Slashdot Mirror
Inside Windows XP Reduced Media Edition
An anonymous reader writes "Flexbeta.net has got it's take on Windows XP Reduced Media Edition, which is basically Windows XP Pro stripped of its Windows Media Player. To sum it up, there is hardly any noticable difference between XP RME and XP Pro, except for the welcome screen and Windows not recognizing their own file format. The article hints how this may be the beggining to a Windows OS without any Microsoft applications. Bye-bye Internet Explorer?"
An anonymous reader writes "Fastfoodbeta.net has got it's take on the Big Mac Without Cheese, which is basically a Big Mac stripped of its cheese. To sum it up, there is hardly any noticable difference between BM w/o C and BM, except for the wrapper and Mcdonalds not recognizing their own ingredient. The article hints how this may be the beggining to a Big Mac without any McDonalds condiments. Bye-bye Secret Sauce?"
How about call me when there's Reduced DRM Edition.
-1 (Troll) is antihammer
oh my god ! they will soon throw out my well beloved WordPad !!
Microsoft would/could never remove or admit to being able to remove IE from the OS. It is as they say "Integral".
It's not like I care anyway because I am too busy trying to switch everyone I know over to Debian.
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
... I thought Europe still had some objections to the words "reduced media"?
If it were cheaper, than you might have something.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
..not dell, not compaq... why should anyone sell pcs with a OS where u need to after-install such things as the media player? MS knows that no one will do that.
That's exactly what this is!
So, How much does it cost to upgrade from regular WinXP Pro?
Other than Windows product activation, the only digital restrictions management that I know of in consumer-level Windows is the Windows Media DRM layer. With WiMP gone, that's gone too.
Actually, that would probably solve more problems than it caused. ;-)
If you look at the list of files removed from this version, it includes a bunch of DLLs and OCXs that are supposed to come standard with Windows - media playback libraries, etc. What purpose does it serve to remove these files? All you're doing is breaking third-party applications that rely on them! I imagine that if you tested various games and multimedia apps on this version of Windows, they wouldn't work. Now I have another problem to worry about when releasing Windows software... how to deal with machines running this Crippleware edition of Windows.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Many times, when people compares the GNU Operating System against the Windows Operating System, they make a misleading comparation, since they are comparing a FULL OS as GNU (That is, a kernel, basic system software, librarys, Graphic system, video and audio applications, office suits, browser, IM, compilers, editors, games, etc,etc,etc), With just a kernel, a graphic system and shell, basic system software, and the only 2 major apps that came with windows, which are windows media and ie.
Now, with microsoft trying to show that they are not a monopoly, they are striping down their OS, so, installing windows, only installs a kernel, librarys, a graphic shell, and a browser. That's it. While Free Software is going in the opposite directions. A Full install of Slackware gives you 2 gb of fully functional, quality software that you can start using. May be people will start noticing this limitations, and it will help people to switch.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I can't wait for that one to come out! The rumour is that it'll be released with Longhorn and Duke Nukem Forever. I pre-ordered all three last week because some nice man (of some importance, I believe) from Nigeria emailed me last week with the exclusive offer!
This sig left blank for page turns.
If Europe's justice system manages to break up Microsoft into separate OS, app, devtools, and media companies, I might finally start a campaign for dual citizenship.
--
make install -not war
I think you're missing the point. The un-bundling of these apps is not because they're broken (even though they are), it's that being preinstalled constitutes a monopoly abuse.
What I'm saying is that this reduced edition really is superior, because it's easy to convert it into the full version, but not vice versa.
Yes, the majority of microsoft's evil annoyances are still there, but this is progress nonetheless.
It just won't sell: nobody wants to buy something that has the word "reduced" in it's name. Microsoft will stop distributing it after a while and just say: "it was a flop, the customers don't want it".
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
can you imagine? All the viruses, worms, spam and other nafarious programs would suddenly just vanish!
Wow. It would be like the internet back in the 80's but with better content.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I must purchase XP workstations for our facility. I would jump on getting only the features of XP Pro that I need & not getting those that I don't for a reduced cost in a heartbeat. Depending on the savings, I might even use it on more workstations than I currently do. But why not just get XP Pro & choose not to install the media components if they cost the same? XP Pro will have the media components if you ever need them, but you aren't forced to install them. Furthermore, with wider deployment, support/upgrades are likely to be cleaner. How does this product have any value?
The point is that OEMs are now free to bundle a media player other than WMP, e.g. WinAMP or iTunes (or Joe's Hardware Store's Shiny Media Player Version 0.45BETA). The only people who will get an OS without a media player are the ones who bought the boxed version, who presumably know enough to install a media player (and if they don't, they really shouldn't be installing an OS).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Windows media player is buggy piece of crap anyways. I prefer winamp and vlc player instead of the included ms bloatware. lots of the included apps in windows are buggy memory hogs.
For pretty much every app included in windows there is a better 3rd party alternative, most of them free or even open source
id much rather not have paint but Gimp and Open Office instead of wordpad.
Maybe this is a step towards a stripped down version of windows that *gasp* installs only the bare essentials by default and lets you get what you need later! Sounds like a good idea untill you relize somehow M$ probably figures they shoould charge MORE for a product with les features
Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
Or leave it to the computer distributors to bundle their own? Kinda like DELL may include different CD creation stuff then HP, this would just extend it a little further. It's not like Windows is like linux and comes with 3,000 - 10,000 apps, I mean you would need a media player (winamp or itunes), a web browser (firefox or opera) a simple paint program and some games. While they are at it, OpenOffice.org could get thrown in there too.
Regards,
Steve
wow, an operating system that doesnt let you play media files. maybe once they make an OS which doesnt have a browser, they can further gut it by forcing MS to ship an OS without networking capabilities, or the ability to run any programs.
;-)
Actually, for business purposes, removing 'frivolous' functionality like Windows Media Player could be really useful. I suppose it's one way of reducing the number of 'hilarious' videos and TV adverts being forwarded by office workers...
Myself, I spent a few hours last week beating WinXP Professional into a less intrusive, non-ugly mode. There are only a few Windows apps I actually need to run on my home PC (namely, games and the Source mapping SDK stuff!) and most of the included Windows applications are junk to me. If this Reduced Media thing had been available when I ordered my stuff, I would have got it...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
The big question: Is there a performance improvement without all that fluff? (Especially on older PC's)
This is what I really like about Linux, stuff is turned off by default. This ensures security and saves valuable resources. Microsoft seems to have everything enabled out of the box.
Certainly not. http://ubuntu.com/ was way ahead of them with this.
I'm gonna wait for "Windows XP: Reduced resource consumption edition." [/troll]
Frustrate the courts. Frustrate the people.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The big question is, will this be popularly renamed 'Windows XP WTF Edition' (WTF=what the fuck) by the regular users who it is foisted onto? Most average users aren't frantic about preventing Microsoft from preinstalling a Media Player.
Zealots: the ball is in your court now to convince 'regular folks' that this is a good thing.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
>So how does the end user benefit from this decision? In my opinion, they don't.
Exactly.
The whole thing was a stupid PR show by the stupid Euro bureaucrats.
When the whole thing was about to unfold, it seemed like some sort of politically-correct push against US-based Microsoft and a welcome boost for the home-grown SuSE and Mandrake.
Well it's 2005 now; Mandrake has been marginalized, SuSE was lucky to be acquired by IBM (their proxy Novell, that is) and enterprises are back to buying U.S. software (Red Hat, SuSE, Microsoft, Solaris, OS X) and services.
On the multi-media side, Windows Media Player has been replaced by another proprietary hardware-software combo (iPod).
And Windows customers are extra bothered by the crippled Windows version for which they have to download a multi-MB media player software (as most of them are 10MB or more).
Congratulations to the stupid Euro government!
...its kind of like a kick in the junk to the consumers, so they'll get upset about it.
Waaa, I can't play WMAs!!! Why'd the government do that to poor Microsoft???
"Reduced Media Edition"? How about "Whine and Bitch Edition"?
It is my understanding that one of the alternatives proposed by the EU was that MS include both their own media player + the real player (& maybe quicktime?), all with equal placement.
Can someone confirm this?
For the consumer, that would have been the ideal solution.
