, he'd just have to use a generator with a valid license key to produce a valid product key and edit about 5 registry entries replace the old ID with the new product key and reboot, then tryu again, it might break windows update, but it should allow the service pack, worked for the betas anyway.

    7. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

      It won't install on a copy with the infamous FCKGW-... key from the Devil's Own release, released months before XP went retail. They also disabled another one, which is pretty unknown and not at all as wide spread it seems.

      Some are saying that MS disabled all serials for the "Corporate Edition" starting with F and P.

      What happens if installing on SP1 with the FCKGW key then?

      You'll get a message similar to "this key is pirated -- blabla -- you need to immediately obtain a legal key". Then I recall your copy of XP needs activation and you get this timer before it's *completely* deactivated and you're *forced* to phone MS to use the crap. :-)

      Needless to say, there are ways to change a key before installing SP1 without uninstalling XP.

      Also, there are a key generator (yes, that "Blue List keygen") available for XP that generates keys not detected as illegal by SP1.

      So, in the end, not much has been changed in the warez scene from this. Integrated Windows XP SP1 Corp Ed. ISO's with working serials are already floating around.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Fweeky · · Score: 2

      The problem is, SP1 now has XP sending your serial number and hardware ID to MS, so if they start working on a whitelisting system, the pirates are going to have to get more creative.

      Previously this information wasn't sent, so the option of blocking like this wasn't available.

      Still, at £240 a pop (yay, half a grand to get XP on both my desktops), there's plenty of reasons for the crackers to do something about it. I *really* do hope MS have the sense not to start an arms race that's just going to waste a lot of people's time, just for a handful more legitimate copies of Windows. If they make it too hard to crack, alternative OS's will just become the path of least resistance, Office apps and games or not.

    9. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      Yes, I fully agree.

      And this guy is saying that he thinks Microsoft has plans of upgrading the Windows Update service to check the keys (by reverse-engineering the product id) against a database of valid keys. If the key isn't listed, it would then be assumed to be illegal. This would stop key generators as well, unless they happen to generate keys of legit versions, which isn't very likely due to the huge number of combinations possible.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    10. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      .. which was essentially what you just said. :(

      *slap my face* Wake up! :)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    11. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Kenja · · Score: 1

      So you have 25 workstations running a pirated copy of Win XP and MS is supposed to care that you wont be installing SP1?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    12. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be that hard for the key generator to pop over to the MS update site to verify that it had generated a registered key. Or, just forget about the key generation all together and just bypass all the key checking code.

    13. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by shepd · · Score: 1

      >So you have 25 workstations running a pirated copy of Win XP and MS is supposed to care that you wont be installing SP1

      Who says its pirated?

      There's nothing illegal with buying 25 corporate copies of XP and using any key you can get your hands on (makes it easier for ghosting, for example). If it were, Master Lock would be after me for picking my way into my locked filing cabinet for which I have no key...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    14. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a blacklist of product keys it will not accept, and at least 3 product ID prefixes are banned. Dell also has had it's volume key (used by the DevilsOwn release) revoked and has been issued a new one.

      People who are changing their keys on a warez copy just to update to SP1 are pretty stupid, as Microsoft has said they will begin server-side verification of product keys pretty shortly. So next time you go to Windows Update, don't be surprised if you get a "Sorry, your key is invalid." message. (Or worse, your copy of Windows deactivated, and your key banned.)

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    15. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you're purchasing your software from, but here in the U.S. it's $135 for a copy of Windows XP Professional. I'd say that's more than fair.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    16. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      So you bought 25 corporate copies of XP, but you're going to use a key you got off the net for all of them?

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    17. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      If they make it too hard to crack, alternative OS's will just become the path of least resistance, Office apps and games or not.

      Why is that a bad thing? I can't wait for MS to bring out some uncrackable OS. The people I know who are running legit copies of Windows are pretty far in the minority.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    18. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Amazon UK; £239.99, not including postage.

      eBuyer; £257.17, inc postage.

      Oh, at Scam they do OEM copies for £115.74, which is rather more sane, but still about £30 more than your quoted figure, and legally questionable.

    19. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      So, do the sane thing and don't use Windows update. Get the patches as they come out, as it's sometimes 3-4 weeks or more before they show up on Windows Update. This way you defeat the annoying problems caused by this and keep more up-to-date.

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    20. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, gee, that makes sense. Great solution!

      Why not just pay the $135 and not worry about it anymore? Sheesh.

      Also, if Microsoft decides to do some sort of reinforcing of a valid key outside of Windows Update, then you're screwed (unless of course, someone comes out with a crack/patch past that.)

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    21. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Actually, more to the point, why not just not use XP? I use 2k for what I do outside of FreeBSD, and it seems to work just fine for me.

      Oh, and by the way, I *do* have a legal copy of XP...and pretty near every other Microsoft product. MSDN subscriptions are rather nice, and worth the money, believe it or not.

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    22. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong here, but I believe SP1 will "patch" a hacked copy of XP so that it is no longer hacked. Therefore, it will behave like a fresh install and will require a valid key to be entered within the time-limit.
      "You have 20 seconds to comply!"
      Or 3 days I think it is now! Whatever - so, no your data isn't trashed, but you'd presumably have to move your data somewhere, fdisk, and re-install your hacked copy within the 3 day limit and forget about being able to use SP1.
      I suppose the issue then is that you don't get the benefit of the security patches, but I think (at the moment) you can obtain the individual security fixes and apply them manually.
      Alternatively, someone will likely release a cracked SP1 I guess?

    23. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by shepd · · Score: 1

      >So you bought 25 corporate copies of XP, but you're going to use a key you got off the net for all of them?

      Yeah, why not?

      In a large company there's many screwups that can cause the windows installer tech to not have the serials that came with the CDs (they came with the computer, for example, and now the hardware department has ahold of them and you only have one machine and one bare windows CD to install from -- it's happened to me). So you go on the net, get a serial number, and install rather than go through trying to contact the other department (it only takes about 10 seconds of surfing to get a generic CD Key).

      If you use ghost (like 100% of all companies I've either worked with or seen in operation [even ones with just 2 computers]) then all the installs will have the same serial and *boom*, you're screwed.

      Oh well...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    24. Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything by TheTwoBest · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. Where I work we often will run around installing things off of whatever cd we can find, despite the fact that we own liceses and have at least a dozen "fuffilment cd's" somewhere.

      And the comment about ghost is certainly accurate (though we tend to use altiris.....), pretty much all of our machines use the same cd key because the images were all made at the same time, by the same tech (one of whom actually memorized both the windows and the office keys) and compounded by imaging.

  7. Somewhat misleading... by sleeperservice · · Score: 1

    is your title. The BBC article (which, let's face it, is a fluff piece or a very quick brief at best) simply states that Microsoft's implemented in XP SP1 the "ability" for end users (and resellers, no doubt) to "hide" any program's icons and existence.

    Whoopty. Maybe the BBC will run a bigger article later.

    1. Re:Somewhat misleading... by antiRev · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The actual title of the article "Windows plays fair with rivals" says exactly what the article covers, but unfortunately does not cover EULA, which surely is an article in itself.
      How many people read the EULA, and how many just press the Accept button as soon as it appears?
      Didn't NT4 install get you to scroll to the bottom of the EULA before agreeing? Perhaps the next step would be to have a built in delay of, say, 30 seconds to read the EULA before the button appears. And maybe another 30 seconds to comprehend the magnitude to what you're agreeing to? ;)

    2. Re:Somewhat misleading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zealots are morons.

  8. Yep by fredopalus · · Score: 0

    More security through obscurity.

    --
    Jonahweb.com has stuff.
  9. So how is the story unfair? by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Uh... how is the story biased and a "half-truth"?

    Because it doesn't bash Microsoft?

    It would have been nice of the submitter to make his case instead of just linking to the article and whining how "wrong" it is.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:So how is the story unfair? by ceejayoz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Slashdot considers anything that doesn't take the "Microsoft is the Great Satan" position "biased".

      Moderators: Please do not moderate me up.
      I don't think you'll have a problem with that, given what you posted ;-)

    2. Re:So how is the story unfair? by ericman31 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The main problem with this article is that BBC makes it sound as if there was already a final settlement in the anti-trust case. Nowhere in the entire article do they point out that there is only a proposed settlement, and that Microsoft's actions are being taken to try and forestall more restrictive penalties by the government. And, finally, the method used for "hiding" the MS software doesn't help much for those who don't want to use them because the other software manufacturers have to write their software to take advantage of the changes. Of course none have done it yet, so you actually cannot change your default browser to Netscape right now, no matter what MS says.

      None of that is MS bashing. This is. MS is a monopoly. They know they are a monopoly. People like Steve Ballmer within the executive circle of MS have no intention of letting go of their monopoly. Unless Judge Kollar-Kotelly takes very restrictive and punitive measures against MS they will just continue to do this, again and again. The obvious solution, one which would actually benefit the country economically, is to first penalize the company for it's actions, and then, after the penalty phase, split the company into at least two parts, perhaps three, with each new company restricted in a fashion that will help to prevent future monopolistic behavior. The first time I bought MS Office (Office 95 Pro) its cost was 10% of the cost of a reasonable PC ($200 vs. $2,000). Now the cost of MS Office is $499 (Office XP Pro). A reasonable PC is about $1,000 (office automation, web surfing, etc. not a gaming machine). Not only is Office XP not 250% better than Office 95, it's not even 100% better. I refuse to use Office anymore. Unfortunately at work I have to, since it is our company standard. That may change, according to some rumblings I'm hearing. In the meantime I will never again spend any of my own money on MS products.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    3. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It would have been nice of the submitter to make his case instead of just linking to the article and whining how "wrong" it is.

      That might be the easy way but it aint the slashdot way :-)

    4. Re:So how is the story unfair? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Of course none have done it yet, so you actually cannot change your default browser to Netscape right now, no matter what MS says.

      You can't? Why does IE tell me "This is not the default browser" every time I try running it?

    5. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you have'nt unchecked the box which says please check to see if IE is your default browser

    6. Re:So how is the story unfair? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      The only "fair" solution would entail MS being split into a sufficient number of parts that no one part was as large as it's largest competitor. (A one person delta would suffice here.)

      "fair" is in quotes because I don't believe that a fair solution is actually possible. But that's as close as I can come. O -- and the various companies should be forbidden recombining for a period of, say, 20 years. And they all have full rights to the IP of their parent.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Spad · · Score: 1

      You can make Netscape your default browser - just tick the 'Check to see if my brower is deafult' box and then click yes when it asks to make it default.

      Voila - no more IE opening stuff for you.

    8. Re:So how is the story unfair? by reallocate · · Score: 2

      Of course Ballmer has not intention of changing unless he's forced into it. Why would he?

      Microsoft deserves to be bashed, but the naivete of /. posters who castigate them for continuing to do what made them all rich is stunning.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    9. Re:So how is the story unfair? by sulli · · Score: 1

      Mozilla does the same thing, you know.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    10. Re:So how is the story unfair? by CardiffMan · · Score: 1
      you actually cannot change your default browser
      Mod parent down (definitely misinformed). You can change your default browser on XP, even pre-SP1. If you do change your default browser and you have enabled your "Internet application" being displayed at the top of the menu, YOUR choice of browser will appear in that menu slot. Same with email.
    11. Re:So how is the story unfair? by TMacPhail · · Score: 1

      I am using XP without SP1 and have mozilla as my default browser. IE doesnt complain when I launch it that it wants to be default because I disabled that. Aside from the continued visible existence of IE on my computer I dont need SP1 to use another browser.

    12. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      Me.

      They're called morals. You might want to consider looking into them.

      Money != Reason to Abuse Everyone For More Money

      Any trolls in the process of hitting the reply button, please take your time to do some more research on Microsoft before you insert your foot in your mouth.

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    13. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical ms basher, only use half the facts to support thier view. Things like facts don't sem to apply (or they have neevr used usch product)

      Probly why people say such stupid things like " you can't chngae the browser" when that has ben not true, everyt version of windows witha web broswer allowed you top change the default.

    14. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Netscape 7.0 and Mozilla 1.0+ Browser and Mail clients ARE Windows XP SP1 compliant, they register properly to appear in the Program Access and Defaults panel, and support the enable/disable function.

    15. Re:So how is the story unfair? by ericman31 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, do you break the law whenever you want to unless someone forces you not to? Come on. What's with double standards. Either you obey the law, or you don't. Either you behave ethically, or you don't, irregardless of whether someone makes you do it or not. I'm not castigating the MS crew for doing what made them rich, I'm castigating them for breaking the law. These guys could have gotten rich without breaking the law. They have a fairly decent business model, their products are user friendly, by and large. The Win95 GUI is one of the best and easiest to use for a desktop operating system. It is quite possible to get rich and behave ethically. The folks running MS don't behave ethically, and that's my problem with them.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    16. Re:So how is the story unfair? by ericman31 · · Score: 2

      Well, I have to say I goofed. Yes, with Mozilla 1.1 (I have no idea about Netscape 7) it does indeed work with the MS Program Access and Defaults applet. When I first installed Win2K SP3, none of the ISV software worked with it. I hadn't upgraded Mozilla yet. I did this morning, and I can indeed make it the system default, hide IE, etc. However, IE is still there, and half the system still uses it (like Windows Explorer, for example). I was basing what I said off experience from a few weeks ago. Oh well.

      But here's the real issue. I don't want to install IE or Windows Media Player. I don't like the products, and I don't like the EULA that comes with them. Since I must install them if I install Windows, I went with a better, in my opinion, solution than Microsoft's window dressing solution. I got rid of Windows on my home PC.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    17. Re:So how is the story unfair? by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
      And, finally, the method used for "hiding" the MS software doesn't help much for those who don't want to use them...

      I use a failsafe method to "hide" MS software.

      When WINxx boots, hit F8 and boot to command prompt.

      Delete everything in C:\Program Files\Outlook Express

      Delete everything in C:\Program Files\Windows Media Player

      Delete everything in C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer

      If you try this from Explorer it will give you the old "sharing violation" excuse and refuse to let you delete it. Deleting at the command prompt via F8 at bootup works. Go figure.

      You might have to manually delete all references to the removed directories in the register.

      This method of "hiding" works well.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    18. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's mostly unfair because all of Windows XP service pack 1 is unfair. All the slashbots are going to have to find new serial numbers or actually buy a copy to continue to use XP for playing all those games you can't get on Linux.

    19. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Right. And nobody on Slashdot would break the law.

      Nobody would copy a CD or download copyrighted music.

      Nobody would use a pir8 windows CD for the odd game.

      Nobody would ignore the EULA on "information (that) wants to be free"

      That's the law. But you're not talking about law, you're talking about behaving ethically. Chances are many people at Microsoft think they are behaving ethically, and there's a strong case for that view. They make software that simply works. People without political sticks up their asses tend to like that. People who hate success and have some neo-communist ideas about software "freedom" hate it.

    20. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a liar and you're not fooling anyone.

    21. Re:So how is the story unfair? by reallocate · · Score: 2

      You're correct on all counts. Read my post; I wasn't condoning MS's behavior.

      I think it is naive to expect criminals to suddenly stop being criminals unless some outside force intervenes and stops them. Even then, big crooks might not be stopped, just forced a bit off course.

      Many, many posts here on this issue strike me as coming from folks who seem surprised that a wealthy corporation would fight tooth and nail to preserve the practices, legal and illegal, that made it rich. It's almost as if they expect Gates and Ballmer to read Slashdot, slap their foreheads, and say "We're Sorry! Here, take all the money back."

      Not gonna happen, people.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    22. Re:So how is the story unfair? by ericman31 · · Score: 2

      Chances are many people at Microsoft think they are behaving ethically, and there's a strong case for that view.

      While one can make a case that MS is behaving ethically, it won't hold water any more than when Standard Oil tried to make the same case nearly a century ago.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    23. Re:So how is the story unfair? by ericman31 · · Score: 2

      Many, many posts here on this issue strike me as coming from folks who seem surprised that a wealthy corporation would fight tooth and nail to preserve the practices, legal and illegal, that made it rich.

      I'm not surprised that they fight tooth and nail. I dislike their tactics, I find them to be, as I understand the law and ethics, both illegal and unethical.I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong. But, by my ethical standards their behavior is wrong. I express that. It doesn't mean I think they will automatically stop just cause I'm upset, or because they read my post on /. I think it will take a combination of legal action and consumer action. And most likely a change of the senior executives. Leopards don't change their spots.

      The reality is that no single company and computing paradigm has dominated the computer industry for more than a decade or two. This industry changes too quickly, and in ways unforeseen by the powers that be, for that to happen. I think that 5, or at most 10, years from now we will wonder why we made such a fuss about MS. Kind of like IBM in the 1960's and 1970's. A little thing called the microchip and a little upstart called Intel changed the face of computing completely and left IBM scrambling to catch up. They almost succeeded, but there was never any hope that the IBM corporate culture of the time would allow the IBM employees pushing the PC to truly be successful. MS already appears to be falling prey to the same tendency, EVEN THOUGH Bill Gates is fully aware of his history.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    24. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, YOU'RE a brainwashed greedy fuck, and you're not fooling anyone.

