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

So how is the story unfair?

[October_30th]

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.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[ericman31]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[Guppy06]

"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...

Finally...

[Schnapple]

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...

Re:I'd love to know more about this trend

[Stephen Samuel]

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.

I don't see the story.

[stratjakt]

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?

Where's the Evidence?

[reallocate]

>> "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..".

Re:A more realistic question

[BeBoxer]

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.

Re:Just after "upgrade"

[TheAwfulTruth]

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.