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

[Wind_Walker]

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"?

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...

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."

Re:Karma Whoring

[NineNine]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[Jugalator]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[Schnapple]

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...

Re:Karma Whoring

[timothy_m_smith]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[metacosm]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[PainKilleR-CE]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[Phil Wilkins]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[ncc74656]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[rmohr02]

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.

Re:Karma Whoring

[ncc74656]

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...

Re:Karma Whoring

[ozbird]

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?

Re:Karma Whoring

[nathanm]

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).

Re:Karma Whoring

[unitron]

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.

Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Powercntrl]

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?

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Schnapple]

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

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[fregga]

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.

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[BiggyP]

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.

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Jugalator]

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.

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Fweeky]

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.

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Jugalator]

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.

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Jugalator]

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

*slap my face* Wake up! :)

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Anonymous DWord]

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?

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Anonymous DWord]

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.

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]

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.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[ceejayoz]

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?

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[HiThere]

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.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[reallocate]

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.

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:So how is the story unfair?

[ericman31]

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.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[reallocate]

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.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[ericman31]

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.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[ericman31]

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.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[reallocate]

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.

I'd love to know more about this trend

[Featureless]

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... :/

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

[AndrewHowe]

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

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.

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

[AndrewHowe]

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

What kind of bs is that?

[photon317]

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.

Re:What kind of bs is that?

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:What kind of bs is that?

[gwernol]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Data protection act

[oliverthered]

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.

Re:Data protection act

[JeanBaptiste]

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

End Loser User Agreement?

Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[jsonmez]

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!

Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

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.

Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[Dirtside]

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?

Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[reallocate]

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.

Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[reallocate]

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.

Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[reallocate]

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

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

Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[Dirtside]

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"?

FAIR INDEED! AS IS...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

...fairly easy to apply onto a warezed install.

A more realistic question

[tkrotchko]

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.

Re:A more realistic question

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Re:A more realistic question

[rmadmin]

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?

Re:A more realistic question

[hey]

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

Re:A more realistic question

[ThePilgrim]

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

Re:A more realistic question

[HiThere]

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.

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:A more realistic question

[rseuhs]

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.

Re:A more realistic question

[damiangerous]

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.

Re:A more realistic question

[kawika]

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?

Re:A more realistic question

[JamesOfTheDesert]

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.

Re:A more realistic question

[HiThere]

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.

Re:A more realistic question

[bnenning]

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.

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:Finally...

[nolife]

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.

Re:Finally...

[Malc]

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.

Re:Finally...

[extra88]

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.

Re:Finally...

[tswinzig]

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).

Yet when I try to use windows update with Mozilla:

[Bonker]

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.

Who knew the sign that someone was a total geek

[Anonymous Coward]

...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!

Re:Who knew the sign that someone was a total geek

[rmohr02]

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

Whither Windows Update?

[tbmaddux]

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?

Re:Whither Windows Update?

[NetJunkie]

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

Re:Whither Windows Update?

[Captain Large Face]

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.

Re:Whither Windows Update?

[ceejayoz]

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

Re:Whither Windows Update?

[arkanes]

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.

Re:Whither Windows Update?

[Alsee]

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>

-

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.

BBC : The best news on the web

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

133MB

[Draoi]

... 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 ...

Re:133MB

[delus10n0]

It's also a service pack, ass.

Try to restrain your MS bashing for just one minute.

The problem is bigger ..

[Khalidz0r]

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)

Re:The problem is bigger ..

[ealar dlanvuli]

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?

Re:British journalism sucks

[AndrewHowe]

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

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?

Re:I don't see the story.

[griblik]

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 ;)

Re:I don't see the story.

[Alsee]

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.

-

XPSP1 already hacked

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:XPSP1 already hacked

[ryanvm]

XPSP1 already hacked

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

Re:XPSP1 already hacked

[Da_Monk]

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.

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:Where's the Evidence?

[Puzzleer]

>>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.

Re:Where's the Evidence?

[reallocate]

Yes, a sloppy headline.

Re:Where's the Evidence?

[reallocate]

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.

Re:Where's the Evidence?

[flatrock]

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.

Re:Where's the Evidence?

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Yet when I try to use windows update with Mozil

[sql*kitten]

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.

Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL

[yerricde]

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).

Re:Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL

[Tuzanor]

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.

Re:Plenty of non-Microsoft platforms for AOL

[Tuzanor]

Opps, sorta forgot about Opera, but it only runs on linux, not Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc. Does Opera run on non-x86 linux?

Re:BBC's bias

[reallocate]

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.

Re:133MB update ???

[Jugalator]

> "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!

I've been online too long...

[mblase]

...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.

Re:So, Is SP1 out?

[Tim C]

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

My legal copy?

[emarkp]

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.

Re:My legal copy?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"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.

Anyone who's tried it...

[Corvaith]

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?

Re:Anyone who's tried it...

[delus10n0]

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.

Re:Norman Mailer "remembers" 9/11!

[puckhead]

It's Norman Mailer. Who cares?

half the story?

[GoatPigSheep]

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*

Re:BBC's bias

[slipgun]

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.

What happened to?

[jhines]

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.

Open standards

[oliverthered]

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.

Re:Why are PC's less expensive?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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?

General OK, but tech bad

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Why are PC's less expensive?

[ericman31]

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.

Re:133MB update ???

[Fulcrum of Evil]

But it didn't have anti-piracy features!

Big deal. Neither does XP.

Damn British Bastards

[DrMaurer]

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.

Re:Damn British Bastards

[nagora]

"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

Re:Ignorance is bliss.

[rosewood]

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

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

Re:BBC's bias

[slipgun]

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

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.

Huh???

[Banjonardo]

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!

Mozilla / BBC site

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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. :-(

Re:Ignorance is bliss.

[los furtive]

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

It all depends on which upgrade path you pick

[Bake]

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.

There's a shocker

[Mulletproof]

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...

Wrong target

[Mulletproof]

No, we should bomb your house and let Britain help us.

Re:Damn Humorless Bastards

[nagora]

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

Re:BBC's bias

[Darby]

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.

Save Us From They!!!!!

[fm6]

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.