Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP N a Bust
mushupork writes "CNN has an interesting article about the just-released Windows XP N.
From the article: 'Computer distributors and manufacturers are so far showing little interest in the new product, which compels consumers to choose their media player and download it from the Internet.' Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?" Similar to an earlier article about the same issue from the PC Makers end.
sounds familiar
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Why would it? I think it'll open their eyes to how much "good" Microsoft's bundling does for them.
Why would the (lack of) avilability of a media player influence my OS decision?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Would there be a point in ordering that the N version is the only one allowed to be sold in Europe? Obviously, there won't be much interest in a stripped down version of the same product, especially if the old product is still available.
see a Text Widget
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
No. Next question?
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
which compels consumers to choose their media player and download it from the Internet.' Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?"
I didn't think the media player was the onlything keeping users of Windows XP or any version. To me, it is compatability with current programs such as Office and Adobe products, and there are attractive alternatives. Media players? Eh, there are 100s of media players for all platforms, it's not that big of deal.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
Huh? Why would the fact that people are not interested in choosing their software package push people towards linux, where that unwanted feature is commonplace!??!
Did the OEMs suddenly lose all their imagination? Or are there not as many "partership" opportunities with media players?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
It's not about CHOOSING which version of Windows you prefer.
It's about The users HAVING TO CHOOSE which software they download.
And if they complain "hey, this doesn't include media player!", you can answer: "It's illegal for monopoly". Then they'll be FORCED to choose and download a product. Yes, sounds sad, but Microsoft FORCED them not to choose in the same way.
The XP N idea won't work if the old version is still available. Doh.
It's because XP-N was the wrong "punishment" to inflict on MSFT.
People like getting free stuff bundled with things that they buy. At worst, don't use WMP and download something else.
When you force the removal of the free media player as a court decision, it's the consumers who feel punished. Now they have to go out of their way to get a media player.
What would have been a better punishment for Microsoft would have been forcing them to open up their APIs and documentation, publish their source code, or split the company up into competing units, or revoke their license to do business.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
No it just means people don't ask, and companies don't want to be seen as giving the 'reduced version'. People don't understand this, and as far as I am concerned, the whole problem with Microsoft and its abuse was cut down to some fairy arguments, and then those were made to stick.
It does a lot worse things.
Anyway, show me a linux distro aimed at home users whose default install doesn't have mp3/ogg/xmms etc.
Happy microsoft got slammed? Yes. Give a shit about the hole XP N thing? No.
Will it open people eyes? No, because form their perspective nothign has changed, unless you meant the distributors, who work on supply and demand, and will start taking space away from their m^2 floors as and when it will be profitable to do so.
Right now, they don't see it. Now the price of hardware is exacerbating the percentage of cost that goes to an OS, *that* might make a difference.
Tallyho.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I doubt that. The article says: "We'll continue to sell the old version because it's obviously better value for our customers," said Gina Jones, spokeswoman for PC World, Britain's leading PC retailer.. In other words, this is a battle between the new and old versions of XP. For the same price, which would you rather buy? The one that comes with the free media player or the one that does not have a media and forces to user to have an internet connection and download a player just to play CDs? I am guessing that most Europeans will look at the two products and choose conventional XP, without evening looking down the Mac aisle.
People aren't interested in a Windows without a media player - it was the competing businesses who were complaining.
Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.
Wastes your time in mind. Why would anyone buy a product with less in it when there's already an established product with more, when the more is really shitty? Tell me. I want to know.
The EU's decision, let's face it, was really fucking stupid and will do no good for anyone. Perhaps, instead, they should've done something more crippling, like take out Media Player in EVERY version and force people to download it. But no, that would hurt Microsoft more than not at all.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
XP N is supposed to be a bust. MS doesn't want you to buy the version some government made them create. They want it to die a quiet death after it serves its purpose of compliance.
It just points out how shortsighted the EU was in making this decision. Instead of trying to figure out what people wanted, they went with what they wanted.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Humpty-dumpty sat on a wall and had a great fall. Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Cnet reported it the first time. I'll hazard a guess that the news here is that the news has spread to CNN, which has a more mainstream readership than Cnet.
I'm not one to back M$, especially around here, but this whole Windows N thing just seems stupid. The EU doesn't like Media Player being coupled with the OS, so they make MS release a version of the OS sans MP, BUT then they still allow the old version to be sold AND they are the same price.
I don't know, maybe i have taken too many Econ classes, but this seems like it is a horribly inefficient punishment that will solve absolutely nothing -- hell it won't even give them those warm fuzzies you get from doing the right thing because it isn't the right thing.
The bottom line is that no rational consumer -- TFA mentioned like 2 people that this would not apply to -- would buy this version of windows. Sorry EU but you really missed the boat (or chunnel as it may be) on this one.
The only way people would choose it over the full version of windows was if it was cheaper. Is it?