On one hand, probably a majority of Microsoft's practices are a bit shady (like trying to name a product 'reduced media edition' - that's in part why I'm slowly switching to the Mac. On the other hand, as a consumer, I like the idea of OSes bundling software. OS X and Linux both typically come with tons. Saves me money in a lot of cases. So hey, if in the future Microsoft wants to bundle Antivirus and antispyware solutions, go ahead. Not to mention that WMP 10 was pretty good, certainly much better than most all the alternatives - like RealPlayer. Maybe bundling software will encourage companies like Real and Symantic to stop making bloated subpar software. And if companies like Real went out of business, would many people really be upset?
It's silly that MS has to remove applications from Windows, they should be foreced not to install every single application and feature by deafult or at least give the end user the option to uninstall them.
As it is now most people will not bother to get a better application simply because: WHY HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS INSTALLED THAT DOES THE SAME THING?
I build my own XP Pro CD's, stripped to the bone, just the way I like it.
You see to be forgetting the reason that MS's opponents cannot beat them in the marketplace, which is that MS broke the law by abusing their monopoly.
Do you think MS should be above the law?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
" they started to shift their fight into legislating Windows into a product consumers won't want. "
No, Microsoft already took care of this since the release of Windows95.
Right. MS has sold almost 250 Million copies of XP.
The article hints how this may be the beggining to a Windows OS without any Microsoft applications.
since the edition in question is only available in the eu, its existence is irrelevant to the rest of the world, and will probably cease to exist entirely after a few more legal rounds.
This version is not about forbiding people viewing videos.
It's about being able to REMOVE it if you want. You can install WMP again.
You can forget about MS dropping the networking code from Windows XP. You need networking in order to connect to the Internet and intranets, and I don't think people want to go through the hassle of downloading, installing and configuring a networking client like users had to do with Trumpet Winsock back in the Windows 3.1x days.
But in reality, dropping Windows Media Player from Windows XP is actually a good thing. That will allow users to download the latest version of Windows Media Player that supports more external multimedia devices.
I think this would be a brilliant new branch of Windows for the office, if only they would continue the path. Think about it. Windows, on the office desktop, with no extra's at all. No software that a user will not ever need, no software to block rights to use to, just a plain OS, with all the 'standards' and 'compatibility' from MS, with that GUI, which is familiar to the user. That, I think, would be an extremely nice move by MS.
If it comes without ie,oe,wmp,etc.....how often will it still need to be patched?
3 times a year?
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Sarcasm is good for... well, for ths soul I guess.
Not including WMP will make people see and understand, that Windows is NOT WMP+IE+OFFICE+OUTLOOK, but just an OS. WIll make them see and understand, that they can choose what they want to use. f they want to use WMP, so be it, with 3to5 clicks it can be installed, just try to play a video file, you'll see. But maybe, just maybe, there will be some of them, who will start looking for replacement applications, whoch there are a'plenty, very good ones also, and maybe they willr ealize that only because a big cash gorilla tells you that you cannot live without him, it is not necessarily true.
Maybe it will turn some people to understand that they should believe their eyes and experience more than a company telling them whatever they see fit.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Come on. Who's got some mod points. You've all gotta admit, that was good.
I'm determined to reclaim my karma. Now, if I can only find a groundbreaking article and something witty to say....
There is a simple reason why you wouldn't want to remove IE from the system: You install windows and want to download firefox from the internet. Now give me one good way that doesn't request user to have 5 years of experience with dos, ftp or similar utility to do that? Remember: bundling something like lynx with Windows is the same as bundling IE... so what can a newbie with only a brand new computer & Windows CD do now?
;)
The usual "If modem doesn't work download new driver from the internet." problem.
You telling me that Boeing isn't subsidized by the US? *ahem*
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
As far as I'm concerned, the US government is turning a blind eye to Microsoft's activities, effectively being a blank check to do anything they want.
BTW: 1/2 of all workers on the Airbus A380 project are USA workers.
Fedora Core 3 is pretty modenrn, and it comes without MP3 support. Rhythmbox refuses to play MP3s at all without any error or warning, luckily XMMS gives you a handy message.
Better safe than sorry, I guess.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
So "Reduced Media Edition" is a stripped down version of XP Pro, meaning they are going to charge more for RME than XP Home, right?
Why don't the antitrust folks just give up on this sort of BS. There is no way anyone is going to force Microsoft to compete fairly short of (a) splitting the company up into a dozen different ones which each control one piece of software, or (b) forcing Microsoft to sell the rights to older versions of their applications and OS to the highest bidder.
No one is going to buy RME because Microsoft will price it so that it never sells. I would buy a $25 or $50 copy of Windows 98 SE if some other company was selling and supporting it though.
...strip out all of the applications (what half of them are doing embedded in there I'll never understand) and just make a nice list during installation so that users (or companies selling preinstalled windows) can pick and choose what they want installed. They shouldn't throw apps out completely, but they should include them on a CD so that users may chosse what they want. This way we could have WMP or IE if we wanted to and if not, then we can just say no.
Silly rabbit
If taking out some apps from being bundled will make people to give up on Windows that would proove one thing: Windows cannot survive without all the bundled wares. Which, my friend, is quite true.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
How is this 'solution' serving the consumer, at all?
:}
Instead of stripping functionality, why not force MS to inform the consumer that alternatives do exist? OSX comes with IE and Safari... why not force Windows be bundled with WMP, Quicktime, etc...? But not Real Player for the love of god!
Of course, then it becomes a question of which media players to bundle, and why give those company the upper hand over other competitors. But still, a solution on those lines seems more reasonable.
The EU failed when they only insisted RME should be offered as an option. What they should have done was forbid the sale of the full version of XP in Europe. This is a remedy that is applied in other anti-trust/competition cases, and it should have been done here. Sure if people want to buy it outside the EU and ship it in for personal use then let them, but it shouldn't be available for sale in the EU at all. The EU Commission has displayed a remarkable, and depressing, lack of nerve.
Billg must be laughing into his wallet, he's won again. This is the reason MS aren't appealing the refusal to overturn interim relief until full trial: because they dont care it doesn't matter. XP RME will sell a dozen copies in Europe - tops.
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
Jeze, "Reduced Media Edition"? Every time Microsoft doesn't get their way they have to make a big stink about it.
Ultimately the removal of the media player is something their CUSTOMERS WANT! This is just another glaring example of how Microsoft stopped listening to their customers a long time ago and set their design goals for whatever gives marketing management a hard-on.
Consider back to a time when Microsoft Windows was more of an "Operating System" and less of a "Do everything and swipe everyone's idea" piece of software. Had Microsoft focused the majority of its' considerable talent on the creation and refinement of their operating system they would have wiped out virtually all weaknesses in reliability and security. But instead, they wasted their resources developing ideas that they swiped from other creative companies and individuals. Often incorporating half-assed application efforts into their OS. Removing the Media Player wasnt their idea, but it could be their salvation. Microsoft/Bill - Dont stop there!! Return to your roots!! Build the best OS and stop diluting your efforts.
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts", Earl Weaver - Legendary Coach of the Baltimore Orioles
Would you like to see a Super-Reduced Windows in future with no WMP, Windows Movie Maker, Paintbrush, Outlook Express, Windows Messenger, MSN Explorer plus bunch of other s*tty software you don't use anyways which would cost half the price of UnReduced Windows? Why pay $200 for OS with stuff I don't use if you can pay $100 for OS without that stuff? All this litigation is about giving people choice not to pay for stuff they don't need.
If it's so important, HP or Sony or Fujitsu or someone else will just bundle WMP again.
HP already bundles iTunes, for example. Will users actually notice/need the lack of WMP? Maybe, but it now becomes a differentiator; Sony offers build in ATRAC and other, Fujitsu does WMP, and HP does iTunes.
GPL Deconstructed
Even with the strip down version, they can still put a FTP links on the desktop to help user download Windows Media Player and IE, right?
============
Mathematics will always come back to hunt you down, in so many ways
Antitrust law is kindof odd when it comes to software, since bundling and monopolies are much more natural in the software industry. Once you have your code working, it often makes sense for commercial products to standardize to a single product or two since very little money is required for maintenance and newcomers have a hard time paying the high cost of entry. Likewise, bundling thinks like 'windows explorer' (not IE, but WE) which used to be a separate application often makes sense. I mean, heck, auto sellers give floormats with each car. Should they have to remove these non-essential items to allow other floormat makers to compete? That doesn't mean I agree with all of MS's tactics, but the one which they were taken to court for, bundling IE with windows, they seem to have a decent case for. Morally anyways.