      Let me ask this: Would you be more comfortable with 100 million dollars than with 50 million dollars? You could retire and never work another day in your entire life with 50 million dollars... and so could your entire family. So why would anyone KEEP working to amass more money than they could ever conceivably spend? Because they're brainwashed into thinking 'more money==good', and they're greedy and selfish.

    25. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you try this from Explorer it will give you the old "sharing violation" excuse and refuse to let you delete it. Deleting at the command prompt via F8 at bootup works. Go figure.

      Hey look, someone who doesn't understand something, trying to take a shot at Microsoft for it. Microsoft deserve a fair bit of the shit they get directed at them, but this comment is just mindless.

      OF COURSE you can't delete IE while booted into windows - the OS loads various parts of it, and while it's loaded, deleting the file is a sharing violation - the OS has locked the file. DO you understand the concept of sharing violation?

      And when the OS boots into DOS, it doesn't load any of the GUI stuff! How about that... IE not loaded, and now you can delete it.

      Fuck, some people are stupid.

      Oh, and for the record, you can delete the OE folder from explorer - it only warns you that the program wont work, not that you can't delete it.

    26. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy shit

      do you agree to the UELA for media player *EVER* from a fresh install?

      It does differ from the OS uela. Therefore MS is forcing a contract on you that you never agreed to...

    27. Re:So how is the story unfair? by reallocate · · Score: 2

      True. Somewhere, someone is working on technology that will leapfrog everything we use today -- Microsoft, Linux, the whole bunch. There's always a chance that the breakthrough may come from one of the current entrenched players, but given the deep conservatism of the IT industry, that seems unlikely.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    28. Re:So how is the story unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fuck you you communist asshole. You and your snarky "Uh."

      How about, UH, fuck you you fascist totalitarian mediocritomaton.

      You wont subject your works to real people because we would deprecate your worthless endeavors.

      I know who you are communist fuckbucket.

      MICROSOFT *IS* WRONG. And SP1 IS WRONG. EULAS ARE ILLEGAL. And beaurecratic assholes like YOU

      perpertuate this vile infection.

      THIS MAN IS A COMMUNIST. HE IS A KILLER, AND AN TERRORIST ABETTER. HE GIVES MONEY TO AL AQSA

      MARTYRS BRIGADE. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CIVILLIAN DEATH. OCTOBER, HOW DOES IT FEEL TO KNOW YOU HAVE

      CONTRIBUTED TO THE KILLING, THE DEATH AND SORROW IN THIS WORLD YOU. YOU. YOU. THE POWERS THAT BE,

      GOD AND YOUR OWN SICK TWISTED MIND KNOW THE TRUTH, AS DO I AND YOU CANNOT HIDE IT FROM ME.

      COMMUNIST
      lalalal lal lal la lala lala laa
      allal oh la orf gah ma toople lameness filter sucks barfy martoofe feepus
      garfungus platoopie feeptus raprtiong farting lamops urinating llamas iron pills farting jaundiced hyenas anus pies lame ness filter is faggotory death to communists lalalal
  10. I'd love to know more about this trend by Featureless · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone have other examples of problems with the BBC's reporting? I always thought of them as rather good, but then again I'm an American, so I'm mainly comparing them with American news... :/

    1. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is with tech news, not their political reporting

    2. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by fiiz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I read BBC news and Le Monde (the french newspaper) mostly every day.

      BBC's international coverage, although exhaustive, is not very fair: it is pro-blair & pro-american, which is a pain.
      I would criticise the BBC for being a little too close to the british government's stand on everything.

      Take for example Irak: most labour MPs don't wan't a war there, but does that transpire clearly in the BBC's reporting?
      Of course the bias not as blatant as CNN or other american news sources, and the coverage is very exhaustive (you can find a helluva lot of stuff on their website), but by european standards it's a bit mild--it's almost a legacy of BBC world service, trying to evangelise the british point of view abroad.

      --

      yours ever, fz.
    3. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by AndrewHowe · · Score: 2

      There was actually an item on the front page a couple of days ago about the Labour MP's, maybe you missed it.

    4. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by turgid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I live in the UK and I am sick and tired of the BBCs biased reporting. When brown people are killed or whatever it hardly makes the news, but when something happens to a couple of white people it's a top story (I'm white by the way). The BBC is notoriously anti-nuclear. I used to work in the nuclear industry and the BBCs lack of knowledge and the superstitious drivel it spouts about civillain nucelar power is embarrassing and makes me very angry because it panders to the luddites and ignoramuses and anti-nuclear lobbyists. They have a tendency towards subtle sensationalism in other areas too. I could go on at length but this is a rant and I don't have time. Oh and they're scared of GM food, mobile (cell) phones, pro-Microsoft, and their science coverage is generally ignorant, wrong or just plain dumbed down to kiddie level. ...and I have to pay for this since I have a television set and therefore a TV license.

    5. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      US media is only slightly less biased that Pravda was in Communist days. It proclaims freedom, but self-sensors. Compared to US media, the BBC is definitely better -- but better than the devil doesn't necessarily make one good.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    6. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by oldsk8r · · Score: 1

      The BBC are usually quite accurate when reporting events via TV or radio (I know the tech stuff is sometimes lacking, but they have to pack a lot in to a small segment of time and reach people who really wouldn't understand the more complex version). On the web side the BBC is crap, time after time you see: events being reported incorrectly, headlines that don't match the story, bad grammar (or even missing words), and dummed down tech articles. I've complained twice now to the BBC about the crappy news site and have only received the response from the auto-reply bot.

    7. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by AndrewHowe · · Score: 2

      Since almost all of the British media do what you are complaining about, why are you singling out the BBC?

    8. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by turgid · · Score: 1

      Because I'm paying for it directly through a television license. And, also because the BBC, in my opinion, being free from conventional commercial pressures should be unbiased, challenging, well-researched, thoughful and intelligent, not an electronic extension of the tabloid press.

    9. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      er... bullshit.

      Certainly, for the murder cases, I can think of any number of minorities that made the front page and news headlines.

      As for tech coversage, sadly you HAVE to dumb down these days just so the masses will try and understand it.

      Their articles on fears generally reflect those of the population at large.

      But, overall, you're spouting drivel too.

    10. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by turgid · · Score: 1

      >But, overall, you're spouting drivel too.

      Who's posting as AC here?

    11. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, if that really is the case, and Im not convinced by any means, then it is certainly specific to the website content, thier TV coverage is, and always has been, highly critical of the governemnt, and with El Presidente Blaire its even more the case.

      Generally I find the reporting on the website to be fairly passive and factual, as it should be, they arent really pushing, or critisizing opinions, that left to other areas, check thier talk-back forums.

      The website totally avoids opinion pieces, which is the right thing to do in that medium. I suppose that might make the bbc look a little impotent, but anyway used to watching despatch box, newsnight, question time, or listening to any of the radio 4 political commentary would know that the beeb dont really tow any line at all.

    12. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by JimPooley · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And of course Slashdot is a perfectly fair, totally unbiased and absolutely accurate source of news reporting, and not a Microsoft-hating heap of trashy tittle-tattle and geeky wank fantasy at all. Oh dear me no.

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    13. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I used to work in the nuclear industry and the BBCs lack of knowledge and the superstitious drivel it spouts about civillain nucelar power is embarrassing and makes me very angry because it panders to the luddites and ignoramuses and anti-nuclear lobbyists.

      The UK's nuclear industry was and is run by a pack of wankers that had no idea what they were doing and spent unreasonable amounts of time and money rubbishing alternatives. Remember Salter's ducks? Thatcher gave the AEC the remit to evaluate them. They promptly made up a list of bare-faced lies about the design and saw that the whole project was scrapped. Just to keep their monopoly intact.

      The BBC has consistantly let the UK nuclear industry off lightly as have the various governments.

    14. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by turgid · · Score: 1

      >The BBC has consistantly let the UK nuclear industry off lightly as have the various governments.

      This is complete and utter nonsense. The nucelar industry (civillian power) has been run down by constant cuts in the electricity price brought about to favour gas powerstations at the expense of having a viable, diverse ifrastructure in the long term. The nucelar industry, especially the old magnox stations, have been doing a wonderful job given the chronic underinvestment (a few million spent 20 years ago could have had all the magnoxes running and generating carbon-dixide free electricity safely for 50 years) etc. Anyway, you probably listen to the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth who have an irrational hatred and fear of nucelar power. But then I'm just ranting and you won't believe a word of it so what's the point. We could be well into our third generation of nuclear power stations in Britain just now if Maggie Thatcher hadn't cut investment in new genarating capacity, squandered the decomissioning money on privatisation and gone completely free market. A free market can not support new nucelar power stations since you do not get a substantial return on investment for 30 years.
      But what does anyone care? We'll just burn loads of gas and heat up the world and build a couple or three tidly little wind farms. Super.

    15. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by shilly · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think that your assertions are unlikely to be borne out by the facts. Coverage of the Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor murders was very extensive. The Soham murders may have been covered more thoroughly, but that is due to the story itself -- Amanda Dowler's case was and continues to be lower profile than the killings of the two black boys I mentioned above. If you're talking about deaths around the world, I think that your charge is equally insubstantial -- there's plenty of news stories from right around the world, but the front page reflects the likely predominant interests of either UK or non-UK readers (and can be changed, should you wish to do so).
      The fact that the BBC provides airtime for people whose viewpoints you disagree with may irritate you but is in fact a testament to impartiality. Every person with a special interest in a story will complain about an opposing viewpoint being put forward, will be able to adduce some evidence of inadequate treatment of their pet topic and will explain exactly how it is ridiculous to even begin to consider the views of the other as respectable. This is how Israelis, doctors, businessmen, Lib Dems, environmentalists, hunt sabs and any other group you care to mention feels. I can't see that scientists are treated any worse or more sceptically than any of the groups (or their oppositions) that I listed above. And opposition to the implementation of a particular technology does not, a priori, make one an ignoramus. In case you've forgotten, while the implementation of technology is frequently beneficial to us, occasionally it's not (viz Zyklon B, thalidomide, Bhopal). Finally, of course, if you really don't like the BBC, you could always sell your telly. There's bugger all on that's worth anyone's time anyway.

    16. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by turgid · · Score: 1

      Well, I went 6 years without a telly but finally gave in and got one so that I could get NTL's broadband internet package... :-(

    17. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by shilly · · Score: 1

      We lasted 2 years...I *hate* my TV...but my wife insisted

    18. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by artificial_blue · · Score: 0

      ? I always thought of them as rather good, but then again I'm an American, so I'm mainly comparing them with American news... :/ American news sites seem to be more close minded and biased (patriotic, self centered) than most other sources and doesn't really realize that there is a world out there beyond the scope of war / exploitation. But I guess they are not as bad as china in the way of repressing the majority of the population.

    19. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be interested to know that parts of the book "1984" were based off the author's experiences in the BBC.

      The BBC is also guilty of being hyper-politically correct. Whatever is the latest correct ideals in accidemia are reported as being factual, the way the truth & the light etc. Their reporting on issues like the far-right, immigration, race (one of their obsessions), are all heavily biased tripe the likes of which you except would be used to having come out of a communist think-tank.

      Without a word of a lie, I have seen reports on BBC World TV news blaming rural crime in South Africa on 'racist white farmsers', rediculiously incorrect articles saying a school was reflective of a country's racial mix (when it was vastly unbalenced), hysterically anti-European articles over race the likes of which you would except from the Zanu-PF, P.C. bs such as saying Turkey is European & Russia isn't, I could go on...

      Like any institution, certain types of people go into it. It's like how on Slashdot there is a concesious that Microsoft is bad, and that therefore is presented as fact. The BBC staff see their world-view and opinions as being factually correct, and therefore present them as such, while believing they're being nutural and balanced as they're merely presenting 'fact'.

    20. Re:I'd love to know more about this trend by turgid · · Score: 1

      Well, I've had to give up fresh coffee. She hates the smell :-(

  11. What kind of bs is that? by photon317 · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Is the article accurate? The settlement was just to "hide" the bundled software? There was no part indicating that the services offered to IE, Outlook, Media Player, etc by the OS have to be available to competitors, so that they can integrate and interoperate as seamlessly? No wonder 9 states dissented.

    --
    11*43+456^2
    1. Re:What kind of bs is that? by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought the settlement was still pending, this was just an attempt by MS to garner support for the less restrictive version of the settlement that is pending.

      I keep hearing Gollum in the back of my head "niccce MS...MS play niccccce with lovely PC industry, M-esssssss not try to be bad, no, no, MS be good...yessss, my precisousssss O-essssssss"

      Still, I also don't see what's wrong with the article. I can't recall reading any news stories that didn't just give the one side anyway. Sometimes they'll throw the opposing views a bone. But this really didn't have any opposing views... it was just a little fluff piece about the availability of the SP and what it did. No big deal.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:What kind of bs is that? by Shimbo · · Score: 1
      Still, I also don't see what's wrong with the article.


      It's just the punning title of "fair", as in "they have been forced to do it under fair competition laws". Sub-ed's do that kind of thing, as any journalist knows.

    3. Re:What kind of bs is that? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      The settlement was just to "hide" the bundled software? There was no part indicating that the services offered to IE, Outlook, Media Player, etc by the OS have to be available to competitors, so that they can integrate and interoperate as seamlessly? No wonder 9 states dissented.


      The proposed settlement has quite a few other things besides just this, but Windows doesn't need service packs to address contractual terms with vendors, API releases, and other such terms in the proposal. There was a release of documentation for a few APIs a couple weeks ago, which I believe was also covered here, and all of the contracts have been changing as they come up for renewal. There are also some other points, but you could just read the proposed settlement for yourself. US DoJ US vs Microsoft site

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:What kind of bs is that? by gwernol · · Score: 2

      Is the article accurate? The settlement was just to "hide" the bundled software? There was no part indicating that the services offered to IE, Outlook, Media Player, etc by the OS have to be available to competitors, so that they can integrate and interoperate as seamlessly? No wonder 9 states dissented.

      Many of the services you mention (perhaps all?) are available for third party developers. As an example, I am writing this using Crazy Browser a web browser that uses the IE engine but has a different UI (blocks pop-ups, browser panes etc.). I know there are APIs (e.g. this one) to the Media Player that allows third parties to integrate it into their applications. I'm not sure about Outlook.

      --
      Sailing over the event horizon
    5. Re:What kind of bs is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so that they can integrate and interoperate as seamlessly?

      Take reading comp 101 again, kthxbye~~

  12. 133MB update ??? by mirko · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "Microsoft is due to release on 9 September a 133MB upgrade for its Windows XP operating system called Service Pack 1."

    Wow, my 0.9x slackware was lighter !
    Besides this "hide-features" feature, what is lying in this SP1 ?
    A 132MB-EULA ?

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:133MB update ??? by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Funny

      > "Microsoft is due to release on 9 September a 133MB upgrade for its Windows XP operating system called Service Pack 1."

      Wow, my 0.9x slackware was lighter !


      But it didn't have anti-piracy features!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:133MB update ??? by norite · · Score: 1

      133Mb Service Pack upgrage??! Bloody hell; that's massive, are they having a laugh or something? Phew, Thank Linus I'll NEVER be using XP :)

      --
      -- Fuck Beta
    3. Re:133MB update ??? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      But it didn't have anti-piracy features!

      Big deal. Neither does XP.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Hold the fuck on by gazbo · · Score: 1, Funny
    That BBC article is accurate. Why should they talk about peripheral issues in that article? It is not pertinent to the subject at hand - the story is that MS have started implementing the proposed changes.

    If people have a problem with the EULA then that's a separate article.

  15. Data protection act by oliverthered · · Score: 5, Interesting

    UK companies that have taken data from me can-not agree to the terms of Microsoft's ELUA, any company found agreeing to the terms will be violating the data protection act by potentially allowing Microsoft to access my data.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Data protection act by artificial_blue · · Score: 0

      Do 2000 / NT have these embedded "features" in them? Sounds like XP is a great way of monitoring the home user's habits. Seems like big brother is increasing a stranglehold on the polulation masses ( uneducated / incompetent computer users ) But then, do their computer related abilities give a monopoly like microsoft the right to exploit these weaknesses?

    2. Re:Data protection act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, they go under the names of IE, lookout and IIS this a web server?

    3. Re:Data protection act by artificial_blue · · Score: 0

      "lookout" Lol, that is so true

    4. Re:Data protection act by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2

      UK companies that have taken data from me can-not agree to the terms of Microsoft's ELUA

      End Loser User Agreement?

    5. Re:Data protection act by Cardbox · · Score: 1

      Any modifications that Microsoft chooses to make to its EULA by threatening you with an insecure system unless you sign up simply do not apply in the United Kingdom - at least, if you are a consumer rather than a business. So you can click "Yes" and not lose anything.
      The Office of Fair Trading has a good, simple explanation: "An unfair term in a contract covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) is not binding on you... A term is unfair if... contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers... Although standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs, they must also take account of the your interests and rights by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests".
      The onus is on the company to prove that a contract term is fair.
      None of this applies to contracts between businesses.

