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 !!
... 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.
So, How much does it cost to upgrade from regular WinXP Pro?
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
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)
Au contraire, a recent article shows that their new antispyware software removes intenet explorer.
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.
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
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.
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!
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?
Did you just say having Real Player AND WMP installed would be ideal?
*Shakes head*
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.
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
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.
... and in the process they got a 95% market share and all became gagillionaires. I'm all about idealism, but they succeeded at capitalism, which is what this is ultimately all about.
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?).
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
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
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.
What sort of idiot are you? Your PC without Windows would have been cheaper (unless you bought a DELL dude!) ergo Windows is not free. But hey, my doctor says I should be more friendly to people - so welcome to morondot!
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
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.
"Other than the fact that the mere installation of the OS requires DRM, what DRM is there?"
As far as I know, Windows XP activation doesn't seem to matter as much if, like most users, you buy your home PC pre-installed with an OEM OS from a major PC vendor or you buy your office PC with an OS under a corporate site license.
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
...of the end of proper spelling?
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 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.
The thing is, IE is just a wrapper on top of a set of COM components that provide the HTML rendering etc. Removing the IE executable itself is (perhaps) not so much of an issue, but remove MSHTML.dll and the rest and you are likely to break a lot of third-party applications that embed it.
As an example of how common this is, the GMail notifier clearly uses some of the IE COM components to communicate with GMail servers. Although I now use Firefox for web browsing, I have hardened the IE security settings the best I can, so it prompts me for most things. When the GMail notifier starts, I get an IE dialog box prompting me for login credentials to GMail...
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).
If you don't want IE, find wherever iexplore.exe is stored and delete it. Now you can't run IE anymore.
Guess what, that's all IE is -- it's a bunch of HTML rendering libraries (and Javascript libraries, etc.) with a small wrapper application called iexplore.exe. Microsoft was right all along about IE (rather, the libraries that constitute it) being an integral part of the system. I mean really, don't you think Windows, like any other modern OS (I'm thinking Mac OS X here) or UNIX desktop environment (KDE, GNOME), kinda NEEDS to be able to rely on SOME sort of HTML rendering library?
There are various bundled applications that embed an HTML browser. Lacking IE, what do you propose they use instead? You can't just arbitrarily embed any browser's rendering libraries into any application without the application somehow understanding how to do it. The APIs are all different, some browsers lack embeddable browser components, etc.
The day a Linux zealot can take KDE, remove all the Konqueror libraries, and magically have EVERY application that embeds Konqueror as a KPart instead embed ANY browser WITHOUT recompiling the application, I will be impressed.
However, I think you'll find the above challenge quite difficult to accomplish. Why then do you insist that Microsoft be able to pull off the same impossible task?
You're thinking of the simple case -- simply choosing which browser you want to use when viewing a website or an HTML file. It's trivially easy to use any browser you want, and Windows has always supported this.
However, you're neglecting to consider the case where an application embeds an HTML browser as a component of the application (for example, Winamp's minibrowser, etc.). The only way to allow for arbitrary renderers to be used in such a situation is to develop a unified browser API and hope that every browser implements it.
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