Of course, you'll always have open source competitors, but the commercial ventures can price themselves just low enough to discourage new commercial players.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
This script will allow you to configure Windows XP just the way you want it to be and even allow you to not install applications that are installed by default. Check http://unattended.msfn.org/ for a good guide to get you started.
Did anyone besides the Judge believe him when he said this? It was a lie so bold only a lawyer would believe it.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Does the term "bad faith" mean anything to these guys?
If I were going to require microsoft to do anything it would be to offer a standalone windows update application that would work without internet explorer.
I'm seeing a lot of posts today asking why anyone would go to the store and buy an XP without WMP installed or what benefit it poses to the consumer. I'd tend to agree with most of the posters that the benefit to the consumer is essentially none.
As I recall, however, the whole point of the RME edition was so that OEMs had greater flexibility in installing software on their Windows machines. This was supposed to foster competiton in the media player business since certain lines of computer would come with Real or maybe Quicktime or some other player.
The actual problem here is that media players are media specific since the file formats are all proprietary. You need Quicktime to view qti, Real to view rm, and WMP to view wmv files so unbundling WMP only screws the end user in that they've now lost default access to one kind of media. If the EU wanted to really foster competition they would mandate open standards on media file formats (I realize they can't do this- but hypothetically...) and make players compete on the basis of, well, being good _players_ and not by edging out the competition by creating proprietary de facto "standards" (.doc anyone?).
Hey, I put a smiley which makes it Officially Not A Troll. :)
The solution is simple:
When listing the System Requirements for your software, explicitly specify Windows XP Home and Professional.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Comments like this always amaze me. What an assumption! There do exist historians who heave read and written huge amounts on the period, and come to the conclusion that large corporations supported anti-trust, precisley to use the power of government over their competitors. Murray Rothbard springs to mind.
There are plenty of good and juicy anti-competitive practices that are fodder for anti-MS complaints. But this whole issue of bundling common software isn't one of them. Let's forget about the nerd's-eye-view of what an operating system is or is not for a moment. Microsoft sells a software platform. Most people who buy that software platform expect to do certain things with their computer -- playing common media formats is most definitely one of them. And so is surfing the web.
People say that by including these applications they become defaults. There are alternative media players and alternative browsers, but many people don't seek them out. So what? Why is that Microsoft's responsibility? It's not. When you buy a new car, guess what -- it comes with four tires! There are many alternative tires on the market, but most people just drive what comes with the car. Some may argue that, well, the tires are not made by the same manufacturer as the car. But how does this give the buyer any more choice? A single vendor has been selected by the automaker. Buyers aren't asked which vendor's tires they would like.
The argument that an OS doesn't "need" a media player or a browser is a slippery slope that fails the test of people's expectations. Does a car require a radio to move people from A to B? Nearly every new car today comes with one, made and/or selected by the car manufacturer. Again, there are alternatives on the market. Want a different radio? Go buy one, then.
In fact, the claim against bundling IE is weaker today than it's ever been. When the Internet was a peripheral utility, like a spreadsheet, there may have been some case that MS needn't bundle it with the OS. But now usage of the Internet is a primary reason most people buy a computer. Microsoft has every right to provide its customers with what they expect, including the ability to browse the web and play common media files out of the box.
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices have nothing to do with what they bundle. When they put up obstacles to alternative choices, *that* is a good reason to complain. Indeed, Internet Explorer should be easily uninstalled. There is no problem with bundling it, but the user should be able to remove it with ease. When they choose not to support common media formats *in spite of* user expectations, that is a good reason to complain. See, for example, their lack of bundled support for MPEG2/DVD playback (MCE notwithstanding).
For the record, I strongly prefer open source solutions to MS. But what should we make of the fact that the most popular Linux distributions include far more "out of the box" bundles than Windows -- including web, word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets, etc. Why doesn't the argument that users "will just use what came with it and not seek out alternatives" not apply here? Microsoft has every right to provide as much functionality that it believes its customers will want. Criticizing them for that is what is anti-competitive.
Given the variety of truly anti-competitive practices MS has undertaken over the years (OEM restrictions, software obstacles, embrace-and-extend-and-patent tomfoolery) it's sad to see the EU "take a stand" and demand MS stop doing one of the things that is actually entirely within its rights. Nobody is the better off for it, and MS gets to play the martyr and claim persecution.
-Aaron
Yeah, those foreign people are just trying to subvert and destroy 'merika so that they can take away the 'merikans God given right to have MARKET SHARE.
THEY ARE TERRORISTS!!!! WE MUST LIBERATE THEM!!!
This has to be one of the most blatant examples of how ugly the Ugly American has become. Sorry fella, because a foreign government doesn't bend over for their corporate master (a la prezitend bush), it doesn't mean they're out to destroy Microsoft.
It's called a "law." Maybe you remember that from a few years back. I know, I know hasn't been much use of those things for about 4 years now, but I'm sure you can remember them.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
So this new product has never been made available through retail channels. Why is that? Because there is not enough popular demand for it.
So EU forces Microsoft to offer this product with reduced media capabilities. But why didnt the EU prevent Microsoft from selling the full version of Windows? Without such a ban of sale, the whole Reduced Media Edition is moot because it will not be available anywhere.
Thats a great example of very very short sighted decision by the legislator. Now, technically Microsoft has fulfilled the sanctions - but to exactly ZERO effect for the consumers.
--- Eat my sig.
How could we do without IE?
How else can you download and install Firefox on Windows?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
You need not worry about this as Gates has already said that this version of Windows would be impossible to create.
"Windows XP Reduced Media Edition" Ya, smart naming on Microsoft's behalf ... do you think the end-user might stop to wonder if they are missing something from the OS?
My suggestion: "Windows XP Media Choice Edition"
or you could use nlite to make an install cd of windows without any extra junk
http://nuhi.msfn.org/
No, only idiots have thier Windows install infected with viruses and spyware.
:P
You just have to be careful when running windows, that's all. You know, not running around and clicking on everything like a little child. Some knowledge is required to be safe on the internet, or linux.
It's kind of exciting actualy to work with such a dangerous OS
But Microsoft has already benefited from antitrust laws. Or
did you think that IBM would have given Microsoft the deal it did if it were not for antitrust?
Also, would the OEM's form a cartel were it not for antitrust law?
And what about the 1958 consent decree signed by AT&T? How would Unix have developed in that case?
Maybe -$50. If that's not enough you can ask for the same as a tax deduction.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
You just brought back a nostalgia moment for me...
I remember downloading Trumpet Winsock/configuring PPP/etc....
Ahh the early days of the "public" internet... things were much simpler then.... searching public FTP's for your various programs/files of interest....
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
but hardly OOo, and definitely not with the "buggy" WiMP claim. Mine pops up reminders to respect copyrights, but I doubt that's a bug. Though I must agree VLC trumps it in functionality and source open-ness.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I personally don't mind wmp it works for what video clips i need to view with it and having it be one less thing to download is a bit of a good thing. Although xmms makes a much better mp3 player.
my isp has invisible caps and the less crap I gotta download the better.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
Who cares about Windows Media Player? I would much rather see Windows without IE, or at the very least with the option during install to not install IE at all and install FireFox instead (you know, a dialog that asks you which browser you want. Since it's theirs, they'd make IE default, but at least you could choose not to have IE at all).
Is Reduced Media Edition cheaper than XP Home? If so, that's cool since you can buy it and install DivX or QuickTime or WMP and have a fully functioning PC for less.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
"Internet Explorer" the application is simply a wrapper for some OS-level objects. I doubt, for instance, that the stripped-down system ships without the MSHTML.dll. Microsoft wasn't kidding when they said they'd literally put the browser into the operating system, and it's the reason many rolled their eyes when Judge Jackson equated removing IE with deleting the shortcut icon from the desktop. It's the reason that so many Windows apps have what looks like a web page as part of the GUI. Check out the artist details panel in WinAmp, for instance.