  16. MOD UP! About time someone noticed this. by goldspider · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Isn't Slashdot calling somebody "biased" a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  17. Re:Norman Mailer "remembers" 9/11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They can revile it, tell dirty stories about it. But deep down their patriotism is deep.

    Now that's the most perverted definition of patriotism I've ever seen!

    The more you ridicule and revile your homeland, the more patriotic you are?!

  18. bias, what is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You mean reporters are objective and report the truth. I thought the job of newspapers is to disguise PR material as news, so that it artificially boots a companies image and increase their revenues.

    News agencies have completely degenerated to trash. People are better off reading the Inquirer. Atleast the inquirer makes more no effort to appear legit. It knows it's trash and loves it. So called "mainstream, reliable" news sources haven't been objective for over a decade. News reporting has never a perfect thing, but now with all the technology available to news stations, the line is increasingly difficult to identify. The technology isn't the blame though. It's the lack of ethics and drive to be sensational that makes most news trash.

  19. Hiding them? Get rid of them! by jsonmez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Among the bug fixes and security updates are a set of tools that let people hide the existence of Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Messenger, and Windows Media Player.


    Gee, thanks for allowing me to hide the stuff M$, everyone likes having useless software that still takes up disk space and probably still loads DLLs into memory that they can't see. I want the ability to remove the stuff, not just hide it. If I wanted to just hide it, I just wouldn't look at it!

    1. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by Albert+Einstyle · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, exactly, i am sick of people fuckin complaining about MS products being crap. If you dont want to use it, go load Linux, buy a mac or shut up. In my opinion IE 6 is great, Windows Media player is great and msn messenger is one of the most useful programs i have. I dont care if microsoft own the monopoly on instant messaging or anything else, the fact is i cant talk to all my friends online OR play any type of media in one program. IF thats not good enough for you then you need to get out more. I'm all for open source, but i'm also human, and lets fact it, standardised formats make life easier.

    2. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I want standards too - I just dont want one company dictating them. MS visciously fights open standards in favor of proprietary ones because they want to retain their stranglehold on the industry... You may not mind severely diminished consumer choice, but others (such as myself) do.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    3. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by reallocate · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Suppose MS disappeared tomorrow and everyone moved en masse to Linux? Bingo, a new monopoly. What's the difference?

      The IT world is awash with valiant but failed efforts by committees to set standards. The standards that count are the ones people really use, and that's market driven. There will always be a market leader, and everyone else will follow them, because that's where the money is.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    4. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Suppose MS disappeared tomorrow and everyone moved en masse to Linux? Bingo, a new monopoly. What's the difference?

      Not quite; "monopoly" == "no choice". You want to buy a given product in a given market? You *have* to buy the XXX from the YYY Company. No other suppliers exist.

      Linux has waaaaaay too many distro suppliers, and waaaay too many freely-available noncommercial versions, to ever be considered to be a monopoly market.

    5. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1
      Suppose MS disappeared tomorrow and everyone moved en masse to Linux? Bingo, a new monopoly.


      Not true. No one owns linux, and there is no "one true" linux distributor. Linux is certainly some sort of entity, but not a monolithic commercial one, and not even a monolithic one. The beauty of the GPL (even though I believe that non-GPL software is fine too), is that you can't really control what you sell after the completetion of the sale.
      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    6. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do understand that there's a difference between a company that gets a monopoly because it simply has a better product, and a company that gets a monopoly because of unfair business practices? "Monopoly" doesn't automatically equal "anticompetetive." Besides, if everyone uses Linux all of a sudden, who has the monopoly? Red Hat? Gentoo? Mandrake? Slackware? Debian? Linus Torvalds himself?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    7. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by artificial_blue · · Score: 0

      >Suppose MS disappeared tomorrow and everyone moved en masse to Linux? Bingo, a new monopoly. What's the difference? Linux (order from chaos) could quite possibly become a monopoly like microsoft (chaos from order), but a monopoly that has source code available to every user of the system, and anybody with a bit of knowledge, and some drive can become a member of the monopoly... Some day... Someday..

    8. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by delus10n0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Gee, thanks for allowing me to hide the stuff M$, everyone likes having useless software that still takes up disk space and probably still loads DLLs into memory that they can't see. I want the ability to remove the stuff, not just hide it. If I wanted to just hide it, I just wouldn't look at it!


      Typical moronic comments from someone who loves to bash MS and doesn't have the slightest idea of how the Windows environment even works.

      Cause gee, IE's complete API's are always loaded in memory and never get unloaded. And same with those pesky Outlook Express API's, even if I'm not using it! And they slow down my gaming so much, Quake3 runs 1 FPS slower! Can you believe that!? How dare Microsoft do that!

      And disk space? Pfft. Give me a break. Is that even an issue with ANYTHING nowadays?

      Why don't you go back to Windows 95 (without IE integration) and tell us all how great it is.
      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    9. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by Tomster · · Score: 1
      Besides, if everyone uses Linux all of a sudden, who has the monopoly? Red Hat? Gentoo? Mandrake? Slackware? Debian? Linus Torvalds himself?

      You mean, "Linus Torvalds Himself".

      (It's a joke son. Relax.)

    10. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by reallocate · · Score: 2

      By your definition, then, Microsoft is not a monopoly, since people are clearly able to buy software from other vendors.

      About all those Linux distributions: Yes, you can buy or download many distributions. Two or three might actually still be here this time next year. Take away their install routines and they're all almost exactly the same. In the end, having a "choice" of distributions doesn't really mean much.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    11. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by reallocate · · Score: 2

      MS controls 90-95 percent of the OS market. If, by magic, Linux controlled 90-95 percent of the OS market, what's different?

      BTW, Linux distributions are irrelevant to this kind of discussion. The distributions add litle original value to Linux, apart from their install routines. An individual vendor might, I suppose, do something interesting like rewriting the kernel or a library or two to add some unique and compelling capabilities. that could give hem a marketing edge, but imagine the reaction among the Linux faithful.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    12. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by reallocate · · Score: 2

      >> Monopoly" doesn't automatically equal "anticompetetive."

      Umm...yes it does. That's the point.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    13. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      No, it doesn't. A monopoly simply means that one group controls the means of producing or selling a particular commodity or service. It doesn't automatically include the idea that the monopoly was achieved through unfair competition.

      Even if everyone DID suddenly switch to Linux, that's not a monopoly. That's not one group controlling things. There are hundreds of Linux distros; saying that Linux has a monopoly because everyone uses Linux is like saying that music has a monopoly on audio-based entertainment, because 99% of people listen to music. Just because everyone listens to music doesn't mean consumers don't have a choice of which music to listen to, or the choice to not listen to music at all, but rather listen to spoken-word recordings, or recorded sounds of nature, or nothing at all if they feel like it. Who would you go after to break up music's "monopoly"?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    14. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to thank whoever gave me a -1 (Flamebait) moderation. You can suck my dick.

    15. Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then all the charities microsoft gives BILLIONS to every year would all go away.
      I don't see open source companies being that generous.

  20. FAIR INDEED! AS IS... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 2
    ...fairly easy to apply onto a warezed install.

  21. A more realistic question by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since many under the age of 18 use computers, can a EULA be binding on a minor?

    I've asked this many times of many, and I've never received any response other than a shrug.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:A more realistic question by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think a EULA can be binding on anyone. As far as minors go, I don't believe a minor can enter into a contract, but IANAL, nor do I really even know much for a layman.

      Besides, Microsoft is going to keep doing what they want until they get smacked down, and it hasn't happened yet.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:A more realistic question by rmadmin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is very interesting. More interesting yet, take this for example. A minor installs software, accepts EULA, then adult comes by, and uses software, and breaks the EULA. The adult didn't accept teh EULA, the minor did, and if that minor isn't binded to the EULA, does this mean it can't be binded to the adult?

    3. Re:A more realistic question by mestar · · Score: 1

      ...only giving you half the story...

      There are hundreds of fixes, and a change in the EULA.

      Yeah, I would say those are of about equal weight. Year right.

    4. Re:A more realistic question by hey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe all componies should have some kids around
      to click on EULAs :-)

    5. Re:A more realistic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well The End user license agreement - This really applies to the end user. If it is a child or audult.
      Most people do not even read the eula.

    6. Re:A more realistic question by ThePilgrim · · Score: 2

      I think the adult would be in breach of the EULA as they have used the software.

      However, Microsoft could clame that the minor is not leagaly entiled to instal the software as they are unable to agree to the licence terms.

      So if this is what happened, until an adult aggreas to the licence no one cane use the software

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    7. Re:A more realistic question by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Problem: The adult won't know about the EULA. He just walked up to a computer and used it. The kid was probably just fooling around, and probably didn't read the EULA.

      2nd problem: In the US: When congress passed the law making digital signatures legally binding, it didn't define the term. Is clicking on a button the same as signing a contract? There are clear differences, e.g., there is no indication as to who clicked the button. But it might be, because the term is undefined.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:A more realistic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not correct.

      Nobody is bound by EULA. Every software company works with the impression that they can scare shit out of users. No court will agree that it is an agreement when the company does not have written document for it.

      For that matter, many EULAs are conspirasy. They are to scare the end users from accusing the software company for their mistakes, bugs and poor quality products. Microsoft needs it badly, or else they will be out of business.

    9. Re:A more realistic question by BeBoxer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For that matter, who is liable if I "agree" to an EULA as part of my work duties? Is my employer going to indemnify me from a lawsuit? And if they are going to put themselves on the hook, shouldn't I run all EULA's past the legal department before I agree to them? I'm not allowed to sign contracts for the company. Why am I allowed to agree to EULA's?

      And if my employer isn't going to indemnify me, isn't it reasonable for me to refuse to use software whose EULA I don't like? After all, why should I expose myself to liability? Even if I was always careful to try and follow the EULA, the mere act of defending myself against a suit would almost certainly bankrupt me. It is far from reasonable for an employer to require me to enter into contracts which expose me personally to liability instead of the corporation as a whole.

    10. Re:A more realistic question by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      I think you all just don't get it.

      Nobody (including Microsoft) cares wether some adult breaks the EULA in this or that way.

      Now what Microsoft DOES care about is that they have the permission to install DRM on your computer.

      The EULA is just a slightest hint what the operating system will do in the future, no matter what you think about it or what you do or wether a minor installed it or not.

    11. Re:A more realistic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This deserves score 5 :-D

    12. Re:A more realistic question by DJPenguin · · Score: 1

      Bring your (old enough to click a mouse) daughter to work day !!

    13. Re:A more realistic question by damiangerous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is one reason why companies have official corporate software packages and employees are not supposed to install other software. Use only the software the company tells you to and you're fine. Install your own personal software, even if it's to make your job easier, and you become liable. If you need something that bad get it approved. Have you ever heard of the employees being fined because there weren't enough Word license to go around? No, employees are only liable when they do things like install warezed Quake for their after hours LAN parties.

    14. Re:A more realistic question by pauls2272 · · Score: 1

      A company I do work at, does require that the legal dept review all EULA's prior to anyone accepting them. One project I worked on was delayed 6 weeks for a legal opinion on some vendor software we were installing. Paul

    15. Re:A more realistic question by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 1

      If i remember correctly, when a minor enters into a contract with an adult, the adult is required to honor the contract, but the minor may at any time withdraw without penalty.

    16. Re:A more realistic question by kawika · · Score: 2

      I don't think so. That's why I have all my programming done by kids under 18. They just take what they need from Open Source projects and then we can sell our products without regard for publishing the source. It really keeps the costs down and gives us a competitive edge.

      Shoe feels funny on the other foot, eh?

    17. Re:A more realistic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *shrug*

    18. Re:A more realistic question by Shadowlion · · Score: 1

      Shoe feels funny on the other foot, eh?

      Except for the fact that if the children cannot be party to the GPL due to their age, then their rights to the software revert to what is legally acceptable -- which is NO right to use the code.

      Don't forget -- the GPL *gives* you rights you would not otherwise have. It does not take away any rights you have normally.

    19. Re:A more realistic question by JamesOfTheDesert · · Score: 2

      Don't forget -- the GPL *gives* you rights you would not otherwise have. It does not take away any rights you have normally.

      The GPL does not give anybody any *rights*. It it may give license or privledge, but not rights.

      --

      Java is the blue pill
      Choose the red pill
    20. Re:A more realistic question by Shadowlion · · Score: 1

      "Rights" as in privledges, yes. Privledges which are revoked if you cannot or are unwilling to accept the license.

    21. Re:A more realistic question by aled · · Score: 1

      I think that adult takes legal responsability for the minor acts. It may be different in each country, some lawyer should be asked.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    22. Re:A more realistic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see if I remember this correctly (disclaimer: IANAL, but I do watch the distance learning law courses every so often) ...

      A minor *can* contract for "essentials" (e.g. rent a house), since otherwise that could cause problems for people who hadn't reached majority, since otherwise people would be foolish to contract with them, since the contracts are unenforceable (as opposed to being invalid). What 'unenforceable' means is that the court won't hold them to the terms they agreed to if the other person sues them for breech of contract.

      There are, of course, other quirks to contract law and they probably vary by jurisdiction. For instance, I have no idea what the scope of 'essentials' is, but my understanding is that it's only things like food & shelter (e.g. software is *not* likely to be 'essential'). Consult your local lawyer for details.

    23. Re:A more realistic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You anal? Are you sure this is information you want to share with us?

    24. Re:A more realistic question by wwwssabbsdotcom · · Score: 1

      I would think the adult responsible for that minor would be responsible for any contracts the said minor agreed to. If they're not legally bound to it, it is quite a loophole...any lawyers around who might know?

      --
      Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
    25. Re:A more realistic question by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Certainly if the adult asked the minor to do the install, then this would be true. I'm not sure if this applies when the minor initiates the action himself. (May vary by jurisdiction?)

      But nobody legally capable of doing so has agreed to any contract.

      What if you buy a computer and the software is pre-installed? The only person who agreed is someone anonymous.

      The thing is, there is no evidence as to who pushed the button saying "I agree", or under what circumstances they did so. Now civil cases are frequently decided based on "the preponderance of the evidence", so perhaps owning the computer is enough to put you on the hook. That would leave me feeling rather strange if I owned a computer with a recent MS OS on it. Or any recent MS software. I don't, because I haven't installed a piece of MS software, or agreed to one of their consent forms, since congress passed that silly "digital signature" law. Who knows what will count as a digital signature. I sure don't.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:A more realistic question by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Not only that... Consider this: I regularly reinstall PC's for family and friends. I usually use Windows 2000 if the machine can cope it. Don't start on the fact that I should install Linux, I did for some of the more computer literate ones. Actually try Lycoris...that one is so easy it should be forbidden. Though it choked on a WinModem, no way to get online without recompiling the kernel and I didn't want to go to these depths. For my own computers I always recompile the kernel...
      But, back on what I wanted to tell. I have a set of "mandatory" software I install which includes WinAmp and Acrobat Reader. Now my strategy is that I install all manadatory stuff, run them once (in order to accept EULA's and/or set the software to more acceptable settings. After I did all that, it come to the point that I create the different users for the machine. Then I "fork" the Aministrator Profile and associate them with the new users. This results in the fact that the registry settings indicate that the user accepted the EULA. The users never have to accept any EULA unless they install something themselves (which I usually disable: they have to call me for that). So it is clear that I am liable according to the EULA, but none of my users ever accepted the EULA, so the cannot be liable.
      I think this kind of "pre-installing" is done in a lot of companies where custom pre-ghosted configs are used. However, I live in the EU: I don't consider EULA's legal anyway. And beside that, I usually install machines drunk ;-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    27. Re:A more realistic question by fandelem · · Score: 1

      I'm almost 99% sure that in the states, the legal guardian of the minor is held directly responsible for any actions the minor does. This is how my friend managed to get his parents thrown into jail. He became a truant by not attending school more than 15 days (though this rule differs in every county and state) and the truency officer arrested his parents, because they are legally responsible for their child's actions. Had he been over 18 (or the legal limit to not be a minor anymore), they would have arrested him.

      --

      --even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
    28. Re:A more realistic question by bnenning · · Score: 2
      They just take what they need from Open Source projects and then we can sell our products without regard for publishing the source.


      Excellent plan, unfortunately they'll still be guilty of copyright infringement.


      It's unfortunate that the term "license" is used for both the one-sided removal of rights of commercial EULAs, as well as the grant of rights in free software licenses. Not "agreeing" to the GPL means your rights revert to what they are under standard copyright, which are strictly less your rights with the GPL.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    29. Re:A more realistic question by machine+of+god · · Score: 1
      Since many under the age of 18 use computers, can a EULA be binding on a minor?

      I've asked this many times of many, and I've never received any response other than a shrug.

      I dunno *shrugs*

    30. Re:A more realistic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      um, no, minors aren't supposed to enter into contracts, and usually aren't bound by their terms. it's also very UNlikely that the parents would be held responsible in a case like this either. as for the work situation, your employer is responsible for the software you use, assuming you're a permanent employee.