As far as I know they do. I used to work with Compaq and all the Presarios from up until HP took over had Real Player, and a lot had Musicmatch Jukebox. Even Netscape was bundled on a lot, if not all, models.
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Humpty-dumpty sat on a wall and had a great fall. Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
This could be the next slashdot meme.
Step 1. Repeat the headline
Step 2. Append "Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?".
Example: New Independent Lego Journal Launches. Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?"
..erm..media player. It must be slow news day. Its official Slashdot is dying. I confirm it. Nothing here to see. Move On.
Why the fuck will someone shift to linux just because Windows does'nt happen to have a
Why the heck you think removing the media component from Windows XP would alter the consumer behavior or it be a fair punishment for a monopoly!
How about splitting Microsoft into smaller Microsofty's..may be based upon the services, one for operating system, one for office, one for its business offerings and so forth. Divide them and have them compete.
You just can not break a monopoly with more than 90% of market-share in any other way!
- Sh!t
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way. The point of forcing an alternative offering is to prevent lock-in to certain software and media types. If I still used windows, I'd feel compelled to pick up a copy of N and use it purely to maintain my own personal dignity. At least then I could say I didn't PAY for WMP.
And let is encourage our windows using friends to do likewise.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
HP pre-installs iTunes as the default audio player.
Dell (depending on the model and buying options) pre-installs their "Dell Medie Experience" app (which sucks) as the default DVD and CD player.
So OEMs can and do install other media players. But in neither of the above cases, do they remove WMP (by selling XP N), and why should they?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Note to self...
1. Browse old story at +5 Funny
2. Post +5 Funny comments here verbatim
3. Watch Karma go through the roof
4. ???
5. Profit!
It's too early to draw conclusions, but this would point to a conclusion 'customers gripe, but happy enough with Microsoft product' given the freedom to choose.
:)
* So now above someone is already mentioning a totalitarian and roughly monopolistic response of "make the choice between XPs illegal, make only the N- version available! Then customers can't buy it!"
* Yeah, we see involving the government in software is *all* about increasing freedom. meh.
* More to the point, if retailers aren't buying into -N, their customers aren't expressing much need.
What, this whole lawsuit business must have been about competitors's business, not about what the customer wanted! (Shock! Amazement!)
I don't know why people think this is hurting MS.
I seem to remember that MS was forced to offer a version without all the bundled goodies, and MS said that nobody would want it because customers want the free stuff.
The EU forces them to do it anyway, Microsoft complies, and then they're proven right because nobody wants to buy the stripped down version for the same price.
It's pointless, really. Just a technicality.
And don't forget when Microsoft sold space on the desktop to those who wanted their products preplaced there.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Got Code?
Like every Microsoft anti-trust solution, it gets "solved" years after the competitors market has eroded.
Remember Lotus? Caldera? AT&T? Be?
Be filed their anti-trust case, and was forced to sell their assets for pennies on the dollar to Palm. Palm received the settlement, but Be as a company was dead.
Be's claim was valid. Even when they offered to give it away for free to PC manufacturers, no one bit. Microsoft threatened to refuse sale of their O/S to any manufacturer that sold a competitor.
Because you aren't the average consumer. They average person just wants to run all the programs their friends do with the least amount of effort. Linux does not fill teh bill for them.
Yes, sounds sad, but Microsoft FORCED them not to choose in the same way.
Gee, that's funny. In the same vein as which you speak, Ubuntu "forced" me to use Totem, and OS X "forced" me to use Quicktime.
How terribly awful. Let's take pitchforks to their respective HQs and demand action!
What does it matter that MS bundles Windows Media Player? I mean, seriously, for the love of god, who really cares? There are so many more things to worry about or to take a critical eye at than something as trivial as a bundled media player (as it's something that pretty much ALL OS distributors do).
Can someone provide me a sound rationale for why the EU decided that such action was necessary? Was it purely a matter of principle?
People like Windows Media player because it's convinient. For the average user they want to be able to play music right out of the box without having to go around installing other software. People simply don't have the patience to search for and then install software especially with all the spyware around these days (that's not to say they won't do it...but they'd prefer not to).
It's standard procedure to download Real Media and websites help people through the process and let them know exactly what they want. Software packages come with QT and Real Player which adds to the convinience.
It's more of a pain not to be able to play media right out of the box.
Would these users benefit from a switch to Linux? Probably not for most of them as they'd find themselves in an unfamiliar environment which is likely to turn them away from future Linux exploration.
internet like monkeys'
"To complete your installation you MUST now choose a media player from the list bellow. ...
Important release note: due to Windows Media Player being an integral part of the OS, choosing other media player may make your computer instable or unusable."
Don't give distributors and consumers a choice. This is about unbundling Windows Media technology from Windows. If this is to be effective, it has to be mandatory.
Customers can still download all the media player software they want either from Microsoft, Real or QuickTime or whatever other sites.
Christian
--- Eat my sig.