I'm certainly no expert, I'm sure in the fine tradition of Slashdot many will dog-pile on to nitpick my description (I'm sure there are other DLLs and objects in addition to the one I mentioned). But the fact remains that IE is built in to the OS.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
I use a warezed copy of xp pro corporate (VLK).
:-)
I use it exclusively because of zero activation and home can kiss my ass. I use a keygen called MSKey4in1 (google it, quite nice) so i can CRAFT my product id to have my product ID look like this:
55274-640-XXXXXXc-23YYY
XXXXXX is customizeable, same with 640 (except why would any one wanna use something other?), c is a check digit, and Y is a random integer generated by setup each time it is installed (helps keep product id and activation random each installation). The rest of the numbers not spoken about are CONSTANT based off the edition of windows and the keygen.
don't use XPKey, it's dumb, zero key control and most of the time you get a product ID that isn't 640. Don't use keys off the internet, they're usually banned and have the product id of:
55274-640-0000007-23XXX
or something else that i don't remember.
Remember kiddies, microsoft can only see the product ID made by the key, not the key itself, so 5 different looking keys could be the same key in the fact they all produce the same ID.
Leeching is a skill and/or an art, or illegal, however one looks at it
So, basically, with the information i've provided above, any attempt to verify the authenticity of a windows license is almost bust without doing product id cross referencing to persons, computers, and/or organizations/corporations.
For those who know how to leech, it is no longer an issue, for those who don't, get educated.
I promote GNU/Linux over windows anyway and the main reason i won't pay for windows is because of it's leaks. I am stuck using linux because I am locked in with steam and lack of 3d acceleration on my card's chipset with ATI's drivers.
p.s., this message was sent behind tor, a random proxy circuit creator, so don't bother tracing me back!
Moderators: moderate this post based on information sharing and not on promotion of warez
Doesn't the EULA hav better things to do with their time than harass American companies with meaningless bits of anti-business legislation?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Your confusing a point here. Windows Explorer was previously a seperate application. That application was replaced by IE. WE no longer exists, all that exists now is IE renamed to WE and a graphical frontend for it that makes it look like the IE we are used to. This is why you can now view your desktop as a webpage and such. In win95 explorer was a shell NOT an html renderer.
So, what's the big deal?
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
On the contrary: if Windows includes basic antivirus, then Symantec/whoever has to come up with Double Super Plus Turbo Extended Anti-Virus. It has to have New! Improved! features just to be a saleable proposition compared to the freebie thrown in with Windows. This virtually guarantees it will be bloatware.
The other thing is that the large majority of users will never bother installing any product other than the basic one included in Windows. This shrinks the potential market for competitors and will inevitably drive some vendors out of a previously viable market.
In the short term, bundling is good for the consumer, because it's "something for nothing" but in the long term it's driving competitors in other markets out of business by bundling software at below cost with a product in which MS has a near monopoly, and that's bad for competition and bad for consumers.
THAT's what the EU Media Player case was about.
Why remove this? Who cares? I use WMP for my video files, powerdvd for my dvd's and vcd's and itunes for my music. I know people say oh you need to look at alternatives yadda yadda, and I have. I always come back to WMP for my basic video files. Its stable, easy to use, looks decent, and has never given me a problem.
Wouldn't this be the first modenrn OS that doesn't let you play music out the box?
:-(
No. Linux is also considered to be a modern OS and it often doesn't include MP3 playback out of the box. OGG, yes, MP", no... Licensing issues
The only distros that don't have Mp3 playback support that I know of are RedHat and Fedora. RedHat isn't the only company that produces Linux, and actually, percentage wise, I believe it has the smallest market base (excluding RHEL for servers).
I don't really care if WiMP is on the system or not. I don't use it, and it hardly gets in the way (of ZoomPlayer, MPC and VLC).
I'd much rather see a "Internet-Free" version, if that's what they'd call a IE-free version. Now that would be interesting!
Although they've agreed to change the name to something that sounds less like "stripped down, less-for-your-money" rather than an alternative. (think it was "media free" or something like that)
///<sig
What they should have done is they should have forced Microsoft to put together windows installer which would allow to deselect (or select) WMP when installing the OS. Kind of like you can deselect Quick Time when installing Mac OS X.
As things stand, they've simply screwed system builders and consumers without helping the competition much. The first thing that any self-respecting user does is he installs updates. And I'll be surprised if WMP doesn't appear in the list of optional updates right after you go to windows update site.
Yet another solution would be to force links to competing players, along with a link to WMP be put onto the default desktop. So you'd have a choice what to install and what not to install. Of course most people would just install WMP, because it's the best windows media player on the market right now, but that would be their choice.
I frequently remove IE from Win98 for customers using 98lite from http://litepc.com. I haven't tried the 2000/xp version.
You forget that the world is 99% idiots and 1% /.ers.
/.ers?
Or was it 99% intelligent people and 1%
Besides, with Window's being the premier OS "for-dummies," why should the target audience have to put up with spyware? Blaming it on their personal failings is like saying MS isn't doing such a bad job.
Typically, unattended installs are fine (more than fine to the extent you can fix the "Program Files" and "Documents and Settings" idiocy), but opting to remove applications using a custom setup won't get rid of the SFC-managed folders which, despite being empty, serve as a painful reminder that you don't control your system.
Unbundling isn't necessarily a good thing
One of the common fallacies of many software developers (and product designers of all types) is to assume that "everybody is just like me." "Allowing" someone to evaluate alternatives and make choices in order to use a tool they have purchased may not be a great idea. The consumer bought the computer and expects certain functionality--like the ability to play media. A stripped OS, to most consumers, isn't an opportunity to evaluate other alternatives and make the best choice--it's a broken OS. I'd be floored if European electronics stores don't start getting computers brought back because "it doesn't work"--because the consumer can't play MP3s. And when the poor stiff at the Customer Service desk explains that the consumer has to go online to find a suitable device and download it--instead of getting it in the box, for free, the consumer might just wonder what government bureaucrat thought this a better idea....
When unbundling is positively BAD
I've been working with computers for more than twenty years. In that time I've learned a few truths, and one of them is that 99% of the people who use computers are not the slightest bit interested in computer technology. They are interested in doing something, and use the computer to help them do it. A lot of people (I'd estimate more than 80%) have a certain amount of fear about that computer--they've heard all sorts of horror stories, and have all kinds of mental images of launching missiles or causing electrical blackouts if they "press the wrong button." (Digression: I'm also convinced that network admins routinely mention dire consequences like missile launches and urban catastrophes if their instructions are not followed to the letter.) My point: the typical user does not trust the computer. And that's a crucial issue for anybody interested in implementing technology solutions on any platform, anywhere.
You only get one chance to make a good first impression...
I'm a software architect--I design software for lighting control and building automation. As part of that my team needs to present information to the user: some of that information is presented as PDFs, some as HTML, some as JavaScript, some as text, and some as SVG. In order to seamlessly install systems on an end user's computer we depend upon specific applications being present. We don't depend upon Windows Media Player (memo to staff: write a jingle that plays "your lights are on!" Or not.) But we do depend upon having Notepad.exe there (text editor), and we depend upon Internet Explorer being there. They're crucial parts of our product--if they're not there, our app won't work. Take them out of the standard load of every Windows-based PC in the world, and I suddenly have a substantially harder (and more expensive) problem to solve. My customers are far more prone to see errors. My ability to deliver a seamless solution to customers who have an innate fear of the computer is compromised.
The consumer isn't the winner here...
The end result of forced "unbundling" is not that consumers get more choice. It is that consumers are forced to make choices that they have been perfectly content to ignore up till now. And they will be forced to pay higher prices for any technology that, heretofore, depended upon bundled technology to exist--because vendors will now have to write all kinds of additional code to deal with all the possible versions that might emerge.
There real question is how many of these files are needed by programs such as BSPlayer that use the Windows multimedia framework stuff to get their codecs? When you install the DivX/XviD/OGM/MKV/etc .DLLs, they are part of that framework. It's the interface that those players use, IIRC, to communicate with the codecs.