  22. Finally... by Schnapple · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 already has the "Set Program Access and Defaults" bit, which should be (I think) the same as the version in XP SP1. True to form it lets you choose the Microsoft version or the "current version" and lets you hide the Microsoft version if you like. It also specifies "Hide this Program", not "remove" or "disable", so it's not as if it's lying to you.

    Now here's the funny part. In my opinion Windows Media Player is freaking great. It's fast, it's not bloated, and it plays crap like MPEGs wonderfully. As a result, when I install a piece of software like (shudder) RealPlayer or Quicktime or (oddly enough) the new Winamp that tries to take all this back from WMP, it annoys me quite a bit. This lets me easily switch back to WMP. Same goes for IE, though rival browsers are better about that.

    Also, for those of you who have problems wherein the Sun Java VM won't run certian things that the Microsoft Java VM will and vice versa (oh, the irony...) then you'll love the feature where you can chose which Java VM to use. I wonder if this will help or hurt Java in the long run...

    1. Re:Finally... by yogi · · Score: 1

      Are the Java VM problems occurring because the Sun VM is buggy, or because the Microsoft VM is incompatible with the Sun VM.

      Kinda looks bad for the "Write once, Run anywhere" people. Which would be Sun.

      <THEORY subtype="conspiracy">
      MS have made the Java VM incompatible. Thus people get upset with the constant fiddling to make Java work, and use .NET instead

      <PROOF logic="not perfect" >
      1. Sun have already fired lawsuits at MS to stop them doing this.
      2. It's the way that Microsoft works.
      </PROOF>
      </THEORY>

    2. Re:Finally... by nolife · · Score: 2

      It's fast

      How mmany of the media player components are preloaded therefore making it appear to start and load faster? How many other MS applications must be installed for Media Player to work correctly? I don't know the answer but I do know this effect hinders quite a few applications that compete with MS products. This is the main reason that people are not happy with simply "hiding" an MS application, they want to get rid of it completely and free up some system resources for other things. Open Office and K-Meleon are two examples of products that offer preloading to speed things up. If you could remove the unused MS preloading the effect could be two-fold.

      it's not bloated

      Depends on what you are using it for. If it was the ONLY video, audio, and whatever else player you planned on using then maybe. It may stack up to a comparable size of like third party applications that performed the same fuctions.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    3. Re:Finally... by jacoberrol · · Score: 1

      Kinda looks bad for the "Write once, Run anywhere" people. Which would be Sun.

      Not really. "Write once, Run anywhere" is based on the premise that your application will run on a compatible JVM. If Microsoft produces an incompatible JVM (oh surprise!), what can Sun do? Well, basically nothing. Sue them I guess. But really, the best thing to do is to do a good job of branding their own JVM and likewise, paint Microsoft's JVM as a bastardized wannabe.

    4. Re:Finally... by Malc · · Score: 2

      Fast and unbloated? It's a pig compared with the default CD player that comes with Win2K. As an example, when I put in a disc, the CD player starts immediately (well, I have it running already), but the WMP takes 20-30 secs before it interrupts playback and tries to take control. You call that fast? I just wish I could stop WMP from trying to play my CDs - it's slow and bloated, and I don't need such a big app to do such a simple task.

    5. Re:Finally... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      But really, the best thing to do is to do a good job of branding their own JVM and likewise, paint Microsoft's JVM as a bastardized wannabe

      They need to make it easier for people to find and download the VM for IE/Windows. Most people don't even know to go to Sun to get the thing in the first place, but as an added bonus, they have to dig through a mess of acronyms to get it.

      Of course, they'll probably never be able to make MS-specific Java code run on their VM.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    6. Re:Finally... by extra88 · · Score: 2

      Open notepad, paste this into it:

      REGEDIT4

      [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\AudioCD\she ll \play\command]
      @="C:\\WINNT\\system32\\cdplayer.e xe \"%1\""

      Save it, rename it from .txt to .reg.

      Double-click the file, let it update the registry. That's it.

      If your OS is not in C:\winnt\, just change that part.

    7. Re:Finally... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      It's fast, it's not bloated

      You are joking, right? On my old laptop running w2k (266 Mhz/80 meg) Media Player 6 is ready to play in 5 seconds. Media Player 7 takes over a minute. Winamp is round about the same as WMP 6, while Real Player and QuickTime take 5-10 secs.

      Stick with Media Player 6. You lose the visualisations, the oh-so wonderful Media Library, the ability to make crippled, poor quality mp3s and two or three options. Big deal.

    8. Re:Finally... by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      In my opinion Windows Media Player is freaking great. It's fast, it's not bloated

      I've tried WMP several times, including the latest, and I find this statement above to be the complete opposite of my experience. Compared to WinAmp 2.x, it is slow as FUCK loading MP3 playlists and playing, and I get a ton of snap/crackle/pop while listening to MP3's, which I attribute to the increased CPU load that WMP places on my system.

      Then again, I "only" have a 1Ghz system with 400MB RAM!

      The only thing I use WMP for now is playing non-quicktime movies and burning audio CD's from playlists (in windows xp).

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
  23. This is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least two series of seriall will just not allow the service pack to install on XP.

    There are ways of changing the serial that work nicely.

    But I'd rather let most kiddie hackers get knocked out of SP1 to give the appearance that the SP1 got rid of all the pirated copies. If you can use a search engine, it's easy enough to find.

    $200 is a bit stiff for XP Pro. I think $50 is a fairer price. There are ways to get legitimate copies for $40, but I won't tell you because MS will get antsy about this method.

  24. Yet when I try to use windows update with Mozilla: by Bonker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I try to access Microsoft's only *obvious* updating feature, I get this message:

    Thank you for your interest in Windows Update

    Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.

    You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.

    Download the latest version of Internet Explorer

    Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  25. Who knew the sign that someone was a total geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...would be that he obsesses over legalese in EULA.

    I mean, under any standard EULA, they can still reformat your hard drive, install other apps, delete files, etc etc etc all under the "not responsible for anything" clause. It's all just CYA. The new stuff just there to cover their asses if you sign up for Windows Update or want Windows Media Player to automatically download codecs.

    Complain about Microsoft having DRM on by default when you rip CDs. Complain about how XP bugs you to sign up for Passport all the time. Complain about all the security holes. Complain about the oppresive activation stuff.

    Hell, complain about the whole concept of EULAs if you want.

    There are tons of things to complain about. When Microsoft starts arbitrary installing stuff without asking, complain about that. But this Slashdot obsession with a few frickin' changes in Microsoft's EULA is the biggest sign yet that you people need to GET A LIFE!

    1. Re:Who knew the sign that someone was a total geek by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      Uhh, the article didn't mention EULA changes, and I've yet to see comments posted about them.

  26. Whither Windows Update? by tbmaddux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What happens to Windows Update, which requires the use of MSIE, if a user chooses to "hide" the MSIE browser? How is that user going to download the inevitable patches that will be needed for XP SP1? Is Microsoft providing a new stand-alone update application (a la Apple's "Software Update"), and if so, how secure is it? Or, have they retooled Windows Update to work with non-MSIE browsers?

    --
    Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    1. Re:Whither Windows Update? by NetJunkie · · Score: 2

      You just go to the updates web page and download the fixes manually, just like the pre-Windows Update age.

    2. Re:Whither Windows Update? by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 2

      I'm using Win2K at the moment (I'm at work), and I downloaded SP3 which also gives this option. However, after reading your post, I clicked the Windows Update item in the Start menu, and lo and behold, IE popped up.

      I use SuSE at home, and being a relatively new Linux user, I really appreciate the YaST update system available, which updates various essential and non-essential software. One imagines this would be welcome by the majority of Windows users.

    3. Re:Whither Windows Update? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      XP has had a stand-alone WindowsUpdate program that appears in the systray since release.

    4. Re:Whither Windows Update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it works fine. as IE is not deleted windows update just uses IE.

    5. Re:Whither Windows Update? by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that this is just for "critical" files, not optional patches or hotfixes.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    6. Re:Whither Windows Update? by arkanes · · Score: 2

      Interestingly, it also doesn't rely on any windows update functionality - when they changed the applet a while back, I refused to upgrade by the auto-updating continued to work just fine.

    7. Re:Whither Windows Update? by Alsee · · Score: 2
      which requires the use of MSIE, if a user chooses to "hide" the MSIE browser?

      This is exactly why the MS components are "hidden" rather than removed. Any time Microsoft wants to use IE or any other "hidden" component it still gets used. Run Windows Update and it uses IE. Try to read a .CHM help file and IE pops up.
      <sarcasm>
      This is how the Microsoft/DOJ proposed settlement will fix everything.
      </sarcasm>
      -
      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  27. Re:British journalism sucks by anarchima · · Score: 1

    Yes Bush is quite the rocket scientist, I must say...What a world leader!

  28. Not True. by NetJunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can put in a new serial number on a running system. Do a quick search on deja and you'll find it.

  29. BBC : The best news on the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    BBC (by and large) has the best news coverage, it beats ANY news out let in US hands down.Less hype, and more complete on issues that matter to most of the world, and it's not being "LEAD AROUND BY THE NOSE" by the US Goverment like CNN and the rest of the US news media.

    1. Re:BBC : The best news on the web by ites · · Score: 1

      This is a matter of debate.
      The BBC is often briefed by UK governments.
      It often accepts "official" accounts of news
      including the government spin on events.
      The most tragic example I remember was
      the Bosnian war from 1991-95
      in which Britain was primarily responsible
      for the destruction of a European country,
      and the BBC was 'lead around by the nose'
      consistently for years.
      For more information, read "Unfinest Hour: Britain and the destruction of Bosnia", by Brendan Simms.

      --
      Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    2. Re:BBC : The best news on the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Croatia's brutal 1995 expulsion of some 150,000 Serbs from the Krajina region is mentioned late in the book but glossed over, and the depiction of newly created Bosnia as "an embattled member of the United Nations" is just too simple. The fact is that all the options faced by the United Kingdom and its allies were bad ones

    3. Re:BBC : The best news on the web by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      and it's not being "LEAD AROUND BY THE NOSE" by the US Goverment

      True... the BBC is being led around by the nose by the British government.

    4. Re:BBC : The best news on the web by ceejayoz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      in which Britain was primarily responsible for the destruction of a European country

      Yeah, 'cause the Balkans were peaceful before British intervention, right?

    5. Re:BBC : The best news on the web by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Absolute bollocks: there's a reason I call CNN and BBC world propoganda 1 and 2 respectively: they both follow their nations agenda, suppressing and expanding on certain news stories. If you haven't noticed that, then you don't read/watch enough news.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  30. Re:British journalism sucks by perly-king-69 · · Score: 0

    Oh come on, our monarchs have been inbred for _at least_ 1000 years.

    --

    --
    This sig is inoffensive.

  31. 133MB by Draoi · · Score: 2, Troll
    ... to remove a bunch of icons from the desktop???

    The tools banish all appearances of these programs from the desktop screen, the start menu and the taskbar on the bottom of the screen.
    Bloatware or wha'? :-) It's significant that the article states that only the icons are removed not the underpinnings ...
    --
    Alison

    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

    1. Re:133MB by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      By the time anyone on a dial up modem has finished downloading this "service pack" SP2 will be out. Why do software companies (not just MS) assume that everyone is connected to a T1 line these days? Are they so desperate to flog their 2nd rate internet tools that wish to force people to somehow upgrade by making their lives hell if they don't? I'm sure broadbands not a problem if you live near a major city , but what if you live in a small village halfway up a mountain and the nearest cable is 20 miles away and your analogue phone line can just about support speech never mind ADSL? Sometimes I really think these technologists in their ivory towers in Seattle and Silicon Valley need a hefty dose of reality.

    2. Re:133MB by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Oh, so now we're complaining about what the article DOESN'T say? Christ people, get it together. This is an article on a news service. Picking significant details out of the fluff it says is bad enough, but pulling them out of thin air and making them significant because they're NOT in the article is worse.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    3. Re:133MB by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      Usually the Service Packs are also available on CD, but I think you have to pay for the media and for shipping.

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    4. Re:133MB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do you honestly belive 133 megs is just for that? Or do you not relase it's a SERVICE PACK, which means it services flaws, mistakes, etc in old software. It's a glorifed patch!

    5. Re:133MB by delus10n0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's also a service pack, ass.

      Try to restrain your MS bashing for just one minute.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    6. Re:133MB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to restrain your MS bashing for just one minute.

      /me stays claim for one minute

      ....

      That fucking big ass bug fix!

  32. Re:British journalism sucks by youngerpants · · Score: 1

    Grow up. This is a technology site, not a recruitment drive for the KKK. Take your small minded views and go back to your louisiana swamp where you can settle down with your sister/mother/aunt and have little deformed anonymous cowards.

    you people are no better than the nazis

  33. Re:You're more than a coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have no more pity for them. I did at one time, but their latest tactics are those of animals and thugs.

    Yes, but how else do you fight an occupying army that outmans you, outguns you, outdiplomaticizes you and outpropagandizes you? When all the other means

    And isn't state approved use of torture a thug tactic?

  34. Re:MOD UP! About time someone noticed this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and meta-mods...how do you handle those?

  35. Re:devorce (offtopic) by windex · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've seen his wife, no one could fuck her sober.

  36. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes Bush is quite the rocket scientist, I must say...What a world leader!


    He's kicking more ass than the average euroPEON leader. For such an "idiot", GW Bush beats his opponents 100% of the time leaving them bitching and moaning like a 5 year old kicked in the nuts.

  37. Re: Pirated XP by joncarwash · · Score: 1

    Here is the message you get when trying to install SP1 on a "pirated" system (well one of the systems with that one cd key that is used in over 90% of the pirated XP's out there).

    The only real "feature" this would prevent all you "pirates" out there from getting would be the middleware-removal thingy. You can still download the previous updates (security, bug fixes, etc.) fine.

    Just to note, you have to be sure to wear your eye patch and parrot on the shoulder during the install, or SP1 might not recognize you as a "pirate."

    --
    A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
  38. The problem is bigger .. by Khalidz0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, I really believe the problem is not in simply giving out peices of software with their operating system, it is more deep.

    They can give as much programs with their system as they like, but they should build it WELL. Windows lacks all these programers who give there time free to recheck the code and add to it, this is what makes Open source powerful.

    Well, my main point here is, what kind of people would accept 'hiding' the software as 'not giving out' the software. This is nonesense in my opinion. Well whether they allow you to download it freely, give it to you directly, or hide it doesn't make a difference. Other compitiors should find something better in their services so people usually get to download it, and well, they usually do!

    The main problem with this software is that we don't know what's there, we pay the money and we don't get but the surface. Who would accept a house built for him without knowing what substance was used to build it, nobody. We still don't know much about windows source code. We can't find the bugs they produce with their rush in building more.

    Another small point I'd like to mention, the best way to fight the Microsoft syndrome isn't law (the way it's going on now), but users. If everybody still buys windows, everybody always usees it, then it's *clearly* gonna have a monopoly, but if we can use, or develop, systems that none-geeks can use, systems directed to the masses, and still NOT monopolized, then we will be able to KILL Microsoft's lust.

    Well, so let's all format C: for now ;) (if we have one)

    --
    "What you 'seek' is what you get!"
    1. Re:The problem is bigger .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source leads to some rather obvious probl;ems that tend never to get overlokked with closed source. Who rembers the red hat distro you could log into root with some ridocusly simple name and pasword? If suppsoly thosands ofd people checked this, how come not 1 ever firgured it out months eariler? Being open source, doe snot magicaly make it better, in fact usally it makes the user interface rather confusing, and not meeting any standreds (emacs anyone? Vi? Gimp? could anyone use these program for the first time, not knowing anything, and firgure out how everything works?)

    2. Re:The problem is bigger .. by delus10n0 · · Score: 1
      They can give as much programs with their system as they like, but they should build it WELL. Windows lacks all these programers who give there time free to recheck the code and add to it, this is what makes Open source powerful.


      Yeah, cause, you know.. Microsoft doesn't hire decent programmers at all and doesn't PAY THEM MONEY to do their job around 8 hours a day or more.

      If you want open source, run open source. Don't bitch about closed source or demand a closed source application be opened up. That's just stupid.
      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    3. Re:The problem is bigger .. by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

      What you propose has already been done. You sound like you could use a shiny new Mac

      The rest of us unix nerds have already made the switch, what are you waiting for?

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    4. Re:The problem is bigger .. by Khalidz0r · · Score: 1

      I disagree with this, Sir. Open source will make it easier to find the bug, thus, correct it, and not abuse it. While closed source will just keep the source out from our sight, if we happen to find a bug, it's not likely that somoene else finds this bug, and the abuse starts. When microsoft finally corrects it, or decides to give out some info about it (which is usually impossible), what happens is that they refer to this as a miracle or as magic. Can't this be avoided easily when thousands of developers READ the source, they need not to add to it because it's kinda commercial, but they can see it, notice microsoft, and microsoft corrects, and gives the product owners (info) about what was wrong with *their* product. The problem is that as windows users, nobody really owns anything in the program, all you own is the right to use it, this is a totally wrong commercial style in my opinion.

      Thanks for reading ...