You have to go to 3rd party sources to get Fedora/Redhat to do anything with mp3.
I don't even have to mention Gentoo, do I?
FYI, your sarcasm meter's broken, shithead.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
This only shows the market wants full windows, not windows alternatives. This exemplifies the dangers of market intervention. A lot of time, it just ends up having wacky effects. There was a time to intervene with MS and MS has engaged in anti-competitive behavior, but this wasn't the time or issue to take them on.
How in the world can you come to this conclusion? If the OEMs won't bother shipping an OS that asks the consumer to select a media player and download it for the net, how in the world are you going to get the OEMs to push select your own OS, never mind media player? Someone is high again.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
"The N version should be forced as the only available version in Europe or they should be forced to sell it at a discount compared to "regular" XP."
This was proposed but nobody could come up with a reasonable forumla for what the discount should be.
First of all, WMP is available for free at microsoft's site. So what should the discount be for an OS that's stripped of a free component? Logic would say that the discount should be zero.
Even if you don't accept that, how much should the discount be? Someone proposed that XP N's price should be lower than XP's by the same proportion that XP N's number of bytes is lower than XP's. Unfortunately, this would still result in a discount of (virtually) zero.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I don't know offhand if Ubuntu has support for mp3 out of the box but, it's very friendly and at the very least it's easy to play audio cd's and rip them to ogg which is all you really need unless your downloading your songs off of p2p.
Shh.
Because you aren't the average consumer. They average person just wants to run all the programs their friends do with the least amount of effort. Linux does not fill teh bill for them.
You mean like spel czech?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
From the article:
"It's a militant act for a customer to buy the new version," he said.
Vote for Pedro
This is not about success; this is about abusing a monopoly to gain another monopoly.
You're either wholly ignorant of the case, or you're the idiot.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
So, to rectify all this, they pitch this new idea, because monkey see, monkey do. They have to show you the way it's done, and lead you through a tutorial on how to update your OS. For now you pay for the disk when you get XP, then download stuff for free, but the real goal is to ultimately give you a free boot floppy, and make you pay before downloading, right on the web, and thus getting you on the downloading-your-OS-and-keeping-it-up-to-date bandwagon. That's what I dislike about debian and apt-get, or redhat update. Bunch of useless traffic to get the list of new packages, and the artificially created dependency hell, just so apt-get has a real function. I prefer downloading a zip for win32, or tar.gz source/rpm/deb by hand, then stuffin it away on my harddrive so I always have it available, even 10 years from now. If it needs a supporting library, such as vbrun300.dll, or something similar on unix, I'd like to be able to zip them together and stuff them away like that. There are actually some programs I downloaded a decade ago that I can still open up, install, and use happily. But this behavior that I'm doing must be eradicated somehow. The goal is to get you hooked on always coming back to a website, and paying, just like druggies, they give you the stuff for free first, but then you keep coming back for more.
The "N" thing is a dumb solution. MS should have allowed to BUNDLE anything they wanted. However there should be clear and clean options to include or exclude any of the bundled packages and a clear and clean way to REMOVE any packages an OEM chooses to install. Ever install Debian using the Sarge Installer? Ever use Aptitude on Debian? You can install as much or as little as you like and you can uninstall anything you like. Why can't Windows do that? The only bundled piece I have a REAL problem with is MSN Messenger. You can't friggin uninstall it! I actually wrote a "do nothing" application called msmsgs.exe and copied it over the real one to get rid of it!
If anyone thinks IBM or HP or any other company is embracing Linux for any warm and fuzzy reasons you are delusional.
Quite right. Corporations that delude themselves about profit are dangerously susceptible to more hard-headed competitors.
If there's going to be any delusional thinking about embracing Linux for warm and fuzzy reasons, it's up to motivated volunteers to delude themselves.
-kgj
-kgj
To hell with the bundle programs. On my XP box, I have real, windows media, and quicktime. I have both mozilla, netscape, and IE. The only thing that dictates what I use is the format of the file I am trying to open or the compatibility of the website I am trying to load. All those programs can be easily found and freely downloaded. So, this whole decision was pointless.
If governments want to crack the OS monopoly, they need to invest in companies working on alternatives (use the MS fines for that). They should create division within their standards bureaus that will develop and promote open file formats for ubiquitous file types that any OS can support. Most choose MS because they want to be compatible with everyone else. This would remedy that impulse decide their OS based on its merits. As a large consumer of software, they should invest more of the IT budget on alternatives. They need laws that force OEMs to offer alternative OS if the customers so requests. If they can force OEM to pay for recycling programs, they can do this.
Consumers need to be more informed about the technology they used. Its not going anywhere and is permanently apart of our lives. You can do a lot with just any OS with a little effort. They need to definitely evaluate alternatives. 90% of desktop running the same OS is not healthy for the economy or national security (a lot of Western nation should heed).
