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
The Register covered it this morning, here.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
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")
Microsoft has just released the second service pack for Windows XP, and it contains fixes for all the complaints. In effort to address problems about security andstability, the new service pack also installs the Linux kernel in place of the NT kernel. To allow users fix other problems themself, all Windows source code will be placed in C:\Windows\Source Code
I found this charge to be very interesting:
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.
"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.
I'd prefer it if they were to "Cry 'Havoc'! and let slip the dogs of war"
No user should be without the handy-dandy Linux boot disk for Administrator Password recovery: http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd
Sig? What's a Sig?
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.
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?
So erm, weren't you upset about not being able to use three of those four CPUs in OpenBSD, being as it doesn't yet support SMP, except in an under-development CVS branch?
Hate implies ignorance. Most of the people and companies (not to mention consumer groups, state legislatures, etc.) complaining about Microsoft's predatory and illegal business practices are VERY well informed as to the legality of Microsoft's actions and the degree to which these actions affect the public.
I'd say this is just another case of the chickens coming home to roost, and not a blind case of bashing.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
...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
... 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.
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"
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...
But THIS being hard to use? A fucking 10 year old could use it.
Usually, the ten-year-olds are the only ones in the family who can use it.
I'm crying foul too. My warez copy won't install the service pack. Note to Microsoft lawyers: this is a joke. I run Linux.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
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.
McDonalds' employee: Welcome to McDonalds, may I take your order you please?
Bill Gates: A big mac please.
McDonalds' employee: A big mac, a coke. $2.99.
Bill Gates: Sorry, I ordered just a big mac.
McDonalds' employee: The coke is part of the meal.
Bill Gates: I don't want the coke, just the Big Mac please.
McDonalds' employee: The coke is free and is part of the meal.
Bill Gates: Until recently the Big Mac was priced at $1.99?
McDonalds' employee: But now the Big Mac has new features. It is bundled with a coke.
Bill Gates: But I already have something to drink so I don't want the coke.
McDonalds' employee: Then you won't get a Big Mac.
Bill Gates: I will take just the Big Mac and pay $1.99, ok?
McDonalds' employee: You can't separate the parts of the meal. They are seamlessly integrated and it would destroy the Big Mac if we seperated them.
Actually it is a pain in the ass to get, even over broadband. It's huge and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, rarely chooses to setup mirrors. Everything comes from one connection, one group of servers, and that's super inefficient. My download squeaked by at about 10KB/sec or so, ebbing a flowing just a little for a long long time. My connection supports 150KB/sec sustained so you could imagine it was frustrating.
From time to time they have CNet or someone mirror important updates (like this one should be) but not this time.
Every day I see newer and more valuable benefits to linux distros like Mandrake. If Ibiblio is slow I can hit secsup.org or a dozen others.
You mixed up your facist dictators... An honest mistake. You should have previewed first!
Aside from this... most of Procomp's complaints are complete and utter BS. They whine that Microsoft wants to charge you 10 bucks to get the service pack on the CD, yet they also want to whine about how long it takes to download the minimum install of 30 megs. Then they complain that Microsoft may potentially make tens of millions of dollars on the CD distribution yet neglect to mention that you can legally download it from their own site for FREE.
Nor do they mention how Apple or other MS competitors dont even allow you to download larger OS/APplication updates for free and require that you purchase a CD (for clarification Im reffering to OS 10.1 not 10.2). They also continue to whine about how links to the Middleware control panel are not included on the Start Menu and Desktop. This is beyond stupid. Control panels BELONG IN THE DAMN CONTROL PANEL!
I can't believe the lusers editing
Oh well whatever. Im guessing we will soon see an article lamenting RedHat's decision to make Mozilla the default browser in their upcoming Redhat 8.0 release. Yeah Redhat does linux but since they actually have a head on their shoulders and actually want to make money instead of going out of business - we are supposed to hate them right?
So so so stupid...
J
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
We have a Dell Poweredge 2450 server including RAID 5 disks, running Win2K & SQL Server. We discovered mysterious anomolies (Control Panel not working and some other wacky stuff). Microsoft support recommends a full restore from tape. OK, we have tapes, let's go. We attempt to boot from CD and we know we need to supply a driver disk for the RAID card. Each time we attempt to boot, things look okay for a while and then BAM! cryptic register dump -- game over. This goes on for THREE DAYS of fumbing & bumbling. My sysadmin is a very knowledgable MCSE, not some newbie who uses the CD-ROM as a cupholder. Microsoft support was puzzled, so was Dell. Eventually, the Dell folks determine that we were given the wrong driver disk for our Dell RAID controller. Evidently our RAID controller had newer firmware than our driver disk (not that Win2K told us anything useful at boot time to suggest this). We download a new driver, and the restore eventually works. This series of events started out as a standard Microsoft response (reinstall the OS) to a standard Microsoft problem (anomolies with no useful clues in the event log). Dell gets some of the blame, but we expect the OS to either boot up or tell us why not.
By the time we had this little crisis under control, I gave the server in question the nickname "Atta" and wrote it on the paper label we stick on the server that shows name & IP address.
In my shop we have Microsoft and Linux boxes running side by side. I am the IT manager, so if some Microsoft salesman wants to talk about how their products can improve our uptime and reduce support costs, they will first have to listen to the story of how one of their products motivated us to name a Microsoft server after a middle east terrorist. Then they will have to explain how our costs will decline by paying for licenses/support/upgrades, and how our uptime will improve as we respond to mysterious anomolies by doing full restores on servers that can't even boot properly from CD/floppy.
Years ago, I worked at a DEC shop. Everything was damn expensive, but it was rock-solid. When things didn't work, we saw messages and error log entries that provided clues. DEC had tech. support that would investigate any crash dump and determine what happened. All of this was very pricey, and DEC got slaughtered by commoditized x86 hardware and Microsoft software. Sure, today's Wintel servers are cheaper and faster, but stability, recoverability, and support are worse now than 20 yrs. ago.
Does windows have a reliable scripting language? I had to do a simmilar process for someone who had switched from AOL to another dial-up service on their mac. THe problem was easily solved by opening Apple Script and having it record the events nessesary to launch and activate the connection and browser. It was then a simple matter of setting the script to run when doubleclicked and replacing the script icon with the web browser icon. Deavtivation was another script except with a modfed icon (I love ResEdit). Is a simmilar feat possible under windows? If so where, I would love to have a scripting program on this sucker.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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 ?