      --
      "What you 'seek' is what you get!"
    5. Re:The problem is bigger .. by Khalidz0r · · Score: 1
      Well, both of us agree that microsoft's products shouldn't be used for all these reasons we keep talking about. Still, there is no system that can be as user friendly as windows for the time being. We love computers, we spend long time with them, and for them, but some people don't really care what the computer can do or how it's built, he just wants his job done, microsoft is the best in doing this for him until today. That's our problem, we know microsoft is bad, we still build our systems for ourselves and not for all computer users, and expect these new computer users to jump into systems hard to use, hard to adjust, and even hard to deal with for normal use. This is the problem ..

      And then, if I'm going to pay microsoft money for their product, is all what I get a right to USE IT? Well that's another problem, I don't buy a system to use it in one computer, and if I wanted to use it in the other computer at home, I should buy another windows CD.

      Usually, the customer puts the rules, and because of the monopoly, now the seller puts the rules, and puts them bad. It's not an issue about open source and closed source mainly, it's about microsoft going into controlling us. NOBODY, newbiews, nerds, and proffecionals, should accept this. Well all should not pay them, and should try our best to find the better alternative.

      To be honest, ok, I can use linux, but my family can't, I can't spend all my time answering their small questions about how this or why that, learnning windows was quite enough for them, they don't care about it, they want to edit this document or view this webpage, that's all, and now they know there way around so well. If I get them a *nix system, they'll not understand 1% of what's going on, so I really can't let them use it, I need a simpler version, a user friendly one.

      Thanks for reading...

      --
      "What you 'seek' is what you get!"
  39. Re:British journalism sucks by tealover · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Don't worry. The Bush's are catching up.

    It was embarassing to watch GW Bush stand next to Tony Blair at Camp David over the weekend. Mr. Blair was so eloquent in his answers to the press. Meanwhile, GW Bush looked like he was in pain as he struggled to string three words together without pausing, biting his lip and looking like a retard.

    When Bush is allowed to speak extemporaneously, his staff must be cringing. I guess that's why he rarely does news conferences, unlike previous presidents. Even when he does official events he rarely takes questions. It's a shame that the so-called leader of the free world is an illiterate boob.

    I'm sure Tony Blair must have been laughing his ass off on the way back home.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  40. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    GW Bush beats his opponents 100% of the time leaving them bitching and moaning like a 5 year old kicked in the nuts.

    Where?

    In WWF?

  41. Re:spelling & grammar troll v1.33 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1)No. No need to put it between "". It is obvious that *I* am saying it.
    2)Me not understand you me from mexico.
    3)Thanks
    4)http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?011 8880
    ["Sweet Home Alabama" plays in background.]
    Garland Greene:
    Define irony: a bunch of idiots dancing around on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.

    This is an Open Source troll. It is free for review by peers that can modify it. In c ompliance to the GPL, here are the sources :

    -------CUT HERE----------------
    It has come to my attention that "slashdot", subsidiary of VA Software, is a refuge for people with a terrible sense for grammar and spelling. As a remediation, please accept the following recommendations about the use of some frequent linguistic expressions :<BR>
    <UL>
    <LI><B>"Alot" vs. "A lot" :</B> There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "<I>how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot</I>"</LI>
    <LI>Just the fact moronic Americans pronounce <I>Bernstein</I>, <I>neither</I>, <I>Einstein</I> and other 'ei'-words as "<I>Burnstean</I>", "<I>neather</I>", "<I>Ainstean</I>", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "<I>Bernstien</I>", "<I>niether</I>" or "<I>Einstien</I>". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".</LI>
    <LI><B>"Than" vs. "Then" :</B> Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".</LI>
    <LI><B>Your vs. You're :</B> The former means <i>"not my, not his, not our"</i>, in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for <i>"You are"</i>. Similar point for <b>There</b> vs <b>Their</b> vs <b>They're</b>.</LI>
    <li><b>Hobbyi st and lobbyist</b> are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as <b>hobbiest</b> and <b>lobbiest</b>.</li>
    <li><b>Th i fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as</b> "<i>uh</i>" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "<b>ludicrous</b>" and "<b>compatible</b>", not "<b>ludacris"</b> and "<b>compatable</b>".</li>
    <li><b>I ts vs It's.</b> The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illiteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "<i>It is</i>". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.</li>
    <li><b>lose vs. loose :</b> the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"</li>
    <li><b>to vs too :</b> Your spelling is <b>too</b> pathetic for your post <b>to</b> matter <b>to</b> me. Your grammar <b>too</b>.</li>
    <li><b>I could (not) care less.</b> Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could <i>not</i> care less.</li>
    </ul>
    ...many more to come. Reply to this comment to suggest some.<br>
    <br>
    <b>A definition of irony :</b>
    <blockquote>A bunch of computer nerds without a sense for spelling and grammar mocking japanese game translators for their lack of skills in english spelling and grammar.</blockquote>
    <br>
    Contribution by Erpo :<br>
    <blockquote>
    I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.<br>
    <br>
    Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out <a href="http://www.npgmusicclub.com/npgmc/freedom/co mmentaries/20020807nationofthieves.html">this piece</a> by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.<br>
    </blockquote>

  42. Re:Yet when I try to use windows update with Mozil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ActiveX is required, that's why.

  43. Hidden progams addition = fairly useless by BlackMesaResearchFac · · Score: 1
    I don't see what the big deal is. It gives you the option of turning it off, but it doesn't automatically turn them off or include rival products as alternatives.

    What that boils down to is the average user still using them anyway. Does anyone think Mom & Pop are messing with this stuff?

    "Expert users" would have already found the options to change file associations so "hiding IE" does nothing (in fact you can change .html file associations by simply installing Netscape).

    Not that I don't think people should have the option (to use or not to use the MS programs), but at the same time I don't see this as any large threat to their browser dominance, etc.

    --
    -- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
    1. Re:Hidden progams addition = fairly useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously doubt any end-users will make use of it. SP1 is being pushed out to the OEM channels, who may well replace the IE, WMP, etc icons.

  44. Re:British journalism sucks by AndrewHowe · · Score: 2

    Tony Blair eloquent? Compared to GWB, I guess... You don't have to suffer him as a Prime Minister...

  45. in other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....the beeb has been forgiven for all the illegal installs they have.

    1. Re:in other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auntie uses Linux.

  46. news.google - register by vla1den · · Score: 1

    I am glad to notice that my favourite news source novadays is news.Google.com and there you have good alternative link for this story:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/270 18.html

  47. I don't see the story. by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just reads like a tiny little abstract about SP1. I don't see the one-sidedness at all. It says to me 'Microsoft is being more fair than it has been'. This is true.

    It doesn't try and pin a halo on Microsoft, it doesn't advocate them. It just says that they've complied with part of the DoJ bargain, and SP1 ships Sept 9th.

    IMO, saying that MS is now 'more fair', reinforces that they've been completely unfair in the past. In that sense, it's a slam more than a boost.

    Its just a blurb, theres not enough room to be one-sided. There's not enough to even quote.

    Is it that any news item about computers that doesn't rant about 'MS world domination conspiracy theories' like a homeless schizophrenic is one-sided?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:I don't see the story. by griblik · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the issue here is the way the changes are portrayed.

      When I RTFA, it seemed to suggest that Microsoft has made major concessions to the world's anti-monopoly bodies by removing a few icons from the desktop and start menu, and that MS is now a much nicer company, having given in to the little people.

      The problem there is that most people assume that if the icon's not there, neither is the program. Not everyone's as tech-savvy as the average /. reader - if they can't see it, how do they tell the difference? If the BBC says it's an improvement, surely it must be?

      Mainstream media educates the public, and it'd be good to get mainstream media to understand the issues and technology involved (don't forget, the writers at the BBC are professional _writers_, not coders).

      If you think this 'change' has been misrepresented to Joe Public, mail the BBC and let them know what's up. You can't fault them for not knowing everything, but you can let them know where _you_ think they've got it wrong.

      btw, please be nice - this bunch are usually good enough to have a real person reply to your comments. Show a little respect for people doing something right ;)

      --
      Warning: May contain nuts
    2. Re:I don't see the story. by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Look, even you said it... if users don't see the icons, then they assume they're not there. That IS an improvement, wanker. What are you suggesting? That MS should be shipping their OS with no IE, no media player, etc.?? If you're very anal, you CAN uninstall all of that stuff.
      So, yes, this is an improvement. Go away, now.

    3. Re:I don't see the story. by Psx29 · · Score: 1
      'Microsoft is being more fair than it has been'

      Exactly why this article means nothing and is pointless, next please....

    4. Re:I don't see the story. by Alsee · · Score: 2

      If you're very anal, you CAN uninstall all of that stuff.

      You just about have to uninstall windows itself to do so. Microsoft has gone to signifigant effort to make sure things break if you try to remove them.

      I will agree being able to "hide" the Microsoft middleware is an "improvement", but so is putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.

      The problem is Microsoft monopoly abuse, and "hiding" is a band-aid, not an effective remedy. Microsoft still launches the hidden programs whenever they want, for example when you view a .CHM help file. That's why the programs are hidden rather than removed. They are still abusing their monopoly.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  48. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't feel bad. I'm sure the Canadian Prime Minister (Jean Chretien -- who, like the Swedish Chef, speaks no known language) will manage to make Mr. Bush look like an oratory and PR genius by comparison.

  49. You can already by NineNine · · Score: 1

    Well, listed in my list of programs to uninstall are Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer (W2K), and in addition to these two, I know that you can also remove Windows Messenger in XP.
    So, you already can uninstall all of this stuff. The competitors are just bitching that people can "see" the IE icons, etc before they see their own. Waah.

  50. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm sure Tony Blair must have been laughing his ass off on the way back home.

    Trust me, he wasn't. He was thinking to himself "Golly gosh that George Bush is great. I want to be just like him. I'll do whatever he says"

  51. How can I take you seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when your name is "Younger Pants"?

  52. All Hail Prince Tony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last bastion of truthful journalism here in the UK seems to have fallen. This latest oversight is hardly a surprise, let me explain:-

    Bill Gates has GWB in his pocket
    Tony Blair is GWB's little lapdog
    BBC stands for Blair's Broadcasting Corporation

    The, once great, BBC is now nothing more than a propaganda tool for the Conservative views of Prince Blair, helping to lead the UK down the same path as the US of A and turn it into a country where democratically elected representatives of the people do nothing but shaft the people of said country to help no-one but themselves and multi-national companies.

    (-1 Flamebait me if you like, but you know it's true!)

    P.S. I didn't post this, a big boy did it and ran away.

  53. 133 MB by Niten · · Score: 1

    Of course they have to package this in a 133 megabyte package in order to discourage dialup users from applying it... is there any valid reason that such a patch should take up so much space?

    1. Re:133 MB by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Of course they have to package this in a 133 megabyte package in order to discourage dialup users from applying it... is there any valid reason that such a patch should take up so much space?

      Because service packs always include the updates between the previous large release (either the last service pack or the retail release) and the time it's released. Sometimes they'll just be a small front-end that scans your computer for existing updates and then only downloads what you don't have installed yet, but since I'm not running WinXP on this computer and won't see my XP computer for a few more hours, I couldn't tell you if that's how this one works. Needless to say, there have been a lot of updates since WinXP was released last year.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  54. XPSP1 already hacked by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Found this earlier today:

    http://www.trwxp.kit.net/xp_sp1.html

    Also, a download for SP1:

    http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/ SP /SP1/WXP/en-us/xpsp1_en_x86.exe

    This thing is a fucking pig... 137MB.. Woah! Lots of bugs...er..features fixed here.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:XPSP1 already hacked by ryanvm · · Score: 3, Funny

      XPSP1 already hacked

      Heh - that's irony. Installing warezed service packs to patch security holes.

    2. Re:XPSP1 already hacked by Da_Monk · · Score: 2

      if you have no patches installed.
      otherwise it only applies what you need.
      of course i am sure a security minded /. user has all the latest patches installed on their OS, right? oh wait, you said the download for you was over 100mb. better luck next time.

  55. Hidden compnents? by 3583+Bytes+Free · · Score: 1
    The latest update to the operating system contains software tools that allow many of its components to be hidden.

    What, like their APIs?

    1. Re:Hidden compnents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all the hidden api's that are almost all documented and in use. Another one of those misinformed crackpot theories about whyms is so bad.

  56. Anal retentive limey boy proves himself stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such word as alot.
    Sure there is. RAM, IDE, CPU, PCI, XFree86, BSD, PCMCIA, SVGA, UTMS, WiFi, ISA, ISO, CD, DVD, MP3, and RTFM are all common words unrecognized by ispell. And alot most certainly is a word in Polish. Now piss off, teaboy.

    1. Re:Anal retentive limey boy proves himself stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polish? Do people still speak that language? And why on earth would you deem the word valid if it exists in another language? Just because "Wunderkäse" exists in German doesn't mean I can use it in casual English. Jerk.

  57. Re:Norman Mailer "remembers" 9/11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the country would be run by morons."

    the country is being run by a bunch of morons. I have friends who work at the white house that Bush is not really that smart, in fact, they describe him as the guy with the lights out and nobody home...

  58. Where's the Evidence? by reallocate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are ...

    What's your problem? Do you expect a professional news organization to adopt the posture of a place like /. and use innuendo, bias, sarcasm, unsupported assertions and unverified claims to support their own agenda? The BBC report is a straight news piece containing not a single word of BBC opinion. They're reporting on the pending XP patch that responds to the mandate of the court. If you think they should do a piece on the EULA, send them an email.

    Curious to see evidence of their "trend of giving you only half the story..".

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Where's the Evidence? by Puzzleer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>The BBC report is a straight news piece containing not a single word of BBC opinion.

      The title of the article is "Windows plays fair with rivals". Sounds like an opinion to me.

    2. Re:Where's the Evidence? by nethole · · Score: 0

      I believe the evidence of BBC giving only half the story can be found of their coverage of support for W Bush, and a rather lack luster coverage of protests from other world leaders.

      Granted, this doesn't have much to do with MS and software, but it has a great deal to do with the BBC providing only 'half' of the information.

    3. Re:Where's the Evidence? by reallocate · · Score: 2

      Yes, a sloppy headline.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    4. Re:Where's the Evidence? by reallocate · · Score: 2

      No matter how objective each individual sory may be, it remains possible to show bias via the selection of stories. Although I trust BBC reporting, their editors make story selections based on internal policies and on BBC perceptions of what their audience wants.

      News organization are not morally or ethically compelled to cover everything, all the time.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    5. Re:Where's the Evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hardly the first time the BBC has shown a bias of one sort or another. A lot of their reporting reflects a subtle bias, but it may not be noticeable if that bias matches the reader's own bias. Their environmental reporting more often reads like an opinion column than scientifically proven fact. Keep in mind that the notion of unbiased reporting was invented as a marketing ploy in the late 1800s to sell newspapers, not out of any sense of journalistic integrity! Everyone has a bias, just that some are more open about it.

    6. Re:Where's the Evidence? by flatrock · · Score: 2

      The headline's not great, but it's not too bad. The article is about Microsoft being more fair to their rivals. The article also points out that not all the States have bought in on the settlement and are still sueing. It's a lot less misleading of a title than the ones that are often here at Slashdot. It's hard to sumarize an article in a half dozen words. They didn't do that bad.

    7. Re:Where's the Evidence? by frawaradaR · · Score: 1
      Do you expect a professional news organization to adopt the posture of a place like /. and use innuendo, bias, sarcasm, unsupported assertions and unverified claims to support their own agenda? The BBC report is a straight news piece containing not a single word of BBC opinion.

      The trend is very clear when you watch their program "Click Online" on BBC World. They are extremely windows-centric and Microsoft friendly. Once in a while, they have a compensationary report on Mac or Linux, but they are in general not very comprehensive.

      Once, they had an all-out death match between Mac and Wintel, where they compared working in Photoshop on XP and X. The only problem is that there was no Photoshop for X at that time. Did they use a beta, then? Nope. They used Photoshop in the Classic environment... (although they didn't menton this)

      "innuendo, bias, sarcasm, unsupported assertions and unverified claims" are exactly what they use on Click Online, more or less all the time. Just recently they put an old chap doing some video editing on a Wintel box, explaining concepts like "digital hub", "Firewire" and such. Now, where have I heard that before?

      --
      frawaradaR anahaha islaginaR!
    8. Re:Where's the Evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose the fact that the earth is round is an opinion to you as well?

    9. Re:Where's the Evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC is owned by the state. A state that charges people for the right to consume propaganda. You have a strange definition of professional news organization.

    10. Re:Where's the Evidence? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      They're reporting on the pending XP patch that responds to the mandate of the court

      Nope. The court has not issued a mandate yet. what Microsoft is implementing is what Microsoft WANTS the court to mandate.

      If someone goes on a killing spree with a fully automatic weapon, you don't applaud them from proposing that his punishment should be to convert all of his guns to semi-automatic and then "voluntarily" implementing that "punishment" before the judge hands down a sentence.

      No, the judge in the Microsoft case has not yet handed down a sentence.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  59. "Fair" ? "Demmanded" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the BBC has always been the PR arm of the British Government in "times of crisis". Stated by the founder Lord Reith and oft re-stated.