Just like there are some media players for OS X that use Apple's Quicktime framework, so they can only play stuff that you have installed Quicktime codecs for. The notable exceptions will be things like mplayer-win32 and VLC for Windows. I'm not sure about WinAMP and iTunes, but I think that WinAMP uses the framework too. If this is the case, then the 'Reduced Media Edition' is gutted to the point that WMP isn't the only thing that won't work on it.
Anyone care to correct me?
EU (and to some extent you) is barking up the wrong tree. I don't see the issue as a question of people using WMP because it's the default, but more of business targeting WMP because they know it's there and it works.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
nLite: the Windows Installation Customizer
Debian and Ubuntu don't ship with MP3 support "out of the box" either. That would make 3 different Linuxes that fit the description.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
And unfortunately, Microsoft has taken every possible step to thwart careful users with things like ActiveX, providing no way to turn off HTML rendering in Outlook Express, a security model that requires users to run numerous programs as administrator, hastily welding insecure software to the OS, and preventing users from removing any MS Windows component that they don't want.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
OEMs are now free to bundle a media player other than WMP
Oh good. XMMS and Mplayer for everyone.
(or Joe's Hardware Store's Shiny Media Player Version 0.45BETA)
Or they'll just use this as a business opportunity to infect the end users' computers with more spyware, broadcastware, phone-home-ware... more half-butt coded junk that crashes half the time, has buggy codecs which are susceptible to serious exploits, is impossible to maintain.
Seriously. The only real solution for Windows is to switch to something which has a sane competence of network distribution, upgrade, and requires end user maintenance. I'm seriously of the opinion that, if the end user doesn't want to maintain their machine, they can go back to living without it. Really. 10 years ago half the population was able to slack off just fine without computers. What's so important about them now?
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Bad analogy. First of all, you can swap parts in and out of cars fairly easily. You can't swap out WMP from Windows (well, until now). Secondly, no car manufacturer is a convicted monopoly, which abuses its position to enter new markets.
Did Microsoft need to convince people that bundling the atrocity that is WMP was a good thing? No one got the choice. On every other OS I am free to use whatever media player I like best. Even on Mac OS X QuickTime is a media layer and I can throw away QuickTime Player.app and run any number of 3rd party media players that will even play QuickTime files WITHOUT using the media layer.
Can I play Windows Media files without a Microsoft licensed player?
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
It still comes with Directshow, right? So we can continue to use good media players, like Media Player Classic.
Wow, okay I can see why you posted this as AC, as you're going to get unpopular here. Someone's already mentioned this, but I'll build on it: The last competitor to actually engage Microsoft in the "marketplace" was probably Digital. After Microsoft altered Windows 3.x so it would not run on top of competitors' DOS work-alikes, there no longer was a "marketplace" in which to compete, because Microsoft began its policy of punishing wayward OEMs through pricing penalties.
I personally think the whole anti-trust case was a waste of taxpayer money, and forcing Microsoft to unbundle applications is just treating one of the symptoms. I seriously doubt it's going to be constructive, because the problem is that Microsoft has a software delivery channel to almost every commodity hardware PC and server sold. It can be unbundled, but all they have to do is reinstall it through Windows Update.
Think of the advantage you'd have if you could get your software installed on every new PC sold. You'd have a huge advantage in compatibility. You could create proprietary format 'X', then sell authoring tools to your clients, saying: "What our product lacks in features, it makes up for in compatiblity, since it is included with 90 per cent of the new computers sold." And also, "Don't worry about the featureset, because our update software is also included, so your clients can easily update to the newest version."
Aside from services where there is a shared infrastructure (phone, electric), I can't think of another industry where a single company has that advantage. The mantra is that Microsoft's skill is in marketing. I disagree. Microsoft's outstanding achievement is the way they engineered themselves so that they are the de facto software vendor for almost every commodity PC vendor. With that, marketing is a breeze, since they can create the problem and the solution to it. Microsoft could start a new advertising campaign tomorrow that said, "The Holocaust never happened - Oh, and buy Windows!" As long as the OEMs are captive, it wouldn't make a difference.
How can anyone compete with them? It's nearly impossible without endless dumptrucks full of cash. No one is going to want to make that kind of investment, because it's almost guaranteed to fail. Microsoft practically collects a subscription fee from PC sellers, so an investment in the competition is a black hole for funding. The competitor isn't going to be able to survive the battle because they won't be able to get a foothold, and their funding will eventually run out. Meanwhile, Microsoft collects funds annually, and has their pick of the litter, from saturating the media with ads based on falsified studies, to buying a work-alike technology and distributing it through OEM channels. Microsoft's OS sales aren't tied to consumer demand for their product, so they can make only minor changes and use the sales profits to include the work-alike for "free".
This is the Microsoft business model. It's obvious, since there is no other explanation why they have an attention span of a two year old. Redmond largely includes "improvements" to shut out potential competitors, not to meet consumer demand, so they're constantly dropping one technology and moving to another. Microsoft realizes that the key to trapping users is to control their data. Their game plan is to either extend the format, or replace it with their own if the format is protected IP.
There's no other explanation for why Internet Explorer went from browser, to inseparable UI shell component, and now to developer's framework. No one asked for three simultaneously-supported versions of VB. No one asked Microsoft to create it's own brand of Java, only to toss it and let it rot. Likewise, there was no outcry for replacements of popular audio and video codecs, yet Microsoft provided their o
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
why should the reduced windows cost less if the addons are freeware anyways ? :p
So where does one buy this? If I wanted (gasp) to buy this so I could save a few bucks who carries it?
What about Outlook Express? What about the messenger? What about the movie maker?
All of these came with my copy of Windows, and they are major apps which have real competitors. I'm wondering if MS will also get forced to offer versions of Windows with them removed as well.
MS is in the unfortunate position of being recognised as being a monopoly that uses its position to have an (illegal) advantage over others. As you pointed out, they are trying to show they're not, but it won't work until they lose a very significant part of their market share. Until then, every time they try to use bundling (with Windows) to enhance their products, they will get scrutinised, and quite possibly dragged in front of the courts again.
As a comparison, have a look at what IBM went through after their whole monopoly thing. They went a long way out of their way to avoid trouble, and it really cost them. However, they managed to reinvent themselves, and I think it's actually done them good in the long run.
It's obvious enough what effect it would have if MS could no longer include certain apps with Windows. They'd still be available for download for those who wanted them, but imagine what it would be like if MS were not allowed to give them away at all. Would you pay for WMP, the messenger or the movie maker?
As you say, I think a stripped down version of Windows will encourage competition, and give people more of an incentive to consider alternatives.
-- Steve
Start-> Control Panel-> Add remove programs
Select Windows compontents. Uncheck WMP.
Click OK
What's the big deal?
I have an more "fundamental human right" to kick your skinny ass and take all your stuff, that kind of thing is the norm for every other species and was for us till a few thousand years ago. The thing is, society as a whole decided that people going around kicking each others asses and taking their stuff wasn't a very nice way to live and wasn't particularly productive. This led to what you call a "fundamental right" to own property, with armed backup from agents of society (the police).
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Shouldn't your software bundles come from, like, HP, or Dell, or Sony, or Fujitsu?
The only reason to want Microsoft to bundle that software is because you're paying for the OS yourself, IE, Microsoft Windows Bundle Edition.
Microsoft doesn't make your PC. You do, or Sony does, or HP does. I think the only reason Microsoft has that right is because we gave it to them, and now slowly we are taking it away from them.
GPL Deconstructed
The reason to unbundle IE is to allow alternative bundling.
So HP releases an IE version, and Sony does the Firefox version and Fujitsu does the Opera version.
And Microsoft decides to sell the $99 IE version, $119 Firefox version, and the $89 browserless version.
What's so wrong with that?
GPL Deconstructed
This is exactly the problem of too much government intervention in business. If Windows is such inferior software then let the market determine its fate, actions that *force* Windows to be changed will just result in prolonging the inevitable. When Microsoft was just starting there were alternatives and there are (more) alternatives today, they did not start out with ~90% market share. If a product is truly inferior in the eye of the consumer it will not sell (see the N-Gage). No arguments about monopoly status either, before you flame take an economics course!
All your Sybase are belong to us.
Let Fujitsu ship with WMP, let Sony ship with RealPlayer, let HP ship with iTunes, let Microsoft sell Windows:WMP edition and Windows:Reduced, etc.
