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
... 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
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();
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.
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
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..."
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.
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.
Stupid courts for applying the laws to a criminal. What were they thinking?
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
The points are:
- the "reduced media" XP will be cheaper (by mandate of EU)
- if you don't want WMP preinstlled, you can buy XP without, and pocket the difference, then go home and download the media player of your choice, or leave it out
- OEMs will be free to include alternative media players. Back before MS made IE compulsory, it was common to buy an "Internet ready PC" with Windows 3.1 + Netscape + Eudora + etc... preinstalled.
Advantages to users: save money; choice; and vendors cannnot assume everyone has WMP and so will need to supply media in more open formats; DRM hopefully has a spanner thrown in it.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.
Actually I'm looking at it from another perspective... the business owner perspective. This version of Windows now allows me to have a PC with Windows without a Media Player. So now, I can set the user account to a reduced permission, so they can't install much else. And at the same time, don't have to hack with permissions, gpedit.msc, etc, just so employees can't play videos, and music in the office.
If the employee needs it, they will have to first request for it. If approved by management, then they get it. Otherwise, it's basic computer without stuff that can be distracting to work.
Now if only we can get the browser and email program out. Some employees don't need the Internet at all. So not having the applications removes distractions, temptation, and cruft.
This is actually the reason I like deploying Linux desktops for employees... because I can control whether or not they get certain applications. If they need it, they'll have to ask for permission first, rather than have it in by default without any good reason.
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.
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
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!...."
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?
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