    Apart from the fact that all BBC IT reporting, with one or two notable exceptions (like asking Bill Gates if he would like to acknowledge Apple's "contribution" to Windows XP - i.e. doing all the innovation) tends to read like an MSC press release, what get me is that they write the DOJ "demanded". Far from demanding the DOJ rolled over and said tickle my tummy.

  60. Re:Yet when I try to use windows update with Mozil by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

    You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.

    As far as I know, this is because Windows Update runs an applet on your PC to see what patches you already have installed, and needs MSIE to run this code.

  61. Re:British journalism sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 0

    Tony Blair might be good with words , but when it comes to deeds he's bloody useless. To use an old phrase , he's all mouth and no trousers. In the last election he promised to fix everything (don't they always) but so far he's delivered on NONE of his major election manifesto promises. Of course like sheep everywhere the British public don't mind because as soon as a politician comes out with words of more than 2 syllables and smiles a lot they stop bleating and go back to cheweing grass as they feel intellectually overwhelmed. Those of us with a brain who can see whats going on are too small a minority to make much of a difference as all the dimwits vote for Mr Smiley Guy at the ballot box.

  62. Have the installer edit the registry by yerricde · · Score: 1

    double-clicking an html file would bring up IE unless you also removed the IE files themselves (not just the shortcuts).

    On my WinME and Win2k boxes, double-clicking a .html file brings up whatever Mozilla build is installed at the moment (currently 1.1). It did so even before the relevant Windows 2000 service pack was released.

    You'd have to go into the registry and edit/remove the file type associations.

    Or have your competing program's installer do it for you. This is the approach AOL has chosen with its "Netscape" web browser and "Winamp" media player.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Have the installer edit the registry by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Or have your competing program's installer do it for you. This is the approach AOL has chosen with its "Netscape" web browser and "Winamp" media player.

      Which is an added bonus to this whole thing, as it provides an easy front-end for the user to make those decisions (though perhaps not in the detail some would like, though there are other places to do it). There's also a section in the WMP options dialogue that'll let the user reclaim file types (I believe some other players have this as well, some such as WinAmp are really persistent about reclaiming file types if you set certain options) which has saved me a lot of time dealing with players like QuickTime and RealPlayer that like to take over everything (when I only install them for one particular type of file).

      The point, though, was in regards to 'hiding' IE (or WMP or whatever) without installing something else, and what effect that has which doesn't occur simply by deleting the shortcuts to it. In that case, there is no installer to change the file associations, but the interface that this hiding mechanism uses does edit/remove those registry entries for you.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  63. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GW Bush beats his opponents 100% of the time

    Like in Florida.

  64. Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL by yerricde · · Score: 2

    What percent of AOL users use something other than an MS operating system?

    I don't know, but there are plenty of devices that run AOL clients without running Windows: AOL Mobile Communicator, AOLTV, Instant AOL for Internet terminals, AOL for PDAs, AOL by land phone and by mobile phone, etc. How many of those are used by Mac users rather than Windows users is anybody's guess (unless you work in AOL marketing).

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL by LanRx · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, the reason that they haven't ported AOL to other platforms, is although they OWN Netscape, the AOL browser still uses IE for it's underpinnings. IE is only available for Windows, Mac, and 2 flavors of Unix (HPUX and one more, though I can't remember which one).

    2. Re:Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL by Tuzanor · · Score: 2
      and 2 flavors of Unix (HPUX and one more, though I can't remember which one).

      Solaris. But the UNIX IEs are sorely out of date and even when they were released they were no good. All they really could do was basic web site rendering. No flash (not such a bad thing), java, media player, etc. The only good modern browsers on non windows/mac systems are open source.

      Kinda ironic considering how proprietary and closed most comercial UNIX apps were just a few years ago. You're best off just using Konquerer or Mozilla if you are using a commercial UNIX as a desktop.

    3. Re:Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      The only good modern browsers on non windows/mac systems are open source.

      Now while that may be true to some extent you need a very healthy machine to run those browsers. One little browser springs to my mind that is not opensource and runs very well on a P120/32Meg RAM running Linux with WindowMaker. It's called "Opera". I sure think you heard of it. I think it qualifies as a "modern browser".
      It's not perfect, but it really runs fine on the above mentioned platform and also on my Psion Revo Plus. Both non-win non-mac platforms.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL by Tuzanor · · Score: 2

      Opps, sorta forgot about Opera, but it only runs on linux, not Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc. Does Opera run on non-x86 linux?

    5. Re:Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      If you had actually just taken the time to go to their website , you would have seen it does run on Solaris. The Linux version seems indeed to be x86 only, but the Solaris version is for SPARC. I don't know what it's worth, I don't have a SPARC handy ;-) Only my G3 and diverse x86. Sorry, can't help you further than that.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  65. breakages by tabby · · Score: 1

    I'm going to wait and see what stuff gets 'broken' as a result of this sp that ms will blame on 'app hiding'. Then they can say 'see? we told you that you can't remove Internet Explorer!!!'

    We all know that windows has become inbred and overdependant with its own apps to provide functionality. Most of us are trying to move on to better things and the rest are trying to sell us MS products.

    --
    I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
    1. Re:breakages by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I'm going to wait and see what stuff gets 'broken' as a result of this sp that ms will blame on 'app hiding'. Then they can say 'see? we told you that you can't remove Internet Explorer!!!'


      Nothing's being removed, so, in theory, nothing will be broken because of it. That was why they agreed to this settlement proposal in the first place. If you actually decide to remove Internet Explorer, that's on your own head.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    2. Re:breakages by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      Applied it this morning. 3;04pm; so far nothing broken and nothing amiss. Turned off that lousy Windows Messenger and MSN Explorer, that was a relief.

  66. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may have forgotten a lot of those pre election promises then like investing heavily in education and increasing the number of police on the beat and also increasing the amount of money invested in hosopitals and reducing the number of unemployed and stabilising the economy (which if it wasn't for gordon brown would leave britain in a deeper recession than it is at the moment). Slag off labour but don't say they haven't delivered more than the conservatives ever did.

  67. So, Is SP1 out? by graphicartist82 · · Score: 1

    I just went through the windows update BS to update my laptop, and the download was around 55MB, yet the article states:

    Microsoft is due to release on 9 September a 133MB upgrade for its Windows XP operating system called Service Pack 1.

    Last time I checked, today was September 9th. Am I just jumping the gun here? Have they not yet posted SP1 to the windows update site?

    1. Re:So, Is SP1 out? by tjensor · · Score: 1

      Its not on the windows update site yet (at least, not last time I checked), but it is STILL the 9th you know.
      The download is 137mb and has been "leaked" in the customary MS stylee. I found it here.
      Having installed it I am somewhat underwhelmed. It rolls up security patches which I allready have, and adds an icon to my startup bar which lets me swap my Microsoft web browser for, uhh... nothing else. It either hasnt noticed or has totally ignored my Mozilla install.
      Oh and it re-added an IE and Outlook bloody Express icon to my programs menu.

      --
      <fnord>OBEY</fnord>
    2. Re:So, Is SP1 out? by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Informative

      As you used Windows Update, it almost certainly worked out what components you require, and downloaded only those. The 133meg file size would be for the whole thing, including updates for components that you don't have installed and/or don't come with your version of XP (i.e. Home vs. Pro, language/locale, etc).

      If you look around on the Microsoft site, you'll find that there's a "network install" (or similar) version of the service pack, that's the entire thing in one file. It's designed for sites that may have a variety of different configurations installed, so they can essentially mirror it locally. 133meg sounds about right for that sort of service pack (the Windows 2000 ones have generally been around the 100+meg mark).

      Cheers,

      Tim

  68. Re:British journalism sucks by Vermithrax · · Score: 1

    Well it could be worse (but only slightly) if we had the waste of space who is the leader of the opposition in charge. Hague was fairly useless but compared to the new guy he was a tower of Charisma.

  69. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is.

    But the point of an action like this is to get sympathy internationally and within Isreal itself.

    But by targetting working class people and student, they've removed any trace of sympathy for the palestineans and they make Isreal seem reasonable.

    If they would've targetted only military targets, then people would *get it*. The way it looks to us now in the US, this is on the same level as the 9/11 terrorists. You don't even need the media to make that connection.

    The tactic is brave, but strategically is flawed.

    My only hope now is they blow each other up completely to get rid of both of their miserable existences.

  70. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he beats his opponents with well-thought-out, open minded methods, too, right? How many of these "beatings" were accomplished with his own ideas, or by the dozens of overpaid flunkies who think for him? Clown, I say. Clown!

  71. Stop watching anime all the time and get a life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow...Microsoft has an application that you need to use to get updates. You want to use Mozilla instead, and it doesn't work correctly. WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM?

    1. Re:Stop watching anime all the time and get a life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mozilla DOESN'T SUPPORT ACTIEX IS THE PROBLEM

      I mean reall, didn't you have to read through like 3 responces saying that to get down here?

  72. I've been online too long... by mblase · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...when I first saw the subject "133MB", I was trying to figure out what "leemb" could possibly mean. Then I realized those actually were numbers.

  73. My legal copy? by emarkp · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I wonder if this will affect my legal copy of XP? I activated it with a hack I found, because MS has no right to sell me something and then force me to ask permission to use it. The hack works not by avoiding activation (that is, some hacks work by eliding the code that queries to see if the system is activated), but by performing whatever is necessary to tell the system that it's activated (if I try to activate, it says "already activated").

    Activation is just DivX warmed over. I have no intention of submitting to it.

    1. Re:My legal copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You violated the EULA when you did that. You broke the contract you agreed to bu opening teh software by applyinga pacth to windows xp (what hack is this??? none work here ;-)
      It will probly not work

    2. Re:My legal copy? by emarkp · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      You violated the EULA when you did that. You broke the contract you agreed to bu opening teh software by applyinga pacth to windows xp
      Bull. EULA's don't mean anything. First sale is first sale. I bought the software, and I'm using it on one computer. You cannot agree to a contract the way MS presents them.
    3. Re:My legal copy? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "hack I found, because MS has no right to sell me something and then force me to ask permission to use it."

      That's a pretty lousey reason. Activation takes thirty seconds and doesn't require personal information.

      Microsoft has the right to protect their copyrights. Something like 80% of all windows copies ever purchased (OEMs excluded) were installed on more than one machine.

    4. Re:My legal copy? by emarkp · · Score: 1
      That's a pretty lousey reason. Activation takes thirty seconds and doesn't require personal information.
      Yes, but I add hardware to my computer. I sometimes install old copies of OS'es on old machines. Where is it written that MS will support product activation for all their OS'es in perpetuity?

      I will not install a program that requires a 3rd party to permit me to use said program. Case in point: DivX is now dead. What happened to all those people who purchased DivX disks (and upgraded them). Can they watch them now?

      MS has end-of-lifed Win95. Win98 will end-of-life in 2003. If they had product activation, would I still be able to install them after their end-of-life? I doubt it.

    5. Re:My legal copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't speculate on the unknown and assume the position that supports your side of the argument best. It's only good debating sense.

    6. Re:My legal copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then it sucks to be them. They probably should have shown me a contract up front and gotten my signature--they aren't entitled to change the deal once they've taken my money.

      And activation only takes 30 seconds if the machine has Internet access, and if Microsoft is still in business and hasn't decided to obsolete my version.

  74. Anyone who's tried it... by Corvaith · · Score: 2

    Do programs that use a browser to render their content still use IE to render after it's been 'hidden'? Do programs that insist on popping up IE windows, despite your 'old' browser default settings, still pop up IE windows?

    1. Re:Anyone who's tried it... by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      I doubt there's much you'd be able to do with programs that make specific calls to the IE .exe for rendered content. If a programmer makes calls to the user's default selected browser then I'd bet it would load in that.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    2. Re:Anyone who's tried it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, IE is a intergrated suite of things really. Most parts of it are separte actiex controls woking together. The IE web page reder can be called sepeartly form other programs to display things. It's used by the XP shell to display file windows, since there is no longer a speere control for file browsing, it's all handled by ie.

      YOu can't unistall all of ie, since that will pretty much make windows unusable, nor will hiding it casue anything not to work, becasue it does not depend on seeing the exe file to display a webpag/content etc

    3. Re:Anyone who's tried it... by delus10n0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably yes, since those applications use the Internet Explorer API's. What would you want them to do? Just "not work" ?

      I think this is hardly to blame on Microsoft. They're not responsible for other people's programs and the APIs they use, obviously.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    4. Re:Anyone who's tried it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Write interface to IE "API".
      B) Release specs on interface so competitors can write render to specifications

    5. Re:Anyone who's tried it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a symoblic link/shell script to the right browser. There's telnet if nothing else.

    6. Re:Anyone who's tried it... by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      It's certainly possible that someone could come out with their own set of "non-Microsoft" API calls that emulate the IE/explorer functionality. No one's done it so far though AFAIK. There might be legal issues involved, but I'm not sure.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  75. Re:Norman Mailer "remembers" 9/11! by puckhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's Norman Mailer. Who cares?

    --
    Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
  76. UK folks don't have the same issues as USAns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EULA issues, the DMCA, fair use, all the stuff
    that gets our back up on the west side of the pond, are mostly irrelevant to people in Europe.
    Most of the copyright and software patent stuff is a joke in Europe, compared to the way US companies (and activists) treat them here.

    Soon, if not already, the markets outside the US
    will be large enough to create entire sustainable industries which do not need the US market to survive.

  77. half the story? by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 5, Funny

    Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are these days. No mention of EULA changes."

    Yes that's why I come to slashdot.org, for pure unbiased reviews of windows! *snicker*

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
  78. What kind of disclosure is that? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    There was a release of documentation for a few APIs a couple weeks ago

    1. Not to individuals. You have to supply a corporate ID to even get the NDA.
    2. They're under NDA.
    3. The NDA probably has non-compete clauses in it.
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:What kind of disclosure is that? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Not to individuals. You have to supply a corporate ID to even get the NDA.
      They're under NDA.
      The NDA probably has non-compete clauses in it.


      What APIs are you talking about? The ones that were released for this settlement proposal are at the MSDN site and nowhere have I seen an NDA or request for corporate ID

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  79. BBC becomes worse by the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They seem to have hired a cartload of semi literate
    hard-of-thinking momkeys to do the online news site.
    Of course, you hire your own kind of people - Greg Dyke, the New Labour flunkey BBC boss, is not renowned for his intellect - he was the proud producer of Roland Rat.

  80. AOL on top of IE... but not for long by yerricde · · Score: 1

    AOL browser still uses IE for it's underpinnings.

    The latest release of Compuserve uses Gecko. The latest AOL client for Mac OS uses Gecko. Beta versions of AOL 8 for Windows use Gecko. AOL was waiting for its Netscape division to finish Mozilla 1.0 before switching away from Microsoft browser technology.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:AOL on top of IE... but not for long by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've got AOL 8 Beta. It installed IE6 on my box. I don't think it's using Gecko anywhere, though it's hard to tell. Hmm, I'll have to check on my stats tonight to see what it identifies itself as on my site...

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    2. Re:AOL on top of IE... but not for long by cHiphead · · Score: 0

      dont ask how i know. 8.0 full will, ahem probably, have IE as default, but there is a version using gecko. The higher ups obviously went back and forth over this for a long time, and after 8.0, no more IE (if there is a God/insert favorite worship item here). They weren't sure about mozilla/netscape adoption rate and compatibility with microshafted websites. Here comes the open source train.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:AOL on top of IE... but not for long by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      No, the last 2 betas used IE, though the previous did use Gecko. So they are definatly tossing it around. But bets are that they will use IE (with a possible non default choice of gecko during install) for 8.0 and have gecko be the default in 9.0 (while being switchable to IE) Its basically a story of they want to switch to gecko, but they are very scared of having millions of users calling complaining that they can't use their bank website, or something else of importance. While it wouldn't be AOLs fault that the bank didn't fix the problem yet, it would still be egg on AOLs face. So they are treading with great causion.

    4. Re:AOL on top of IE... but not for long by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Well, it does show as IE 6 in the user agent, so I guess they've not started Beta-ing the Gecko client yet. Good luck to them, should they decide to switch finally.

      On an off-topic note, I'm glad to see that AOL 8 seems to have fixed some of the weirder TCP/IP problems that were present in 6 and 7. I'm not an avid AOL user (I've got it on free trial as I'm currently vacationing somewhere that's low on other ISPs' POPs) but I do work tech support, and it's so annoying to see AOL (6 especially) kill a computer's TCP/IP all together. In fact, AOL 7 wouldn't even let me browse on my 2K laptop. Quite annoying. Hehe.

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
  81. Re:pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh....everquest is being ported to the mac osx

  82. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so speaks an ex-public schoolboy! ;)

  83. What happened to? by jhines · · Score: 2

    The once promised object orientated operating system?

    Oh, yeah, thats right, that was back when they had OS/2 to kick around, which handled multiple applications per file type much better than Windows, and that was the promised hope.

    The concept that here is a file of a certain type, and you have the following programs that say they can handle it, which one would you like to open, with this one as a default?