Why force WMP on the desktop? When a user clicks on a media file, no prompting will occur because an alternative media player will/could/should be available. And WMP is just one of many alternative media players.
GPL Deconstructed
Bundling is not so much an issue of cost, as ease of use. Giving everyone something that does a job, bundled with the rest of a complex system, will ensure that practically everyone uses it. Instead of the competition. That's why this is anticompetitive, monopoly abuse. The price is a separate issue, with its own problems (eg. WMP is "free with your purchase").
--
make install -not war
To me it seems that the problem has been more with an historic problem with Windows' handling of dependencies than anything else, and I think Microsoft dug itself into a hole to some extent... and took a lot of third party developers with it. People shouldn't be forced to have software they don't want, but if they want to use other software that requires it it shouldn't be too complicated to get running.
The point of this was to force Microsoft to split out Media Player to give people more options of what they wanted to have installed on their system... which I think is fair enough. Personally I'd much rather choose what software I get with my operating system, and it still doesn't mean that distributers can't choose to bundle Media Player. It also doesn't prevent people from downloading and installing Media Player on their own, and doing so should solve any compatability problems.
I suppose you could state Windows Media Player as a requirement for your software, and just tell people they need to download and install it first. It's not quite as ideal as having things "just work", but this would have been a standard way to deal with things before Microsoft started bundling it anyway, and it is a standard thing with most other types of software and file formats.
So when has a browser that doesn't follow standards been a good browser?
WMP is not really a problem if you use Media Player Classic, but some of the .wmv/wma's just wont work right in MPC. Ah, well.
(After thought: Everything above 6.4 is just a front end for 6.4, IIRC, and all the interfaces just plain suck. Oddly, even tho WMP6.4 is doing all the work, with out the "front end" some files won't work. Stupid, slimy, underhanded and complete BS, IMO).
The real problem for me at least is this:
Outlook Express needs to go, period. No exe's, dll's, ocx's or setup files at all. no shortcuts, or slimy reg entries that install the moment you look away.
(pause)
And NO more FSCKING IE updates that put all that crap back if you want it or not. No, nein, nada, nill, null...fscking stop it already.
And after that particular virus infection is removed, lets start with:
The animated dog....no more of this crap.
Show extensions by default.
MSN Messenger...I don't want it, ever. Remove every scrap of this PoS.
Messenger service...Ummm..manual by default.
Wireless service...you'd think they'd enable it if a wireless card were present...not by default.
Network over Firewire. Ok, neat idea, but it fucks with domain logons, but you can't uninstall it with out uninstalling all other things network.
Or, hell, I've said it myself: "FSCK IT, I'm going back to 2K, it just works and I'm sick of XP ".
Now that the EU is more bold, take it a step or two further. Start hacking out the crap, and unintegrating components...and you never know, Windows might actually be securable at some point.
Well, one can hope/dream.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I used to run Windows98 stripped of IE (via 98lite from litepc.com) and I think I only ever once ran across an application I wanted to install that NEEDED Internet Explorer as well... and I think it was a later version of MS Office... so I just ended up installing the last version of Office which didn't need IE and was happy.
Most programs that need WMP and IE are programs I don't want to run, anyway.
Other day I was replying to a thread on microsoft.public.pocketpc where the user asked why Microsoft does not include some advanced functionality on Windows Mobile devices.
I replied that Windows Mobile is an OS, and as such only the basic programs are supplied, and developers are working and releasing applications for the platform.
The user didn't want to buy the programs! He wanted everything to be part of the OS and ready to use out of the box.
So, really, what do users want and what do they need?
I unfortunately forgot to include some other points I had, so here's a follow-up:
My take on the anti-trust case is that laws are basically static, and whenever the government attempts to impose specific limitations, it almost always leads to problems in the future. Market conditions aren't static! My comment about Windows Update should illustrate why a specific regulation about bundling is worthless.
A better solution would be to create economic incentive to work around Microsoft by removing some of the legal tools that Microsoft uses to abuse the market. Technically Microsoft didn't break any laws, although they are definitely sleazy. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. One could argue that Microsoft's business practices are resulting in less economic development, and are therefore bad for the market segment they inhabit, and overall, bad for economy.
The centerpiece of the problem is that the Microsoft EULA contains some really nasty rules. They can enforce their requirements by arbitrarily adjusting OEM pricing. They can enforce their pricing by threatening to withhold licensing entirely. If you don't think Microsoft has absolute control on pricing, consider that their pricing has never gone up or down in the face of demand.
So we see that Microsoft can prevent OEMs from seeking out both competing products or any distributor besides Microsoft. In other words, there's no negotiation with Redmond. I think that's the problem that has to be addressed. Here is a way to do it:
Allow Software Licenses to be Resold
If someone other than Microsoft is allowed to (re)sell licenses, it really throws a wrench in Redmond's legal works. It's not actually an arbitrary government regulation, it's a de-regulation. Copyright is upheld in it's purest form, because the seller can't distribute more copies than he has received. An OEM could conceivably strike up a deal with Dell, say, to take advantage of their pricing. If Microsoft attempts to punish Dell, OEMs go to another vendor.
Not only would this give Dell incentive to fight for extra profit, but the only conceivable way that Microsoft could get back complete control is by withholding licensing from all OEMs. Obviously that'd put them out of business. It also makes profitable the idea of software license clearing houses, whereby OEMs could be shielded from such Microsoft tactics as minimum-quantity purchasing, or sales-based pre-purchasing, by purchasing from a third party that buys in volume. And this also creates new jobs in both the OEM and second-hand markets for software. Lower-priced second-hand software may also curb illegal copying.
This is my favorite solution because it doesn't really require any new government regulation, and requires only the oversight to make sure Microsoft isn't buying up all the clearing houses. The downside is that Microsoft may use WPA to do an endrun around this. Plus, it doesn't give any single competitor a tailored advantage.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
...of the end of proper spelling?
BTW: 1/2 of all workers on the Airbus A380 project are USA workers.
Please cite your source for this fact. I do believe that the above statement is a load of accounting trickery / bullshit.
The A380 was / is one of the largest jobs programs for Europeans in the past decade. Over $11B USD in development costs, much of it in the form of 'don't bother to pay it back' grants from European govts.
BTW: I absolutely agree with you on the US govt. and Microsoft issue. The US DOJ's relationship with MSFT would be quite different had Florida used a better ballot in 2000.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Well, first of all, don't install shitty software.
That's what I do.
store clerk: "we got ms windows NT, microsoft windows XP, ms windows ME, microsoft windows 2000 pro..."
lady "I dont' want microsoft windows!"
store clerk: " 'ow about our Microsoft Windows XP Reduced Media Edition, that's not got much Microsoft Windows in it"
lady "I don't want ANY microsoft windows!"
chorus: "win win win win win, microsoft win win, Windows, wonderul windows!...."
I tried installing a full version of AIX 5.1L on my RS6000, configured the network till I could ping yahoo.com. Then what?
To download anything I needed a browser, and I didnt have a browser to download a browser. Netscape 4.71 comes with the companion AIX CD that I dont have. I tried ftp-ing places and it didnt work. I had to download firefox on a windows machine, ftp-share it, download it onto the AIX and then there were a hoard of dependancy problems.
So folks, you need SOME interface to the Internet. What do people use after a fresh install of WindowsXP to get firefox????
Sure some will argue Microsoft should package firefox with it, but shouldnt they just GPL Windows and pour billions into free software? During the early days of the Internet... 1995.. I remember people 'bought' netscape 2.0 or 3.0 to get online, just before IE 1.0, because they had nothing. Accept IE as a tool to get firefox with and appreciate it.
Of course its integration into the standard explorer, and the fact that its always sitting in the memory is what buggers me. I'd rather also have WMP installed, with no hooks into the explorer shell and no parts in RAM, so I can run it whenever I absolutely need to.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
i don't see how getting windows to do less out of the box is good for competition... the people who are not savvy enough to uninstall wmp and add a third party player may not be able to figure out how to get their music to play on windows without calling for support... allowing the user to excude (during installation) wmp, ie, paint, notepad, or whatever app you don't fancy is a much better route. If users don't want to be "forced" to use microsoft applications they should step away from the windows box...
Get your torrents...