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Let me explain it again:
MS has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. That means that they are not allowed to use their monopoly to their advantage to get into other markets. By including WMP with XP, they are using their monopoly to push the Windows Media format, and their Media Player (with whatever THEY decide to support) onto the majority of computers, giving them a massively unfair advantage against Real and anybody else.
It's quite obvious why this has happened.
My HP came with Quicktime, iTunes, Real Player and WMP. Can I do without WMP? Sure, the only problem is the codecs. The real question is why don't we have open formats for media files so that you really can use any media player and not have to worry whether it's a .wmp, .mov, ogg or whatever? Qt doesn't play .wmv and Windows Media Player doesn't play .mov. What the hell sense does that make? VLC plays them all, but the OEMS will be damned if they bundle in an open source app.
That saw the headline as.
"Windows XP busts a nut."
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
If they had done what the people wanted they would have done nothing at all.
Owners of competing media players and fringe OS lunatics excepted.
I'm not sure I'd call them shortsighted.. They successfully extorted hundreds of millions of dollars out of MS all in the name of "consumer choice" which we now know was a load of BS.
They just did:
CNN has an interesting article about the just-released Windows XP N....
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
You're not "forced" to use Totem. It's there by default in the install, and if you don't like it you can apt-get remove totem and it is gone. Same with Quicktime - want to replace it with something else? Then uninstall it and do so.
You are "forced" to use Windows Media Player. It's there at the beginning, and you can't uninstall it or its libraries, because they're tied in with various other components in the OS. Not to mention that MS is a monopoly and does this illegally. That's the differenced between being "forced" to have it and not.
The principle was necessary and meant for distributors to bundle their own media players, but this didn't seem to happen, ah well. At least it's a step in the right direction
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
" It only said people were more interested in WindowsXP with Media Player..
Given the same price, would you take the car with stereo or car without stereo?"
Well if the factory stereo is impossible to remove without destroying parts of the car, then without. If for no other reason than so i can easily put an after market one in. Personally though, I wouldnt buy windows N on the off chance that 1) thats not all they took out and 2) the fact that they could have put something more buggy in. Its not open source so how can you know thats all they changed?
besides i switched back to win2k 4 months ago and have far fewer system instability problems, not to mention less random hangs and no more disks mysteriously chugging away in the middle of the night.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Not in the least. Here's what the typical computer user will think:
Computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, and their equivalents over in Europe) know that full well, so of course they don't care for Windows XP Reduced-sales-edition.
The "also offer a crappy version" deal was a huge mistake on the part of the EU. All it does is further convince people that Microsoft is the good guy and government the bad guy.
A slightly better order would have been an "only offer a crappy version" order, in which case OEMs would have to find some other media player to package; they'd probably just roll their own or buy one from someone or something, but at least it wouldn't be MS-everywhere. People might still get cranky, but they'd be less cranky and less misguided in their crankiness.
(Of course, MS would then just license the WMA DRM format to all of those 3rd parties being bought by Dell et al and still have format monopoly. That's why we need to press the issue that *all* file formats that are not 100% open, unpatented, and DRM-free are inherently bad and should be avoided.)
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
so screw the consumer to punish microsoft. that makes a lot of sense. the whole point of TFA is that no one wants XP N. Oh, wait,I forgot, consumers are too stupid to know what they want.
CNN's "Free" Windows-only video and crap web site aside, they're contributing to the trivialization of news.
Please stop linking to them. I can't stand seeing another damned story about a missing white woman while there are real news stories that go unreported.
OK. So usually I stay out of the Microsoft / Linux debates. I've been running Linux for everything short of gaming (although Doom 3 is quite nice) for over 10 years now. And I had my fair share of problems with BOTH OS's in terms of configuring, getting media to play, drivers, etc. Anyway, on to the point: I can sort of understand the antitrust "feeling" surrounding Microsoft. Hey, they did a great job of creating a product that appealed to the masses, with some great advertising and product "positioning" it became the dominant player in the OS world in short span of time. Courts now want to say that since they've developed an all inclusive package people's need for 3rd party software has dwindled and Microsoft needs to strip down their OS to the point of having a mouse and a command line so that you're "forced" to explore all of your options for screen icons, media players, text editors, web browsers, etc without showing favoritism to Microsoft. I have several problems with this narrow minded view: 1) At what point can you say that a component SHOULD or MUST be removed to allow for competition. 2) What is considered the minimum functionality to qualify as an OS. For instance, with RedHat being the dominant player in the enterprise linux field, is it "discriminating" or "unfair" that they bundle XMMS as their default media player. I am hardly inclined to download freeamp or beep if XMMS is on their by default. My favorite was when they tried to argue that Internet Explorer shouldn't be included. Because it's SO easy for me to power up a new windows install and "download" the latest Netscape without being able to "browse" to the Netscape website first (yes, i know the address for their FTP site), but come on, really. Are they going to take away Notepad next to allow for competition with GVIM? I guess what I'm trying to say is, competiting companies need to do their part to advertise and convince people that alternatives exist, but it's wrong to force Microsoft to remove functionality from an OS that I've paid for. How can you define unfair business practices in the software world definitively?
