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

[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

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

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.

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!

[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?

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

[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

[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.

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...

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?

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: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: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?

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.

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: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

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:133MB

[delus10n0]

It's also a service pack, ass.

Try to restrain your MS bashing for just one minute.

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.

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: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.