This is yet another concession. Microsoft needs to be made to continue making concessions. One step back, then another step back, then another, and another...and another...
This is a very large mountain we're hammering away at, here...But all that needs to keep happening is for us to keep chipping away...keep nibbling at their market share in various areas, (even supposedly irrelevant ones like browser space) tie them up in punitive lawsuits in various jurisdictions in order to wear down their cash reserves via settlements...but above all, keep advocating Linux, and keep working on improving it. As well as the primary reason of introducing new people to Linux's technical and philosophical benefits over Windows, every consumer we can cause Microsoft to lose automatically puts another nail in the corporation's coffin.
The 800 pound gorilla is going to make an extremely loud crash when it hits the ground...personally I can't wait. It will take time, but it's going to happen.
that article is from 2002! And has nothing to do with the European court ruling... maybe if you RTFA you linked to you would have noticed?
"Antitrust support"? Which guy, violating which rights? You're getting into the game really late on this "monopoly" thing. Everyone else, who's been paying attention, knows that when Microsoft uses its market control to also control which competitors get access to the market. Which includes you, and your interests as a consumer. So please, don't waste my time with dilettante libertarian mumbo jumbo.
--
make install -not war
It's not reduced ANYTHING, it's bolted on media and media they will charge you dearly for. That's why it was created; to ELIMINATE piracy.
Leave...
I respectfully disagree--I think you are giving software vendors far too little credit for ingenuity. And I think, perhaps, that you're not recognizing the ways in which bundling helps putative competitors, and helps the consumer.
As I see it, there are three ways in which bundling affects the marketplace:
Creating a marketplace
In simple terms, Microsoft isn't in business to sell any of the tools they bundle. They're in the business of selling the OS--and a key part of that is convincing ISVs (like me) to develop for their OS. To that end they want to provide tools that I know will be there. Case in point: Solitaire. Back when Windows 2.1 shipped (might have been 3.0) the Windows API included support fo a function called StretchBlt. A lot of video drivers claimed to support it--but didn't. A simple way to test the video on the box was to play a game of Solitaire--if the little animation with the cards at the end worked, you knew that the video driver correctly supported StretchBlt. (Windows Hearts did the same thing for Network DDE.) No game vendor lost a dime of revenue or a point of marketshare because of those games--to the contrary, the presence of those games drove support for GDI (Graphical Device Interface) features that essentially created the computer games industry.
Promoting third-party products
Back in the 1990s I had a terrific consulting gig with a database modeling tools vendor. Our most fervent hope was to get a limited version of our flagship tool bundled into Microsoft's Visual Studio tool. Sure--we'd essentially be giving hundreds of thousands of copies of a $4000 tool away--but we expected tens of thousands of new customers who recognized the benefits of the tool and wanted to upgrade to the real thing. Alas--we lost: a competitor paid Microsoft big bucks to get a competing tool included. They went on to fame, glory, and a big buyout from IBM. We never got our stock price above the options threshold, and ended up at the back of the CA catalog. My point? A lot of companies have had their fortunes made by getting bundled into Windows: Rational, Crystal Software, Kodak Imaging, Hilgraeve Software, and a bunch of others.
But you don't have to have your product bundled into Windows: lots of vendors compete directly with bundled Microsoft apps and do just fine, thank you. TextPad, Eudora, Opera, MusicMatch, Real (despite their whining), and oodles of other products directly compete--successfully--with applets that are bundled into Windows. The market for those products exists because Microsoft bundled the applets into the OS--and people thus discovered the tool and some of those people decided to look for something better.
Viciously crushing competitors who deserve what they get
Sometimes Microsoft has, plainly and willfully, wiped out small vendors by bundling something into the OS. Two examples spring to mind: IP stacks and ODBC drivers. Back before Windows 95 you had to buy a third-party IP stack--generally for about $100 per seat. You had to buy a third-party ODBC driver for each database to which you connected from that same seat. A client of mine, considering a PC-based client/server system for a major customer service project, was faced with paying over $500 per seat (for over 400 seats) for licensing of IP stacks and ODBC drivers. And the client was not guaranteed that the drivers would work with the next version of the OS. I had divided loyalties--I was also doing work for the vend
Um--yes, I do. The "thingie" in question is a life safety system. We don't want to get in the customer's way--but we absolutely do want to get in the way of the customer's employee who decides that he'd rather have Firefox installed on the box, and clobbers our real-time control interface. We're not out to create a mass-market application that can be installed anywhere--we're selling a suite of tools that are directly tied to dedicated special-purpose computers that control lighting equipment. My focus (and my budget) is oriented toward providing effective support for lighting control equipment--not supporting every browser in the world. If I get budget for two additional developers next week, I'm going to focus them on supporting additional functionality of our products--not worrying about whether our web-based interface functions on Lynx.
I submit that a) WinAmp is still around (I'm listening to WMAs with WinAmp at the moment), and b) their business has failed to prosper not because of Microsoft, but because they never figured out how to charge money for it. If you make only one product, and give it away for free, you are going to have problems in the business world. The only reason WinAmp is still around is that AOL bought 'em, and hasn't yet shut 'em down.
By contrast, Real Media has figured out how to sell their players--despite WMP being bundled in the OS. Take a look, for instance, at ABC News. You can watch tonight's broadcast--if you subscribe to Real Media's paid-content service. That service benefits--big time--from Microsoft selling the Media Edition (or whatever they call it) of Windows XP. Microsoft is creating the market for them.
Internet Explorer
I shouldn't get into this--the topic can't be discussed reasonably in an online forum without starting a flame war. But I have the misfortune of having read the actual trial court decision, and of having read the briefs and decision of the appellate court. Let me quote an expert statement on the subject--yours: "Every OS includes one, even when there are alternatives." But that's a thread for another place and time....
The point is that OEMs are now free to bundle a media player other than WMP, e.g. WinAMP or iTunes (or Joe's Hardware Store's Shiny Media Player Version 0.45BETA).
They have been free to bundle any media players that they want to for at least the past 7 years. Have you never bought a system and found that it comes with RealPlayer, MusicMatch Jukebox or any number of other players that you uninstall right after uninstalling AOL and a bunch of other useless crap that the OEM put on the system?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Personally I think the court ruling got it wrong - it's not the program that is the problem but the closed format.
The point is third party applications should not rely on them, and these functions could be provided by third party software as well and so they should be interchangable, not rely solely on MS's implementation.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
How about call me when there's Reduced DRM Edition.
I'll sell you this copy of Win 95.
paintball
You are not comparing like with like. If there was one Auto seller with a 95% share of the market for cars, then yes they should be prohibited from leveraging that monopoly into a new area, by subsidising their floormats (or making them non-optional) to wipe out the competition.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
None of the libries listed would have been shipped with win95, and they don't come as part of DirectX. They are no more 'standard playback libraies' any more than winamp is, (and I'm sure some application depend on winamp).
Most audio applications will work without the files, some script kiddie company may have written an application that uses them in vb.net, just like some script kiddie may have used the embedded IE component.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I first read it as "Windowx XP: Reduced Media Edition: All Your MP3 Are Belong To RIAA".
Viz, some kind of DRM story.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I can't count the number of times I've wanted to reinstall IE on various PCs: aside from the lame-ass repair option (which never worked), now the only way to do it is to nuke the whole OS.
Maybe WMP is 'fixable' again!
The problem I have with Microsoft/Windows is not that they include their software with the OS but the fact that no one (this includes others not just microsoft) do not seem to be getting together to make a standard COM interface. By COM interface I do not mean where buttons go etc, but they way the component (in this case a media player) is controlled/embedded used by other software. If all players were based on one interface then anywhere a player is used it should be able to be substituted with another, ie embed a media player into a webpage and instead of having WMP popup you get your favourite player.
Ofcourse this would not be perfect as not all players would support the same file formats etc, but it would be a great start, removing WMP from windows achieves nothing (although given the choice it is still the version of windows I would buy). This goes for Internet Explorer too, they use Internet Explorer in all sorts of things, they embed it in their help programs, in office in explorer. If it was truely component based then firefox could be used in all those situations.
I admit its not likely what Microsoft want to do, they love to say our product is so tightly integrated that it cannot be removed, but adding one more layer of abstraction so that other things can be used as a replacement would fix all that.