IMO, I would not mind going back to basics 'Windows' wise.
For instance, the media player post 6.4 has been suckage of epic proportions, and yet all it is (my understanding) is a front-end to 6.4.
Gee, a polished turd covering an almost golden egg.
Not much diff, as I've XPlited my installs at work (thx to the boss) or use n-lite.
Use Media Player Classic, in its place.
Then there is Outlook Express (Outbreak Express, Look OUT! Express, etc.) that gets yanked pre/post install.
Gets replaced with Thunderbird (heck, it is taking over where I work slowly, usually with an "oooh, I like that...what program is it?" (SEG)).
Fluff services get turned off (themes diabled, messenger manual and all that), but the most annoying thing is that service packs put things back that I don't want.
But it boils down to making XP like 2000, and it gets harder each update/SP, by design or intentional idiocy on Microsoft's part: Like wireless services are needed *at all times* or networking service and config dies or acts wierd (that was an unplesant suprise).
Hollow victory, it seems to me, but at least Microsoft flinched and complied because it knows which side its bread is buttered on.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Apparently, it is. Windows is supposed to be extremely modular, or so I read from the anti-trust case a while back. It would probably be quite trivial to replace IE with a regular file manager. In fact, I think LiteStep does it (can anyone confirm or deny that?).
There's also this.
The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
the average computer user is about as tech savvy as a roll of toilet paper and you can quickly get a handle on the fact that they don't care!
the vast majority of people don't know the difference between windows media player, quicktime, xine, realplayer, etc, etc. they just know they click on something and fun happens.
it's really insane that this debate continues when it's pretty pointless. and microsoft knows this. they know the average user is just a rodent in a maze chasing cheese.
so XP N isn't going to change anything. unbundling MS isn't going to change anything. heck even if the powers that be say "You must ship MS with FireFox and not IE" it won't matter because most people call it a browser and that's it.
applications are just "things" that allow most users to see and hear "stuff". they could care less if it's from a monopoly or if it's open or closed source. all they care about is that it lets them see and hear the goods.
and that's all just too bad because the unwashed masses don't understand what's actually happening to their experience.
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
Everyone already has a (pirated/stolen/copyright-infringed/shared/borrowe d/whatever) version of XP anyways! Muhahaha!!!!
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
n/t
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
The reason that XP-N isn't selling is obvious - it costs the same as regular XP, and is worse. What a stupid "remedy."
Bundling is considered bad by most pre- and post-Chicago school economists is that it uses monopoly power in the tying product (in this case, the operating system) to attempt to gain monopoly power in the tied product (the media player). Microsoft's strategy, so the EU and Justice Department allege, is to force me to take their crappy Media Player along with their operating system, locking me into it and creating a second monopoly from which they could then profit further - by jacking up prices for song downloads, e.g.
There are a number of reasonable critiques of this analysis which I won't get into here. However, the EU decision obviously provides no remedy to Apple or Real or whoever if Microsoft is allowed to continue selling the goods as a bundle, especially since doing so imposes no additional cost to them other than packaging costs (the marginal cost of the Media Player code on an XP CD is zero). If they were out for anything other than Gotcha!ing a big American company, they would force MS to sell the two pieces of software separately, or at least make MP available as a free download.
Of course, Microsoft doesn't want people to pay just for the parts of Windows they actually use - it's 200 bucks for the whole kit and kaboodle. For that reason, they don't offer XP-N at a discount, even though they might make more money by doing so.
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Bottom line is that they are just trying to resell the same product with new control panels that allows the average idiot to set a few more registry settings. They need to rethink the registry, and replace it with a simplier, more secure system.
-- www.punkmusic.com
The discount could be based on the amount MS spends on WMP development versus the rest of Windows.
Can the media player in WinXP be uninstalled if you decide you don't even want it on your PC anymore? Win30's media player could very easily be removed, even back in the day when big-name applications couldn't be removed at all without a format/reinstall. I haven't used a WinXP system in months so I don't even know anymore, but the answer to this question is the point: Can WinXP's integrated Windows Media Player be removed as easily as Win30's?
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
LiteStep is not a file manager, but Directory Opus is, and it's job is to replace Internet Explorer as your file manager. LiteStep's job is to replace Internet Explorer as your desktop/shell.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
Of course it is. When you buy a different version of windows, you are buying compile flags--and ONLY compile flags when it comes to kernel options like how many CPUs are supported. It's an excellent sham.
is allowing MS to make both versions availiable to builders, and letting the market decide.
what the EU was arguing was that they had the right to require redress of the past sins of m$.
they didn't do it. to do it, they should have REQUIRED that m$ sell only windows nt n as the OS in the EU, and that media player XXXVII or whatever would be an extra-cost add-on, but not to be priced lower than any of the alternatives.
in that way, the PC builders could roll on all of the free media readers, and the user could decide on a by-case basis.
it ain't gonna work the way the EU did it, because they screwed the pooch on this case. like the US did in theirs.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Since they're including less software, does it cost less, more, or the same as regular XP editions?
