Slashdot Mirror


Competitors Cry Foul At Windows XP, 2K Service Packs

caudron writes "According to an article at ZDNet, a trade group partly funded, not surprisingly, by Microsoft's competitors is claiming that WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3 contain 6 separate violations of both the letter and spirit of the proposed DOJ Settlement. Equally unsurprising, Microsoft disagrees with them. And so the Case-That-Wouldn't-Die drags ever onward."

8 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The -Proposed- Settlement by jeffy124 · · Score: 5, Informative

    the problem is that MS (as part of the deal) was to start operating as if the deal were approved right from the get-go, and not wait for the judge's seal of approval.

    This could be used show the judge that the deal proposed is not sufficient in controlling MS's behavior.

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  2. Also at El Reg by red_dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Register covered it this morning, here.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  3. Article also on The Register by beebware · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Registers article gives a bit more information, including links to the ProComp PDF document about the issues (ProComp being the "Sun/Oracle lobby group")

  4. .Net Charge is Absurd by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 5, Informative

    I found this charge to be very interesting:

    The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's .Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine.
    Although Microsoft released the technology long after signing the proposed settlement, the Common Language Runtime meets the standard set by the agreement for determining what future middleware products would be covered by the deal, ProComp said.

    The .Net runtime does not even come included with Windows XP and Windows 2000. Why would they need to include an option to disable the .Net runtime, if it's required that the user of the OS to have downloaded and installed it?

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:.Net Charge is Absurd by foo+fighter · · Score: 4, Informative

      The service packs actually install the .net components.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
  5. Not if Microsoft expands its monopoly by yerricde · · Score: 5, Informative
    10 LET M$ = "Microsoft"

    If *you* can do *your* work *without* Microsoft Windows, then none of this stupidity about their service packs, EULAs, etc, etc, needs to bother you.

    On the other hand, if Microsoft continues to expand its monopolies into new parts of the computer industry, that may jeopardize *my* ability to do *my* work *without* Microsoft Windows. For instance, if the CBDTPA (or whatever Hollings is calling it this week) passes, requiring all computers to have a digital restrictions management operating system (which, incidentally, M$ has a patent on), M$ will have a federally sponsored monopoly on computer operating systems. Moving out of the United States has its own drawbacks.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  6. Just installed the Service Pack... by jamienk · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...My impression of the Service Pack's "Set Program Access and Defaults" was that it offered an easy, centralized way for users to make MS products their defaults. Your choices for each item (Browser, email, ect) are something like

    Use Internet Explorer
    or
    Use Your Current 3rd Party browser

    The easy, inviting option is the MS ones. The use of "Your Current 3rd Party Brower" instead of "Mozilla" or "Opera" or whatever is detected, lends an air of complexity. The 3rd Party choices aren't laid out, but the MS choice always is.

    But before you can choose your specific programs, you need to first choose whether you want to use "MS Windows" "Non MS" or "Custom" ... A single place to change to ALL MS. The "Non MS" button would only work if you have 3rd party programs already installed, right? So if you choose it and things get fucked-up, you'd probably want to revert to "MS." The "Custom" option is the Advanced one, and it includes a check box "Enable Access to this Program " which seems to mean that even though you're disabling IE, you have to take an additional, criptic step to really disable it.

    Compared to the process of, say, the "File Types" config, where you choose a program for any file-type, this interface privilages the MS products. But of course, setting a File Type no longer means that a certain program becomes the default...

    1. Re:Just installed the Service Pack... by sheldon · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "Your current 3rd party browser" is there solely as a default. The third party product needs to rewrite their installation so that they register with the new API that controls these applications.

      It's all documented here.

      My understanding is that the latest version of Netscape 7 does register itself properly. Opera and the others have apparently not taken the time to create new install packages.

      If you take the time to actually figure out how things work you'll find that your criticism is entirely unjustified.