    The fight over file types in Windows is more about control of the user by the corporations involved than any thing else.

  84. Just after "upgrade" by Bobulusman · · Score: 1

    I just put the SP1 on my computer. Basically, as far as I can tell, all it does is add a "Set Program Access and Defaults" shortcut to your startment that allows you to change the defaults. (Mine were mostly off of the defaults anyway, so this was pretty useless). If you go to add/remove programs, you have the option to "remove access to" ie, outlook express, and messenger, but obviously not get rid of them. It goes along well with previous posts about Microsoft doing a very little bit of good to prevent the imposition of a huge block of restrictions on them.

    On another note, after I installed it, I burned it onto an cd-rw to put on my other computer, and my burn program had to test for read speeds, something it only does the first time you run it. Why would this happen?

    --
    Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    1. Re:Just after "upgrade" by Bobulusman · · Score: 1

      Update: I restarted my computer and the normal 20something boot took a minute and a half.... Even after a couple more boots, it seems to be running slightly slower.... I mean, it is anotre 133 mb of crap on my system, but it shouldn't have that noticible of a effect on my fairly recent (Athlon XP 2000+, 512mb ddr ram) computer. :(

      --
      Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    2. Re:Just after "upgrade" by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your first boot was slow because windows was busy replacing programs and DLLs that could not be replaced while the OS is running.

      It is possible that future reboots may be slower because your HD has becomed fragged since the initial install and the replacement components are now spread out over your disk. Run the defragger and have it organise programs for quick start and you will be back in the pink.

      Even a little knowledge can be used as a shining light to scare back the monsters of the unknown. Feel free to carry a candle of knowledge wherever you go.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    3. Re:Just after "upgrade" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait. if they don't patch, they are being horrible people, but if they do patch for security then they are filling your computer with crap?

  85. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrétien makes a 3-year old with autism sound like Stephen Hawking. For anyone's amusement, here's the tool himself speaking about the September 11th tragedy: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/memorial_chretien01 0915.ram

  86. Did you actually read at all? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

    He did make his case:
    EULA changes.

    His case (for those too lazy to read two sentences before they start flaming) is that MS has made EULA changes in SP1 that many would consider a bad thing, but the BBC article makes no mention of this.
    Because they included the good and left out the bad the submitter considers the story to be baised. If you don't know anything about the EULA changes then, (besides reading the articles about it on slashdot) you can do a quick search and find out what they are pretty quickly. Granted it won't be as hard as a doctoral thesis, but you would have a clue what the submitter's point was.

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
  87. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...stupid copy'n'paste. Here: http://cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/memorial_chretien010915 .ram

  88. In KDE related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KDE has released a tool which will allow users to hide components like kmail, konqueror, and panels, turning it into something very much like WindowMaker. Users don't seem to be taking to the tool, saying 'If we wanted WindowMaker we'd use WindowMaker. We use KDE because we like its features.'

  89. mind your language by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    What's better
    convicted or found guilty

    running a monopoly or abusing its market dominance.

    compliant with US Government rulings on fair competition.....
    or

    compliant with US Government rulings on fair competition. A more broad-rainging case against Microsoft is still running through the European parliment. (given that the BBC is in Europe!)

    The update also fixes many security loopholes and vulnerabilities in the software.
    or .... but the ELUA allows Microsoft to access/change you computer systems.

    The tools banish all appearances of these programs from the desktop screen, the start menu and the taskbar on the bottom of the screen.

    or .... But not from the rest of the system.... there still there and not even hidden.

    An icon in the Control Panel section of XP gives access to the new program hiding system.

    or
    An icon in the Control Panel section of XP(which required Internet Explorer to be installed) gives access to the new program hiding system.

    The CNN report is just talking shit,'switch off and conceal ....' that's a lie you can-not switch off IE Kazaa will still work and it uses IE.

    The BBC is very bad with it's use of language, they don't quite put 'communist' infront of every china story!

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  90. Open standards by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    I would like to see a whole lot of IP put into the public domain as part of the settlement and some restrictions on Microsoft's buying up of everyone.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  91. The best thing for Linux by TheVidiot · · Score: 1

    The harder it is for the normal user to make a copy of Windows/Office, the better it is for Linux/OpenOffice. If I couldn't get an ISO of Windows XP, what would my next logical choice be? Buy it? Yah okay.

  92. Fast and lean my ass by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

    Back when I had 3 CDROM drives in my pc WMP used to access all three of them (making me wait for each one to spin up) before playing the file I actually opened, an mp3 on my HD. There was no good reason for it to do this. IMHO the (default) GUI is a ridiculously inefficient use of screen real estate as well.
    Winamp gives you options to stop it from doing what's annoying you, use them.

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
    1. Re:Fast and lean my ass by Schnapple · · Score: 1
      Well no, I don't use WMP for MP3 playing, that would just be silly. However, I've had RealPlayer, Quicktime, et al, bring my system to a screeching halt much more often than WMP ever has. And of course I go to the small WMP skin.

      Perhaps I should qualify that I was referring to the new Winamp 3 which, despite the 1.0 designation, is clearly not ready for prime time yet. Many features in Winamp 2.x are either gone or hidden badly, it never remembers anything I tell it (which is why it keeps reclaiming my video files) and it keeps trying to send that "harmless anonymous usage information" despite the fact that I tell it not to constantly (it always starts out with that opt-in box checked no matter what I do - thanks ZoneAlarm). Back to Winamp 2 I go.

  93. BBC isn't all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as MS being fair, I don't buy it for a minute, but the EULA isn't all that bad. MS has opened itself for HUGE lawsuit is they so much as look at you're computer the wrong way. The EULA states that the clause that gives them root to your machine is only valid IF you ENABLE automatic updates. If you disable the auto update, it'll still leave the hole open, but if they so much as query your machine, they break the EULA themselves which opens the door for the lawsuit, or at the very least, the EULA becoming invalid due to contractual negligence on their part, giving you free reign to do what ever the hell you want since you're no longer legally bound. Anyone want W2K Source? Just wait until you can decompile it legally. Maybe the BBC is right, MS has been alot more fair lately.

  94. Thanks! by Malc · · Score: 1

    I got caught by the extra space inserted by /. After I figured that out, it worked. So, that's three different ways I've seen so specify the CD player :(

  95. Re:US media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not parroting Palestinian propaganda != "die-hard pro-Israel".

    But then, I wouldn't expect a terrorist-hugging moron like yourself to understand that.

  96. headline by ikoleverhate · · Score: 1

    the real problem is the headline: "Windows plays fair with rivals" which is blatently untrue. As a UK citizen whos TV licence pays for this crap, I mailed them to constructively critise. The rest of the article though is fairly reasonable, even if it seems to have been written by someone very bored of writing about M$ :)

  97. Nothing New by Czernobog · · Score: 1

    Nothing new there.
    We're talking about the same corporation, where the management gave a directive to journalists to refer to killings of Palestinians by Hebrews as killings, and to killings of Hebrews by Palestinians as murders...
    And to think that the BBC was once seen as the pillar or objective journalism....

    --
    /. Where the truth
  98. These protocols by yerricde · · Score: 1

    What APIs are you talking about? ... nowhere have I seen an NDA or request for corporate ID

    How about these? You need at least a partnership or corporation to get a D&B DUNS number, and you need a D&B DUNS number to get the protocol documentation.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:These protocols by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Ah, I guess since I write software for a living I don't have a tendency to use the term API to refer to client-server communications protocols. I do thank you for making me aware of that particular section, though, since I had not seen nor heard about that before.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  99. BBC is an easy mark by xyote · · Score: 1

    Look at this BBC news article on a tanning "pill". It would have allowed all us palid geek types to get a cool tan without having to compromise our lifestyle (or lack of it). I was going to submit it to slashdot but umm, look at those before and after photos. Those remind you those scam ads in certain tabloid magazines? The use of different camera and lighting angles to make the "before" picture look much worse than the "after" picture. I don't know but I think some bogon alerts should have been set off on this one.

  100. Have you read the entire article? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

    The main problem with this article is that BBC makes it sound as if there was already a final settlement in the anti-trust case.

    From the article;
    "Nine US states have refused to accept the settlement that produced this upgrade and are seeking stricter penalties. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has yet to rule in this case. "

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    1. Re:Have you read the entire article? by ericman31 · · Score: 1

      From the article: "Microsoft has been forced to make it possible to hide these programs as part of a deal it brokered with the US Department of Justice during a long-running dispute over fair competition."

      I read the whole article. Statements like this sound like Microsoft is complying with a final settlement. They aren't, they are doing this on their own initiative to try and head off a stiff penalty imposed by the Judge.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
  101. BBC has a Microsoft bias? What about real audio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if the reporting may err on the incomplete side of the story - at least it is able to be viewed by anyone with an HTML browser.

    All of their audio/video is restricted to those who have suffered the torture of installing Realplayer.

    Does this not seem to be a worse bias?

  102. Re:Why are PC's less expensive? by SouperDouper · · Score: 1
    The first time I bought MS Office (Office 95 Pro) its cost was 10% of the cost of a reasonable PC ($200 vs. $2,000). Now the cost of MS Office is $499 (Office XP Pro). A reasonable PC is about $1,000 (office automation, web surfing, etc. not a gaming machine).
    Let's examine for a moment WHY the price of office hasn't dropped. Let me start by saying that I do think it's overpriced, but the point made here is rediculous. The cost of producing hardware is significantly cheaper than it was not that many years ago, but has any software seen that significant of a drop in price? The price for Photoshop hasn't dropped like hardware prices, and photoshop versions don't have as many changes as office does across Word, Excel, PPt, etc. I'm paying the same $50 for Myst 3:Exile that I paid for Riven and the original Myst. The fact is, software prices have stayed relatively constant while hardware costs were in a freefall.
  103. BBC are a big Microsoft user.... by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    They use Microsoft products and their website is IE biased (they don't respond to claims that their site doesn't work on Netscape).

    1. Re:BBC are a big Microsoft user.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC is great as far as I'm concerned, but I wish they'd realize that switching to Open Source software would save them and/or their paying viewers a whole lot of money. Such a pity...

  104. Microsoft are? Microsoft IS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    how fair and equitable Microsoft are these days
    Microsoft is a single entity, therefore it should be "...Microsoft is these days."

    I love it when the grammatically stupid try to sound smart, but end up making things worse by misusing words.
  105. Re:Why are PC's less expensive? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
    The fact is, software prices have stayed relatively constant while hardware costs were in a freefall.

    Well, except for going up by 150%, anyway... That's a little ahead of inflation, don'cha think?

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  106. General OK, but tech bad by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

    The BBC is generally very good, with radio and TV news significantly better then their web site. I generally like the web site as well, but their Technology section is frequently riddled with ill-informed, ill-expressed or Just Plain Wrong(TM) articles. They also have a way of alternating between scaremongering and glossing over genuine concerns, probably because they don't appreciate the nuances of the issues they're reporting.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:General OK, but tech bad by Dokta_C · · Score: 1

      But the worst thing is that, as of two weeks ago, Mozilla 0.9.8 explodes after loading the main page.

  107. Re:Why are PC's less expensive? by ericman31 · · Score: 2

    I'm paying the same $50 for Myst 3:Exile that I paid for Riven and the original Myst. The fact is, software prices have stayed relatively constant while hardware costs were in a freefall.

    Since inflation has been running at 3 to 5 percent a year, you would then expect to AT LEAST pay that much more for software, using your argument that the cost of producing software is the same or more than it was in the past. Additionally we should factor in the increases in salaries in the IT industry, especially for programmers. So, the reality is, when taking into consideration inflation and such, you are paying less, in real terms, for Myst 3 than you did for the original Myst, and it's probably a far better product (I don't play Myst, I have no idea).

    Furthermore it's a buyer's market right now, because demand is down (don't believe me, check out the deals you can get on anything, from cars, to software, to computers to home electronis, to ... well, I'm sure you get the point). When demand is down, the suppliers drop prices to try and sell their products. This is elementary economics, Adam Smith formulated the concept over 200 years ago. Microsoft's software continues to go up in price, not down or stay the same, at a time when the demand for the product is low. Either they missed out on how the market works in their economics classes, or they have a captive market. I'm not making this up. This was brought out in testimony during the Anti-trust trial. The Economics Professor who testified wrote a thesis on this in the mid 1980's. He was actually a Microsoft expert witness, and it was fairly embarassing when the prosecution started asking these questions. The argument is not ridiculous, it's how the market works, when you have healthy competition.

    --
    In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
  108. Damn British Bastards by DrMaurer · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's obvious what's going on here. For those of you not in the know, the BBC is actually a toy of the British government, supported by taxes (including the infamous television tax). These taxes bring us things like "Are You Being Served," "Whose Line is it Anyway?," and "1840 House: The Greatest Generation," but also the BBC News Service, who used to be a great, possibly the best, English (as in language) news source, until recently.

    What's dastardly about these "news" stories is the trend of the BBC to overlook certain details. It reads like classic PR techniques applied in the American media for decades: News by Press Release. One theory is that BBC is feeling the effects of the global economic trouble, and more people are hiding their TVs than ever, decreasing funding while demand still increases. That's what some so-called investigators will tell you, but I've got the real truth.

    There are two possibilities here, but I'm only going to go over in detail the most probable. Microsoft bought the BBC in a massive, but secret, merger, in an effort to compete with the bohemoth AOL/TW. The secrecy is required in order to avoid anti-trust processes from recurring.

    Why not just hijack the public radio & TV here in the US? Trust. Your average joe user trusts the BBC; PBS in the US is kind of like the Discovery Channel for poor folk that can't afford basic cable, especially to see the topless natives.

    People trust the BBC mostly because it's British, and most Americans trust the British for some reason. I, personally, haven't trusted them since the war of '76.

    Why would London sell the BBC? The British government needs the money from MS to support the stupidly extravigant(sp) lifestyle afforded the royal family, especially since the Faulklands War in the early 80's, and the Royals are still a source of pride for the British people, well, at least the ones with bad teeth.

    The other possiblity involves the Masons, Bush's not-so-secret Shadow Government, and Heidi Klum.

    Actually, now that I think about it, there remains a final possiblity that seems really remote, but worth stating, at least in brief. Maybe, just possibly, perhaps perhaps perhaps it could be that the technical details were the focus of the article, and not the evil EULA. I'm not going to hedge my bets this way, though. It's obviously a conspiracy on a massive level.

    --
    Dan
    1. Re:Damn British Bastards by nagora · · Score: 2
      "Whose Line is it Anyway?," and "1840 House: The Greatest Generation,"

      Both are non-BBC programs and are therefore paid for from advertising, which in turn is recouped from increases in prices which you have to pay even if you don't have a TV.

      It reads like classic PR techniques applied in the American media for decades: News by Press Release.

      Given that the piece is fairly negative about MS (oh, didn't you read it?) it's hard to imagine that it's that simple. I doubt if MS would have pointed out their guilty verdict and used terms like "abuse" of market share in a PR.

      The British government needs the money from MS to support the stupidly extravigant(sp) lifestyle afforded the royal family,

      Which is odd, since the royal family put 35 million NET into the government every year.

      blah blah blah

      Grow up and get a life.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  109. Re: Like So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Usenet:

    If you are using the Windows XP Pro 'Corporate' (MSDN) i.e. not requiring windows activation, and are using
    the popular FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8 CD-Key, XP service pack 1 will not upgrade.
    It is rumored that XP service pack 1 will not install on any cd-key that begins with an F or a D

    If you have already installed with a bad key, you will need to change it. Follow these directions:

    1. Start | Run | regedit
    2. Find [HKey_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\WindowsNT\C urrent
    Version\WPAEvents]
    3. Double-click "oobetimer" and change at least one digit which will
    cause XP to deactivate because of a bad key.
    4. Start | Run | %systemroot%\system32\oobe\msoobe.exe /a
    5. At the activation screen select Activation by phone.
    6. Click Next
    7. Ignore the top of the screen and go to the bottom of the window
    and click "Change Key" [or something similar].
    8. In the new window enter the key generated by the Blue List keygen.
    If there is an apply button or something click it.
    9. Close the window.
    10. Reboot.
    11. Start | Run | %systemroot%\system32\oobe\msoobe.exe /a
    12. You should be told that your XP installation is already activated.

  110. This /. item is utter, utter crap by nagora · · Score: 5, Informative
    For the hard-of-reading the posted BBC item says:
    1. MS have made changes due to a ruling on "fair" competition. The word "equitable" does not appear anywhere in the story,
    2. That MS has been "found guilty of abusing its market dominance",
    3. That the DOJ thought that MS was abusing its market share,
    4. That nine states are holding out and that a ruling is pending, and
    5. People have been installing software to cut out some of MS's crap already (PC Lite).

    The item could have gone into more detail but what it does say is pretty straight-down-the-line factual and is not "half the story" as the poster claimed. Sure, there's no mention of EULA changes but, since they're not legally binding anyway who gives a toss? It's only a small piece, not the history of Windows!

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  111. Re:British journalism sucks by legojenn · · Score: 1

    Given the choice with the buffoon we have in Canada (Gene Cretin) and the neanderthal the Americans have (Bush the Dumber), by comparison, it certainly does make Mr Blair seem eloquent.

