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."

Comments

Karma Whoring

[Wind_Walker]

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>

Re:Karma Whoring

[clontzman]

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."

Not True.

[NetJunkie]

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

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[ericman31]

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.

This /. item is utter, utter crap

[nagora]

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