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
That users don't care and simply want their software PREINSTALLED. Most consumers don't want to choose their media player, or even know which one they are using, they just want it to work as soon as they unbox their new system.
The dirty secret is most consumers don't see the cost of windows in their pc purchase, its just another component of the system like a disk or video card, and they expect it to work out of the box. Most users don't even know what linux is, much less have the skills or time to spend endlessly fiddling with it, like the IT elites will.
..and lost.
I'm sure behind closed doors they admit it even in brussels.
So all Windows users should suffer with an operating system that can't by default playback common media files?
Windows users should be forced into buying an alternative media player? I'm sure you think Windows shouldn't have a web browser either.
Honestly as far as I'm concerned I think playback of data files should be a component of any modern OS. As for Real, if they hadn't lost my faith by forcing completely crappy products down my throat I might care. I personally have decided against viewing any Real files that aren't supported by Real alternative. I don't trust Real and their crappy products have caused me much grief in the past.
Why don't you look at how FireFox has achieved success and at how Opera has as well? In both cases you have a better product which people are going out of their way to download and use.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
The EU's sanctions against M$ were somewhat more severe than the USA's but both are ultimately misguided. For M$, fines are only ghost blips on the accounting radar.
The only thing I can think of that would have been able to do a decent job of enabling fair(er) competition is full, free and open disclosure of all APIs and significant file formats, effectively allowing anyone to write replacement components and compatibility layers/wrappers for all things Windows. Such a scenario is most likely among M$ exectives' worst nightmares since it is one of the few capable of causing significant mid/long-term damage. (I vaguely remember reading a story of that nature some years ago...)
I wonder what else legislator will try against M$ on the next round, after they realize they fundamentally lost the first.
OK, let's ay you have Two Operating Systems of the same version. Windows XP and another, almost identical Windows XP with no Media Player. Let's assume the PC John Doe installs XP N to has no net access (Hey, it happens....), and he's got more MP3's than my mate Jon has on his iPod. He doesn't have a Media Player. He wants to play songs. Uh-oh. Now... what does John buy? Windows XP N, with -no- Media Player, or Windows XP, With Media Player, priced exactly the same? If you said XP N, please go and shoot yourself. If the EU said, "Gee, we don't want Media Player Installed by default, that's giving unfair advantage to you, would you mind terribly not having it install by default, but still have it as an option to install later?", then that would have been fine. In fact, since XP SP1, you've had the option of removing all references to Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player by unchecking the boxes when you Install/Uninstall Additional Windows Components via the Add/Remove Program Box. Instead, the EU orders M$ to physically remove the code (Not caring about the Shell Code problems, and shortcuts that dont work). It's stupid, a waste of time, and totally unnecessary.
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
So all Windows users should suffer with an operating system that can't by default playback common media files?
Depends what you mean by 'by default'. When you install Windows, or any other OS, it's pretty useless without some software to go with it, because an OS is merely a container for software. All I'm suggesting is that as well as installing for example Nero, the user should install a media player, or at least have WMP come on a seperate CD, and be fully uninstallable.
I'm sure you think Windows shouldn't have a web browser either.
No, it shouldn't. It's an OS. The supplier could give you a web browser to go with it, and the same with a media player, and both should be uninstallable. Firefox and Opera's success are merely a testament to how superior they are over IE.
The problem here is that Microsoft is forcing their software upon 90-95% of computers, and making it unremovable.
Why don't Microsoft stick a "Mediaplayer.torrent" on the desktop of those WinXP-N -distros? Heh; yeah, right..
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
You are "forced" to use Windows Media Player. It's there at the beginning, and you can't uninstall it or its libraries, because they're tied in with various other components in the OS. Not to mention that MS is a monopoly and does this illegally. That's the differenced between being "forced" to have it and not.
Then what would make much more sense to me, is if the EU had forced MS to release a version of Windows in which WMP could be completely uninstalled while still maintaining a functioning system... that way, MS could still bundle WMP, but anyone who wanted it removed could do so.
btw, I'm not entirely sure you can remove QT with all of its libraries and still expect to have a fully functional systme in OS X (I guess it depends on what you call fully functional)..
I don't understand the comments saying how it's a worse value and stuff. You can go download WiMP for free. How is it less valuable to have a freely available program not included? If you want it, you go freaking download it. Maaaan.
Of course, Microsoft doesn't want people to pay just for the parts of Windows they actually use - it's 200 bucks for the whole kit and kaboodle. For that reason, they don't offer XP-N at a discount, even though they might make more money by doing so.
