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
"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.
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.
--Dan
MS has a monopoly. McDonalds does not. Therefore, the same does NOT apply to MS.
Suppose that McDonald's is the only place to buy hamburgers and that there is a vital nutrient in hamburgers (let's call the vital nutrient grease). Now, you can get grease if you buy a steak...but most people can't afford steaks. You can make your own hamburgers...but most people don't know how to assemble an all-beef patty.
Suddenly, McDonald's requires that, in order to get grease, you must pay extra money. You have no choice unless you want to skip your daily grease ration. Furthermore, they are requiring you to purchase a known-addictive substance. You don't have to consume it, of course - you could pour it out and get water from the hose outside. Unfortunately, since most people are sheep, McDonald's knows that most people will drink cola, diminishing the demand for water until cola is so cheap that water is not readily available anymore (of course, you could dig a well and purify it yourself, or you could purchase Dasani (a Coke product) but I digress)
For the irony impaired...McD=MS, grease=consumer software (which the economy is now dependent upon), steak=high-end OS, hamburger=OS distro, McD hamburger=Windows, and home-made burgers=any free Unix-alike.
Your error