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."

27 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. The -Proposed- Settlement by mccalli · · Score: 4, Insightful
    contain 6 separate violations of both the letter and spirit of the proposed DOJ Settlement.

    But it's not a settlement yet - Microsoft cannot be held accountable for violating rules that don't yet exist.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    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. Re:The -Proposed- Settlement by d3xt3r · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Yes the settlement is not final yet, however, Microsoft claims that SP1 & SP3 comply with the terms of the proposed settlement. Therefore, it is important to point out MS is lying.

      Hopefully this will make the DOJ wise up to the fact that MS will find a way around anything.

    3. Re:The -Proposed- Settlement by stendec · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft cannot be held accountable for violating rules that don't yet exist.

      Trade group: Would you please tell Microsoft to stop?

      Judges: We can't do it, man! That's discipline! That's like tellin' Gene Krupa not to go boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom boom bam ba ba ba ba, da boo boo tsssssssss ! We don't believe in rules 'cuz, like, we gave them up when we started livin' like freaky beatniks! We tried nothin' and we're all outta ideas.

  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. Some points by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am not pro-Microsoft (more pro-right tool for the job) but some of these are silly:

    "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.
    1. Re:Some points by bwt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      That is a clear violation. They have developed code that depends on IE. The fact that they provide alternate, separate code to do the same thing is irrelevent. They obviously want to play "use nice version A to do X if you have IE or use crappy version B to do X if you use something else". Version A must comply with the settlement, which means it cannot depend on IE specific functionality to install or run. It does, end of story.

      So? It does what it's supposed to do.
      No it doesn't. What defines what the shipped software is "supposed" to do? Nothing: there's no documentation. The user who executes documented, supported functionality cannot do anything with this software.

      Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight.
      Fine, it's an oversight. It is an oversight that results in noncompliance with the proposed settlement agreement. (See below)

      It is still worth pointing out that this is a proposed settlement. Microsoft haven't actually signed anything yet.

      Somebody above pointed out that one of the conditions for the DOJ to agree to support the proposed settlement was that MS agree to be compliant with it immediately. You assert that they haven't signed "anything" yet, which contradicts this. Who is correct?

      MS has gone before the Court and said that they agree that the proposed settlement will remedy their anticompetitive behavior. If they then turn around and issue software that doesn't comply with THEIR OWN position, while they simultaneously and wrongly assert that it does, then doesn't that mean that A) they are acting in bad faith and B) greater enforcement oversight is needed.

  6. i'd prefer... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Funny
    Competitors Cry Foul At Windows XP, 2K Service Packs

    I'd prefer it if they were to "Cry 'Havoc'! and let slip the dogs of war"

  7. Re:Update: XP Sevice pack 2 by dimator · · Score: 4, Funny

    I figured I would ignore your lame attempt at humor.

    Umm... and by "ignore" did you mean "reply to"?

    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  8. 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?
  9. Re:My experiences with Windows XP Professional by 1984 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  10. Re:Update: XP Sevice pack 2 by Bobo_The_Boinger · · Score: 4, Funny

    I realize you were trying to be funny, but since this is not funny by any stretch of the imagination, I figured I would ignore your lame attempt at humor.

    You figured you would ignore their lame attempt at humor? Well, your attempt failed. You replied to their lame attempt at humor. Don't worry, it happens to a lot of us. Just remember, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again! :)

    --
    --David
  11. Re:Update: XP Sevice pack 2 by kubrick · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it come with a flying pig?

    And a pony. I'd really like a pony.

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  12. 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.

  13. Re:ProComp is full of shite. by mblase · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  14. Saw this, thought it was funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  15. whoops by npietraniec · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mixed up your facist dictators... An honest mistake. You should have previewed first!

  16. This is absolutely stupid by gamorck · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Washington, D.C.-based trade group, which is partially funded by Netscape Communications, Sun Microsystems and other Microsoft competitors, argued that Microsoft's distribution mechanism for the service pack is the first violation of the pending settlement.
    You've got to be kidding me. Everybody under the sun cries foul when some benchmark or study comes out of some firm which receives any funding from Microsoft - yet this shit is okay even though this group clearly isn't looking to have their funding cut off? Come on now - at least be consistent...

    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 /. let this one slide through. It really does reek of baseless Anti MS sentiment like so much other material published on this site. There are plently of legitimate things to bash MS for yet the /. community seems to perfer focusing on the misunderstood and irrelevant bitches and moans rather than approaching things in a constructive manner.

    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.
    1. Re:This is absolutely stupid by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, I agree with your points about this being a load of trash, however:

      1. Apple did offer the 10.1 update for download - they just didn't offer it for long. The 'update' is 650 megs, and is basically a 10.1 installer that checks to see if you have 10.0 installed then replaces it. They didn't want to keep having their bandwidth sucked dry.
      2. I think it's a GOOD thing that Slashdot 'let this slip through'. The editors didn't make any comments about it being good or bad, they just posted the news and let people make up their own minds. This is good journalism. They're informing the public about competitors bitching baselessly and unfairly, and I'm glad it was posted. News is news, even if it is unfairly anti-microsoft.


      --Dan
  17. My Take by DaytonCIM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 .Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual
    Machine.


    I smell a fight here. Microsoft is betting on the .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.

    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.

  18. My experiences with Win2K & Dell by dcavanaugh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  19. Re:this should be COMPLETELY OK by Reid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MS has a monopoly. McDonalds does not. Therefore, the same does NOT apply to MS.

  20. Re:this should be COMPLETELY OK by dillon_rinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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