How is it they make more money? From reselling the extra bits on the XP install CDs to pr0n providers?
This isn't like they were selling a horse and buggy. Removing Media Player doesn't mean they're keeping the buggy and selling the horse for the same price. If anything, the price of release-testing Windows in another configuration -- even one simply with a component removed -- means "N"'s release is an additional, nontrivial expense for MS. In other words, "the marginal cost of the Media Player code on an XP CD" is >>> (aka, not) zero if N is a given, or, more to the point, the marginal cost of removing the Media Player code on an XP CD is >>> zero.
Makes me feel like Ross Perot to say it (seems like it always came down to simple fiscal policy for him), but if the EU wanted people to consider N, as many have said, they should have forced its release and added an additional tax to XP with the player. The market would have sorta itself out.
I am interested to hear how the media player download utility works. Is it open-ended? Is it just Apple and Real, or can I, ur, I mean other minor 3rd parties get in on the providing? Does it feature MS Media Player more prominently? If I can use MediaPlayer's of Quicktime's ActiveX lib and build my own offering for users to install, well, now we're on to something.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
On top of that, what is the deal with people being pissed about MS bundling thier software like WMP and IE with their OS anymore. A few years ago this practice did seem scummy and that them doing this would give them unfair control over consumer software products, but as time goes on it seems less and less the case. Hell, everyone does that anyways; Apple bundles QuickTime/Safari, and Linux platforms bundle Firefox and then try and imitate the media platforms that are not avaible to Linux. Just seems that people don't have a problem with control as long as it is the popular product controling it.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Releasing this off cycle is retarded. Nobody is going to pay to downgrade their copy of windows. If nobody buys a stripped down version of longhorn when that comes out, that will be a story.
The real story is that I can't find anyone selling XP-n. No idea what the price is, either. Anyone who's confused that XP-n isn't selling is a fool.
Note to self... 1. Browse old story at +5 Funny 2. Post +5 Funny comments here verbatim 3. Watch Karma go through the roof 4. ??? 5. Profit!
It wasn't always bundled. "Windows Sound System" (including media player) was sold as an add-on in the early years.
</oldman>
The other issue is that until about 1998, WMP was just a little functional applet and wasn't competing with Real or QuickTime in terms of codec quality, streaming, media management, visualizations, etc.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Personally I'd rather have Microsoft's choice as my default than have the alternatives.
What are the alternatives? Companies are going to pay Dell to be the default media player. Because they're paying to be a free product, you know there's a hook.
Would you rather have a free Microsoft media player, or a free RealPlayer that's going to remind you what a better experience you could be getting with the upgrade player every time you want to play some media?
At least, thanks to the amount of scrutiny Microsoft stuff gets, we know what we're getting.
An appropriate punishment would be to sell the 'N' at a reduced price equal to the cost of development of Windows Media Player, or the cost of competing media player products.
Because what Microsoft is doing is basically subsidizing their development costs from inflated OS prices due to their monopoly. Windows Media Player is not 'free'...it's paid for by everyone who buys a Windows OS.
So the 'normal' Windows will cost let's say $200, while the 'N' version should cost $175. Which one would you rather buy now?
Nobody wants anything that's less than, or inferior, to something else. As an example, look at how many "average joe's" that go out and shop for a computer, then ask their "techie friend" whether they should get windows xp pro or home edition. Most techie friends will opt for the pro edition, just because it's better, and the fact that they don't want their friend to come back and complain at them after reading some article saying that the home edition is a "disabled" or "inferior" version to the pro edition. Never mind the fact that nobody really needs all the features of the pro edition, unless their really into networking,...
I fail to see why this is a surprise. The real benefit will be Longhorn N, or whatever the heck they call it. Right now, inertia will create the alternative, but now's the time to start dreaming up a 'killer' feature for a media player. When everyone (in Europe) has to make a choice with their new OS, then the door is wide open for something superior to succeed in the market. I think (maybe I'm wrong), but I sorta thought this was the point of doing this, was to re-create a market for media player software, after Microsoft used illegal activities to destroy it.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Oh wait this is /. EVERYTHING has to do with open source and its ability to cure cancer and feed the hungry. Thats why people donate money to disgruteteld programers instead of the hungery. Its a trickle down effect..
So I guess you must really hate Mac OS X huh?
Let's see:
web browser -> Safari
movie playback -> Quicktime
email -> mail
And where exactly do you draw the line? Should they take "defrag" out of Windows because it competes with Disk Keeper?
How about Scandisk? It competes with Norton Utilities and other products.
What about the file system compression and encrpyption included in Windows?
Remote Desktop competes Timbuktu Remote and many other applications.
Windows Movie Maker sure should be ripped out, even though it only exists so that MS could show feature parity with OS X.
Windows XP has built is support for zip files, further destroiyng PK Zip's market share.