    --
    I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
  112. Re:British journalism sucks by peterpi · · Score: 1
    don't worry; soon we'll be able to make clones from Thatcher's DNA!

    (I kinda wish I was kidding)

  113. Here's the FULL EULA for SP1 by Trillian_1138 · · Score: 1, Informative

    SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

    IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - This
    Supplemental End User License Agreement
    ("Supplemental EULA") is a legal agreement
    between you (either an individual or a single
    entity) and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") for the Microsoft
    software that accompanies this Supplemental EULA, which
    includes computer software and may include associated media,
    printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,
    and Internet-based services (the "OS Components").
    The OS Components are provided to update, supplement,
    or replace existing functionality of the applicable
    Microsoft software for which the OS Components
    are designed (any such software referred to here as "OS
    Software"). An amendment or addendum to this
    Supplemental EULA may accompany the OS Components.
    YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE
    APPLICABLE OS SOFTWARE END USER LICENSE
    AGREEMENT ("OS SOFTWARE EULA") AND THIS
    SUPPLEMENTAL EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR
    OTHERWISE USING THE OS COMPONENTS. IF YOU DO
    NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE
    OS COMPONENTS.

    IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF
    THE APPLICABLE OS SOFTWARE, YOU ARE NOT
    AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE
    THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS
    UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

    General.

    * Microsoft grants you a license to use the OS Components
    under the terms and conditions of the OS Software EULA
    (which are hereby incorporated by reference except as
    set forth below), the terms and conditions set forth in
    this Supplemental EULA, and the terms and conditions of
    any additional end user license agreement that may
    accompany the individual OS Components (each an
    "Individual EULA"), provided that you comply with all
    such terms and conditions. To the extent that there is
    a conflict among any of these terms and conditions
    applicable to the OS Components, the following hierarchy
    shall apply: 1) the terms and conditions of the
    Individual EULA; 2) the terms and conditions in this
    Supplemental EULA; and 3) the terms and conditions of the
    applicable OS Software EULA.

    * The OS Components are protected by copyright and other
    intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its
    suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual
    property rights in the OS Components. Microsoft reserves
    all rights not expressly granted to you in this Supplemental
    EULA. The OS Components are licensed, not sold.

    * Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not
    otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to
    them in the applicable OS Software EULA.

    Additional Rights and Limitations.

    * You may reproduce, install and use one copy of the OS
    Components on each of your computers that is running a
    validly licensed copy of the applicable OS Software,
    provided that you use each such additional copy of the OS
    Components in accordance with the terms and conditions of
    this Supplemental EULA.

    * Solely for the purpose of preventing unlicensed use of the
    applicable OS Software, the OS Components will include
    installation on your computer of technological measures that
    are designed to prevent unlicensed use, and Microsoft may
    use this technology to confirm that you have a licensed copy
    of the OS Software. The update of these technological
    measures only occurs through the installation of these OS
    Components. The OS Components will not install on
    unlicensed copies of the OS Software. If you are not using
    a licensed copy of the OS Software, you are not allowed to
    install the OS Components or future OS Software updates.
    Microsoft will not collect any personally identifiable
    information from your computer during this process.

    * The OS Components may include the Microsoft .NET
    Framework. You may not disclose the results of any
    benchmark test of the .NET Framework to any third party
    without Microsoft's prior written approval.

    * Solely with respect to the OS Components, if the licensor of
    the applicable OS Software was an entity other than
    Microsoft, then for the purposes of this Supplemental EULA
    Microsoft is the licensor with respect to such OS Components
    in lieu of the "Manufacturer" or other entity. Manufacturer
    or such other entity has no obligation under this
    Supplemental EULA to provide support for such OS
    Components. With respect to the existing functionality
    contained in the applicable OS Software that is not updated,
    supplemented, or replaced by the OS Components, the OS
    Software EULA provided by the Manufacturer or other
    licensing entity shall remain in full force and effect as
    to that OS Software.

    IF THE APPLICABLE OS SOFTWARE WAS LICENSED TO
    YOU BY MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED
    SUBSIDIARIES, THE LIMITED WARRANTY (IF ANY)
    INCLUDED IN THE APPLICABLE OS SOFTWARE EULA
    APPLIES TO THE OS COMPONENTS, PROVIDED THAT
    THE OS COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY YOU
    WITHIN THE TERM OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN
    THE APPLICABLE OS SOFTWARE EULA. HOWEVER,
    THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA DOES NOT EXTEND THE
    TIME PERIOD FOR WHICH THE LIMITED WARRANTY IS
    PROVIDED.

    IF THE APPLICABLE OS SOFTWARE WAS LICENSED TO
    YOU BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN MICROSOFT OR ANY
    OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, MICROSOFT
    DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
    OS COMPONENTS AS FOLLOWS:

    DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM
    EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT
    AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS
    COMPONENTS, AND SUPPORT SERVICES (IF ANY) AS
    IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND MICROSOFT AND ITS
    SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL OTHER
    WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS,
    IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
    LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
    DUTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF
    FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF
    RELIABILITY OR AVAILABILITY, OF ACCURACY OR
    COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, OF RESULTS, OF
    WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, OF LACK OF VIRUSES, AND
    OF LACK OF NEGLIGENCE, ALL WITH REGARD TO THE
    OS COMPONENTS, AND THE PROVISION OF OR
    FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES,
    INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT
    THROUGH THE OS COMPONENTS OR OTHERWISE
    ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE OS COMPONENTS.
    ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF
    TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION,
    CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON
    -INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE OS
    COMPONENTS.

    EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND
    CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
    PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT
    SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE
    FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE,
    INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
    WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
    DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL
    OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS
    INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS
    OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY
    INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE
    CARE, NEGLIGENCE, AND ANY OTHER PECUNIARY
    OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR
    IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR
    INABILITY TO USE THE OS COMPONENTS,
    THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE
    SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATION,
    SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE OS
    COMPONENTS OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE
    USE OF THE OS COMPONENTS, OR OTHERWISE UNDER
    OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS
    SUPPLEMENTAL EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE
    FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),
    MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT OR PRODUCT
    LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF
    WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND
    EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN
    ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILTY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

    LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES.
    NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT
    INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
    WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED
    ABOVE AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES IN
    CONTRACT OR ANYTHING ELSE), THE ENTIRE
    LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS
    SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS
    SUPPLEMENTAL EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
    FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
    THE GREATER OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGES YOU INCUR
    IN REASONABLE RELIANCE ON THE SOFTWARE UP TO
    THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE OS
    COMPONENTS OR U.S.$5.00. THE FOREGOING
    LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL
    APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY
    APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS ITS
    ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

  114. the "L" in EULA... by sbillard · · Score: 0

    stand for "License". The software license is purchased by your company. They own the license. They are on the hook. Not you.

  115. Re:British journalism sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please define 100%. I was under the impression that losing the World Trade Center on your watch was considered a bad thing.

  116. Re:I knew there was a reason by ChaoticSilly · · Score: 1

    I knew there was a reason Microsoft acts like a 3 year old.

  117. XP SP1 Incongruity by ispel · · Score: 1

    The new "Set Program Access and Defaults" dialog is a thinly disguised mechanism to allow users to easily change back to Microsoft's components all in one convenient location.

  118. PARENT IS A KARMA WHORE / MOD DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  119. Huh??? by Banjonardo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That's hilarious! "Windows plays fair with rivals"! I go to download this amazing patch and guess what?

    " You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update."(Link to Explorer 6.1)

    Hypocrisy? naaaaaah!

    --

    -----

    Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  120. Mozilla / BBC site by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

    FWIW, I'm using Moz 1.0, and I can read the BBC News site with no apparent problems, at least no more than any other web site.

    I'm not sure where all these people have found a stable 1.0 build, though; mine crashes left, right and centre, particularly if it's got the pretty-much-essential Quick Launch feature enabled. It's just that IE 6 is just as bad, and Moz generally does a better job otherwise, so I'll stick with it anyway. :-(

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  121. No journalism is unbiased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    unbiased journalism is a myth. Humans are incapable of producing journalism that is unbiased since their writings will be tainted by there knowledge and expereinces. Besides, no one would want to read unbiased journalism since it would read like an almanac, with nothing but dry facts (which is probably why this article is on the boring side). This article is as close to middle of the road as they come. While not particularly stimulating, it doesn't really have much of an opinion either way (on anything). Think about it.

  122. Re:British journalism sucks by matrix29 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    He's kicking more ass than the average euroPEON leader. For such an "idiot", GW Bush beats his opponents 100% of the time leaving them bitching and moaning like a 5 year old kicked in the nuts.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1446863. stm
    Friday, 20 July, 2001, 06:51 GMT 07:51 UK
    Bush's BBC interview in full

    President Bush:
    Well, I think the leaders appreciate somebody who is straightforward and open. I guess I could have gone with a strategy of playing like this makes sense. But I chose to be as open as I could and explain in terms that we share the same goal, that we will come with a strategy that makes sense, but that the treaty wasn't going to pass.

    And there was no need for me to play like it was going to pass, particularly since the United States Senate had delivered a pretty clear message on a 95-to-nothing vote about our nation adhering to 1990 CO2 emission levels and reducing from there. That would be an economic impossibility for us to do.

    We're spending a lot of money and time and effort on looking at interesting technologies - conservation technologies - and we look forward to sharing that with the rest of the world, as we all aim to reduce greenhouse gases.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-jun e01/bushenv_3-29.html
    BUSH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
    March 29, 2001

    GWEN IFILL: After barely more than 60 days in office, President Bush has placed a distinctive mark on U.S. environmental policy, rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions. And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan. Environmental Protection Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told reporters the president had "no interest in implementing it." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was even more blunt.

    ARI FLEISCHER: The president has been unequivocal: He does not support the Kyoto treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world and it is not in the United States' economic best interest. The president has directed his cabinet secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation, address a serious problem, which is global warming.

    [ later in the article ]

    PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We are now in an energy crisis. And that's why I decided to not have mandatory caps on CO2, because in order to meet those caps, our nation would have had to have had a lot of natural gas immediately flow into the system, which is impossible. We don't have the infrastructure able to move natural gas. We need to have an active exploration program. One of the big debates that's taking place in the Congress, or will take place in the Congress is whether or not we should be exploring for natural gas in Alaska -- for example, in ANWR. I strongly think we should. We have an energy shortage. I look forward to explaining this today to the leader of Germany as to why I made the decision I made. We'll be working with Germany. We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases, but I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers.

    But of course this is just fine when Tony Blair and Criminal Traitor Lifetime-Cocaine-Addict Pathological-Liar George Worthless Bush share the same toothpaste.

    --
    "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
  123. MS: Fix List? We're not telling you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An error occurred rendering the requested content.

    URL: http://support.microsoft.com/support/ServicePacks/ Windows/XP/SP1FixList.asp?SD=GN&LN=en-au

  124. It all depends on which upgrade path you pick by Bake · · Score: 2

    If you choose Express update you'll only download what you need, with my setup it only downloaded 50 megs.

    For a Linux/Windows similarity, think of it as the difference between running "apt-get dist-upgrade" or Redhat's up2date versus downloading a brandnew ISO image.

  125. BBC article biased? by geekee · · Score: 1

    The BBC article didn't seem biased in either direction, except maybe in the title.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  126. What if ... by RonaldH · · Score: 1

    What if you change the text displayed in the EULA box to something in the likes of "You are free as in speech to use the software updated by this update package" and then click the agree button?

    Changing the text that will be displayed in the EULA box is actually very easy, it doesn't require anything that is not installed on any windows version since '95, and works the very same way for both Windows 2000 SP3 and Windows XP SP1.

  127. 133 MB!!!??? by restive · · Score: 1

    That's larger than a full install of Windows 9x!!!!

    1. Re:133 MB!!!??? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Shit, next thing you know games will be overflowing onto two and three floppies. Pretty soon I'll have to buy a hard drive. My friend says they're really just 3.5" floppies, but they don't look floppy to me.

  128. Cool, no command line! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Wow thanks! That is so *intuitive*, not like the linux voodoo. And you don't have to use the dreaded command line!

    Now I understand why people don't want to use linux, since you have to type cryptic commands into textfiles, such as:
    ONBOOT=yes
    IPADDR=192.168.1.10
    NETMASK=255.255.255.0

  129. Re:Yet when I try to use windows update with Mozil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try changing the user agent string to "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)". It'll at least let you in with that.

    If that doesn't work, then you'll have to use IE. It looks to me to be mostly javascript, though I didn't look at the entire thing. I obviously can't test it properly under linux. Though Konqueror does support activex through emulation...

  130. Tux! by Borg_5x8 · · Score: 1

    "Besides, if everyone uses Linux all of a sudden, who has the monopoly? Red Hat? Gentoo? Mandrake? Slackware? Debian? Linus Torvalds himself?" I'd keep my eye on that doped-up looking penguin, if I were you.

    1. Re:Tux! by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Heh... thanks for the laugh, that was a good one :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  131. Re:Damn Humorless Bastards by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

    "Whose Line is it Anyway" started out on BBC radio station 4 (Source) in '87. Then they moved to TV station 4 in '88. You might only be familiar with the version hosted by Drew Carey, but be aware that the show has a history.

    If you read my comment, then you might possibly get the joke. I debated humor "tags" for about five minutes while I was writing the post, but thought that the avg. Slashdot reader would actually read it and be capable of understanding humor. Not the first time I've been wrong.

    The fact that I don't have a life doesn't change the fact that you just didn't get it, and instead felt the need to flame randomly, but really, all you did was get yourself burned.

    --
    Dan
  132. Kiss my A$$ Micro$not, BURN in HELL BILLY GATE$ by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0

    BLACKLIST="microsoft.com MSFT.NET"

    for i in $BLACKLIST; do
    $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s $i -m limit --limit 5/minute \
    -j LOG --log-prefix "Blacklisted: "
    $IPTABLES -A INPUT -s $i -j DROP
    done

  133. There's a shocker by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    Oh, wait! Something bad about the BBC on Slashdot? That's damn near the closest thing I could hope for besides Slash's glowing praise of Microsoft on the scale of Earth Shattering events...

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  134. Wrong target by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    No, we should bomb your house and let Britain help us.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  135. Re:Damn Humorless Bastards by nagora · · Score: 2
    The fact that I don't have a life doesn't change the fact that you just didn't get it, and instead felt the need to flame randomly, but really, all you did was get yourself burned.

    It wasn't random but I did ponder the issue of whether it was humour or not. I guess I got it wrong.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  136. Or alternitavly by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    You should always negoitiate a contract,
    what Big company do you know that would just accept a contract without having negoitiations and letting they leagle people read through it..... (HP, IBM, The Government, ..... anyone who's aggreed to Micrsofts EULA)

    HP's big enough to tell Microsoft to fuck off about virgin pc's there just too lame to bother!

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  137. BBC is not professional journalism by Smid · · Score: 1

    Maybe, a long time ago, the BBC had a reputation as a fair and independent journalistic organisation.

    But in recent years, they are merely parrots for whatever press releases they deem worth broadcasting.

    Their normal news items are highly sensationalised, bordering on sub tabloid (a curse of uk journalism in particular) and rarely researched at all.

    Their tech journalism, however, reaches new heights of incompetence. I think they must recruit the homeless to write their articles.

    - They regularly bite any PR for publicity whoring madman kevin warwick (see theregister for his recent japes).

    - They regularly use the words "web and the internet" interchangably.

    - They probably have not actually _heard_ of linux (their television tech program certainly doesn't seem to know about anything but windows)

    Basically, its the modern curse of crappy journalism which blights a lot of media organisations with a tech arm...

    I personally reckon they've spending too much time trying to get Word to do what they want, to actually go off and research anything...

  138. Microsoft: A Reasonable Settlement by voxelman · · Score: 1

    A Reasonable Settlement for Conviction of Monopoly Practices: All of Microsoft's code base and IP becomes open source and public domain up to the date of the settlement. All non-compete contracts that Microsoft holds with current and former employees become null and void. In other words: take away their monopoly.

  139. Re:Yet when I try to use windows update with Mozil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WAH!!!! i can't run apt-get thru IE6!!!!

  140. Re:Norman Mailer "remembers" 9/11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you are being facetous.... Almost every single quote in that list makes total sense.

  141. Re:Norman Mailer "remembers" 9/11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically, yes...

  142. Re:British journalism sucks by Vermithrax · · Score: 1

    And there was me thinking we had one already

  143. Re:Why are PC's less expensive? by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

    Given that the prices are actually about the same as I recall them, it looks like the price for an Office upgrade was used the first time, but the full retail product price was used the second time. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but older upgrade copies of Office would work if you had MS Works, WordPerfect, almost anything really.

  144. Save Us From They!!!!! by fm6 · · Score: 2
    Read at -1. Find out what THEY don't want you to know!
    "They" don't want me to see Mr. Goatsex, yet I keep seeing him. I guess "they" don't have the censorship thing down yet.

    Oops! -1 Offtopic! Oh well.