It would also enforce more standards, Microsoft would not be able to rely on the browser they use being IE.
meh I've ranted on too long already.
Wouldn't it be funnier to use MSN Search instead? ;)
Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan
Whaddya mean, we can't believe everything we read on the WWW?
I'd check that one again. Half the trick of making such a deal would be maintaining plausible deniability.
Now we have reports that the Empire is unbundling WMP? That's gotta be crap.
Everyone knows that, once assimilated, middleware CANNOT be removed from WinBloze! The Emperor, himself, testified under oath (though the DoJ's documents are indexed SO poorly that it's near-impossible to find anything there) that he'd have to withdraw WinBloze from the market (and, I guess, go out of business) if ordered to undertake the Impossibility Of Removing Internet Exploiter. To back down from that position would open him up to perjury accusations. Don't hold your breath.
I'd keep looking, and (hopefully) find where he actually says this, were it not for the tendancy of The Emperor's very weaselly testimony to make me physically ill. He doesn't know what a browser is ("uh, it's kinda part of an OS, right?"), he doesn't understand how software of any kind (Browsers or OSsen) might be distributed, he doesn't remember _ever_ sending or receiving _any_ email, he has NO CLUE how the PC software market works (despite his public statements that he created it), except that there're all those terrible competitors out there that hate M$, and want its marketshare. oOps - "marketshare, what's that?" He doesn't understand how _anyone_ could accuse him af aything unethical, much less illegal. They're just jealous, because "a few people choose" to use Windoze, and all those "anti" websites badmouthing him just can't stand that.
Puh-lease.
You're sure, again, that he didn't purchase evil, outright?
Maybe he just bought the _licensing_ rights, with Satan retaining the copyright.
Yeah. That sounds more likely.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Hi!
Thanks for your reply. In your comment you mention using cheap mobile phones or Windows Mobile--while we are very interested in exposing control to handheld devices (and we do have an existing telephone interface), I've mostly been discussing our server products that configure, monitor, and control our lighting control processors. Think SQL Server, big disks, fast processors.
Your attitude supports, excuse me, Microsoft's (or any vendors by all means!) viral lock-in strategy.
You're correct. At present we are entirely locked into Microsoft's .Net and SQL Server platforms. We're committed to those tools consciously--but we have been careful to keep at least a theoretical door open to change if need be.
The single biggest benefit of getting sucked into the maw of the Microsoft Borg is, well--the stuff works. It is faster and simpler to develop with Microsoft's Visual Studio than any other development environment; it is brutally simple (although sometimes deeply frustrating) to use the integrated (bundled!) Visual SourceSafe; it is easy to deploy using Microsoft's (and third-party) tools for installation kits. Similarly, it is substantially easier to develop for SQL Server for a variety of reasons--including extensive third-party support for source control, CASE, and development tools.
That said, there is a strong antipathy in any engineering organization for single-vendor solutions. We identify single-vendor solutions as a significant risk issue: we have a single-vendor risk item with the micro-processors we use for our control systems. If we have a single-vendor issue with the software, our risk is multiplied--we are now beholden to both organizations remaining viable. The more single-vendor components in a system, the riskier it becomes--because you're dependent upon all of those vendors continuing in business. I get beat up about this periodically.
We have a theoretical hedge: we have consciously chosen to use C# for development, precisely because C# and the .Net CLR have been committed to ECMA as an open standard. I have tried to hire a co-op student for the past two years to spend a semester developing a port of some of our server applications to Mono--and potentially to Postgres SQL. I never seem to get the co-op; I think part of the reason why is that we have yet to have a single customer express interest in getting the software on any platform other than Windows.
All the rest should be left to standardized interfaces where the local admin (home user, business client) can impose it's choices according to it's whim (which could also be specific interoperability requirements with other important apps).
Unfortunately, in these litigious times, you simply can't leave choices to the local admin's whim. Because if the lights in Exhibit Hall A go out while 10,000 people are inside, a lawsuit is going to happen. And "the customer screwed up the system" is an argument that juries simply don't buy. We have to make the system as robust as possible--and that generally means preventing the local admin from making any choices at all. Oh, yeah--and we turn Automatic Update off as well. 8-)
There's a product called XPLite which allows you to remove Windows Media Player, IE, and virtually any other component of XP without causing severe harm to the system. You can seriously remove ANY component: COM+, Active Directory, Indexing Service, DirectX, or even remove ALL of XP's networking services. Cool stuff.
They've also got versions for win2k, ME (shudders), and 98. You can pull off a working 98SE installation in 41mb.
I'm in no way affiliated with these guys. they just make a cool product that's very applicable to this topic
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Should that not be spelled vuoi?
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
The world is 99% idiots and 1% slashdotters.
However, idiocy and slashdot usership are unrelated.
99% of slashdotters are idiots.
99% of non-slashdotters are idiots.
I am an idiot.
You are an idiot.
Amen.
but you people are stupid. You are so stupid you want the government to decide what gets installed on your own damn computer
did you forget to take your meds?
Which is why I run Debian on x86 or OS X on PPC.
What does the government have to do with anything I've said, anything I've done, or anything you've read?
The government was enforcing the law. Someone complained, 'That was pointless," and I wrote, "No, there is a point,"
What is your point? Maybe you're too smart, so you'll have to use more words to explain your idea to us.
GPL Deconstructed
The "beggining:" Microsoft OS without any Microsoft OS included.
And it will cost $249.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Without Internet Explorer? Exactly how do you propose you get to Firefox.com to download firefox?
Oops never thought of that one did you?
This isn't flaimbait this is a legitimate question. If we remove IE from Windows make sure we also have Microsoft include an application for downloading alternate browsers. Otherwise they can simplly remove IE but include a system only for downloading IE by default. Which would do nothing more than increase the average user's setup time.
And all the withfrosted shall have the limes of the steam. Tho shalt go to Withfrosted.com
# A power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession (the right of liberty) (that all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights - Declaration of Independence)
# A power, privilege, immunity, or capacity the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law (one's constitutional rights)
You see, the first one wouldn't stop me kicking your ass and taking all your stuff. It's all talk. The second one actually means something outside a philosophy lecture. There are people with guns to back it up.
So, in the real world, rights are the things the law allows you to do. Monopolies no longer have the right to leverage their monopoly in one market to compete unfairly in another, just like I no longer have the right to kick your skinny ass and take all your stuff.
Property rights violate my natural right to wander where I please and live off the land, a right anyone had 10,000 years ago because nobody owned the land.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Exactly how do you propose you get to Firefox.com to download firefox?
Oops never thought of that one did you?
ftp? ftp.mozilla.org
220-Contact webmaster@mozilla.org with any problems. 24
220 ftpmoz.newaol.com FTP server (SunOS 5.8) ready.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Well boo fucking hoo.
If a US company wants to sell their stuff in Europe, they should abide by their rules.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Available at http://nuhi.msfn.org/
The difference if that nLite helps you to create an installation CD that can't install what you don't want. It even helps you tweak it.
XPLite works on XP AFTER installation and costs $.
nLite works on XP BEFORE installation and costs nothing.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
How, exactly, do you draw the line?
Should they also be required to make engines optional?
Should 'giving away a free cupholder' be an offense against makers of cupholders.
With cars, we at least have some idea of what a car includes. With software, there are far fewer standards which makes things even more difficult.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
It didn't even do anything!! Oh my no. A worm that does nothing... the horror! THE HORROR!!!
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
MS copied playlists and streams, among others. Which WMP still doesn't do as well as many of its competitors. But it gets bundled with Windows, so it gets free marketshare, regardless of its merit. That's the unfair competition, the monopoly abuse. RealPlayer has its own faults, but it had its own monopoly on stream service/playing for a while, which it used to build a brand in the corporate publishing market. It still competes very well in basic replay quality at lower (and bursty) bandwidth, and has a lot of momentum. So, as I've repeated in this thread, bundling is not everything, but it is an unfair advantage in gaining marketshare. Which means every consumer in that gained share is at a disadvantage in getting superior features, even if that's through their own complacency. The fact is that, given that landscape, the playing field is not equal for competitors because Microsoft is uniquely positioned to bundle apps with its monopoly desktop.
--
make install -not war