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."
But it's not a settlement yet - Microsoft cannot be held accountable for violating rules that don't yet exist.
Cheers,
Ian
How long do you think this case will last? Honestly, I think that the longer it takes the more solid a position Microsoft is going to wedge itself into, until it's all but impossible to dig them out.
In a world where technology advances at the rate that it does today, drawn out court cases make decisions far after the point at which the subject of the decision is obsolete.
...partly funded, not surprisingly, by Microsoft's competitors...
Partly funded? Hardly. This is nothing more than Microsoft's competitors. Even the travel agencies are competitors (Expedia anyone?).
"Service Pack 1 for Windows XP itself is not readily accessible to consumers, and thus the mechanism purportedly settling the antitrust case is, by definition, not readily accessible," ProComp wrote in the letter.
Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not. It's not Microsofts fault people are using a 56k modem or that it's not under 50k! I'm unsure about the $9.99 for a CD point myself - the proposed settlement didn't mention anything about them having to forcibly give it to anyone and this price is no different to their usual practises.
The third violation, ProComp charges, is that the middleware control is not intuitive and comes with no Help file for understanding how to use it.
So? It does what it's supposed to do. Do you really think they're going to spend money on making it all nice and pretty when end users aren't going to even touch it? They provided the tool and it does the job it says it does - so what if there is no help file?
In the fifth alleged violation, ProComp said the updated Windows XP's My Music folder called up Internet Explorer for online shopping, even after the group had selected Netscape as the default browser and had hidden access to IE.
Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight. We all know that Microsofts testing is, ahem, a little erratic. It might not be though, but lets not jump to conclusions.
It is still worth pointing out that this is a proposed settlement. Microsoft haven't actually signed anything yet.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Then I think Solaris shouldn't ship with Java and Linux shouldn't ship with glibc.
First, they claim that it's hard to get. Jesus Christ, it's in a service pack. That's how MS has *ALWAYS* distributed their software. Now, with automatic update, it'll even come over automatically. And the whole download doesn't have to be done in one sitting either.
Secondly, it doesn't provide Start Menu access? Well, I'm looking at a big icon for it right now, not even in the "Programs" section. They must have blind software testers working for them.
Thirdly, they claim that it's hard to use. I understand usability. Really, I do. But THIS being hard to use? A fucking 10 year old could use it.
This "ProComp" group, whoever they are, certainly are fucking clueless. ZDNet even reporting this garbage is really, really irresponsible. Crackpots send letters to the gov't all of the time. Even worse, this isn't just some random crackpot, this is a fake group created by some of MS competitors.
This article is complete garbage.
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.
ka-BOOOOM!! There's goes the group's credibility (if they ever had any). First of all, .NET is NOT an alternative to Sun's JVM. .NET is an application environment, period. It's a different product. Second, what the hell does .NET have to do with ANY of these issues? Answer: Nothing.
Yes, clearly there should be options to disable the standard Windows GUI APIs as well.
Sun is so f'ing stupid. Everytime they try and pull bullshit like this, they just increase the sympathy for Microsoft. I can't wait until Sun goes under and that smirk is finally wiped off McNealy's face.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Not to mention that XP Professional only supports two processors.
But complaining about download times? Christ, that's low.
The service pack is large. Live with it. It's no different than downloading 20-30 megs of RPMs for a system-wide update.
I strongly dislike M$ practices, but I find that these accusations are nitpicking that makes these "ProComp" people look like whiners. Throughout this case people have focused on the smaller aspects of the case (The stupid browser war) while barely touching on more major aspects (The M$ tax on PCs even if I don't *WANT* Windows on them.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The tool that Microsoft are distributing is very similar to what OS X includes, where you can choose your default browser, email client etc from a menu. It doesn't pick up every possible option automatically either (I imagine those apps have to register themselves with the system to say they are web browsers). It's hardly a big deal. I thought it was pretty straightforward too, so they're really just moaning for the sake of moaning.
Frankly I just wish these companies would just stop bitching all the time and just produce something better for us all to use. If they spent half as much time and effort on revolutionising computer software and hardware as they did writing reports to get at MS, I figure I'd be coding Perl by telekinesis by now.
SP1 for XP does NOT install .NET services. I know, we just rolled it out two days ago after some fairly exhaustive tests.
InThane
Service Pack 1 for Windows XP itself is not readily accessible to consumers, and thus the mechanism purportedly settling the antitrust case is, by definition, not readily accessible, ProComp wrote in the letter.
.Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual
.Net technology to carry them well into this decade and into the next. I'm sure MS will fire off a few of their own comments to the court in defense of .Net. Too much money and too much time has gone into this and I don't see Bill backing off.
Consumers have three choices for obtaining the service pack. The first is to use Windows XP's Automatic Update feature to retrieve and install a 30MB file. ProComp noted that the time for retrieval, as stated by Microsoft, would be 1.25 hours over a standard dial-up connection.
Honestly, if you're still using dial-up, then you should expect longer download times. And Microsoft does offer a CD ROM; granted $9.95 does seem a bit high for S&H.
The third violation, ProComp charges, is that the middleware control is not intuitive and comes with no Help file for understanding how to use it.
As a Technical Writer myself this does bother me, but honestly it isn't something with which I would walk into Federal Court.
The fourth violation alleged by ProComp shifts to Windows 2000, which, with the release of Service Pack 3, was updated with a leaner version of the middleware control.
In the letter, ProComp emphasized that the middleware controls installed with the two service packs are substantially different. The trade group contended that the Windows 2000 version is substantially less intuitive than (the one) in Windows XP.
So, the service packs are different for different Operating Systems? That seems fair. I think between this complaint and number 2, Microsoft is guilty of not putting their creative power behind the middleware control.
In the fifth alleged violation, ProComp said the updated Windows XP's My Music folder called up Internet Explorer for online shopping, even after the group had selected Netscape as the default browser and had hidden access to IE.
Now, I am beginning to understand why ProComp included the previous not-so-important violations: To show a trend. If the above is true it is bad for Microsoft. I'm sure MS will try and explain it away as some kind of oversight or better yet a "feature" of XP to improve the user's experience. Better to just release a quick "fix" and remove this "feature" quickly.
The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's
Machine.
I smell a fight here. Microsoft is betting on the
Honestly, the first 4 "violations" are pretty weak. However, when grouped with the 5th there is evidence of a "trend" on the part of Microsoft to not act in good faith.
What will be the outcome? I don't really believe the Justice Department wants to re-open this case, especially with all of the juicy "terrorist" cases just waiting to be tried. And let's be honest, case against Microsoft is not going to get a federal prosecutor TV time, but case against terrorists will get a federal prosecutor a lot of TV face time.
The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's
Most of these issues are rather nitpicky and pointless. The only thing that's going to put microsoft in check is to eliminate the rules they attach to OEM versions of their software. Having the ability to received a Dell pre-installed to dual-boot windows and linux would be a big improvement.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
--Dan
Everything about 'Set Program Access and Defaults' says consumers are unwelcome here," the developer said. "It's a barren place, compared to the rest of Windows XP, bereft of simple instructions or extended Help......
.....The trade group contended that the Windows 2000 version "is substantially less intuitive than (the one) in Windows XP
i have sp3 on win2k and i just took a look at the "set program access and defaults" which is so conveniently located on my start menu. (almost annoyingly convenient since i won't use it very often- if ever) Well, it was so easy to use that I can't even imagine what the help doc might say, perhaps something like this: if you want to use you current web browser instead of internet explorer, then select the choice for "use your current web browser", or if you would prefer to use internet explorer as your web browser, then select "use internet explorer". IMAO, if you need a help file to use this tool, then you have no business ever logging in to your machine as Administrator, which is what you need to be in order to use it (and rightly so).
It's their product. If McDonalds decides to bundle a big Mac with a coke, they should have to right to do it. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. The same applies to Microsoft.
Remember, you don't have the right to buy any product in any configuration you want. Does McDonalds must offer a half-big Mac for $1.30 ? Or a big Mac with only 1 bun for lesser price ?
Will anyone actually try XP SP1 before complaining?
.Net CLR. You have to do that on your own, its not part of SP1.
.Net and then we whine about the opposite.
It does not install the
Funny, they include their JVM, but not
this is not a sig
Lots organizations, many funded by the government, require use of Microsoft software in order to transact with them. Other "competitors" are not substitutable for Microsoft products in these situations since it isn't a matter of individual choice. Whether or not this situation is legal behavior for either Microsoft or, hypothetically, McDonalds, doesn't change the fact that the Microsoft situation is not "OK" for the consumer.
I think we can edit and extend your statement into something more generic and applicable to slashdot:
Whoever modded this... doesn't have a clue.