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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..".

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.

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*

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