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
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.
I'm gonna wait for "Windows XP: Reduced resource consumption edition." [/troll]
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?
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.
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.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.
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?