Now we've got MS Anti-Spyware coming out - I guess they will ruin Adaware and other pay spyware removal programs. It even detects viruses so it's sure to erode Symantec and Mcaffee's business.
Backup should be ripped out along with Paint and Wordpad.
Calculator is probably pretty evil too.
Ok so here's a genuine question: you can uninstall Quicktime and not have any impact on any Mac functionality? Will Final Cut Pro work fine without it? What about other apps?
If so, that's a big change from applications on OS 9 and earlier which often required Quicktime.
I really don't care if you can uninstall WMP or not. Frankly you can install another media player and use it just fine. You can tell the system to associate your video files with the alternate video player (typically a part of the install setup, if the new app doesn't just associate itself to everything on planet earth anyway). WMP won't bother you about it.
I know a number of people who use players like Core Media Player instead of WMP. The choice however is one based on functionality. Just as much as it is with someone purchasing Diskeeper to defrag, or Winzip to unzip files. The person makes the choice to install it because they feel it is a better option for them. They have the freedom to do this.
As you say an OS should just be an OS, fine. But every OS these days, be it XP, OS X or a desktop Linux distro includes lots of supporting software.
I certainly don't want to pay for Windows and then be expected to pay for 45 different other programs just to get basic functionality.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
To the average user....nothing. This isn't so mucg about the media player being integrated as that it is about MS making suret heir mediapleyer has advantages not open to other mediaplayers. the point is more a principal. You should not be forced to have something you do not want. When I buy an OS that's what I want.....an OS. How a browser suddenly becme a critical part of an OS beats me. How is watching a video or listening to music a critical part of the OS? I think microsoft should be free to bundle the mediaplayer just like suse is free to bundle an enourmous load of software with their linux distro.....on the side as an extra where I can decide to install it or not.
One word: Fear.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
HA!
It's payback time for promoting software patents
Superb Hosting
Yup, always better to pick out a typo than actually address the issue.
So I guess you must really hate Mac OS X huh?
Let's see:
web browser -> Safari
movie playback -> Quicktime
email -> mail
No, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems. That is the main difference, and I can't believe people still make that comparison.
And where exactly do you draw the line? Should they take "defrag" out of Windows because it competes with Disk Keeper?
How about Scandisk? It competes with Norton Utilities and other products.
What about the file system compression and encrpyption included in Windows?
Remote Desktop competes Timbuktu Remote and many other applications.
Windows Movie Maker sure should be ripped out, even though it only exists so that MS could show feature parity with OS X.
Windows XP has built is support for zip files, further destroiyng PK Zip's market share.
Now we've got MS Anti-Spyware coming out - I guess they will ruin Adaware and other pay spyware removal programs. It even detects viruses so it's sure to erode Symantec and Mcaffee's business.
Backup should be ripped out along with Paint and Wordpad.
Calculator is probably pretty evil too.
Defrag and Scandisk are tools that are NEEDED in Windows in order to keep it running. File system compression, encryption and zip support are an interesting point, but they could be considered insignificant and simple enough not to matter. Windows Movie Maker and Remote Desktop are also an interesting point, however they are not shoved in your face to matter too much. Backup, Paint, WordPad and Calculator are incredibly simple applications and couldn't possibly be sold commercially.
And all of the above (with the possible exception of Movie Maker) haven't been used to gain MS leverage in other markets.
I certainly don't want to pay for Windows and then be expected to pay for 45 different other programs just to get basic functionality.
Nobody is suggesting that, mainly because the alternatives are also free, and MS would let you download the separate applications for free. It would just mean the consumers and suppliers would have to actually make a choice.
However you seem to be missing the point. This isn't about the consumer, it's about what this does to competitors. The main problem is that when Microsoft not only bundles, but forcably shoves their software down your throat, it gives them a huge advantage over competitors, and they are using their monopoly to gain that advantage.
Because Linux doesn't fit my needs. It doesn't play many media types, it doesn't run most of my software, it doesn't run any of my games, it doesn't work with my modem. I hate open office. Why would I need more RAM? I have 512MB and have NEVER filled it.
Well, you cant "uninstall" it cleanly.. You can delete the directory, but it just gets copied back 5 seconds later (!) this happens on windows 2003 aswell, an os which is supposedly suitable for use as a server..
Also, if you delete it and then set filesystem permissions to prevent it being copied back, you get a warning that files which are "essential" to windows have been replaced/removed.. How exactly is media player so essential to the os?
And how dare a MACHINE disobey me and restore something i purposely deleted! I personally feel insulted by this behavior, if i order a machine to do something it had better do exactly what it's told, if it doesn't then its BROKEN.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
And they bundle both of these with their supposed "server" os's, why does a server need a media player or a web browser?
When doing security audits of solaris machines a few years ago, the presence of CDE or Netscape was flagged as a security issue, consequently i flag the same issues on windows only i can't offer a suitable fix for them!
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Most computers users (not the /. geek community) just want to have music played on their PC. They want things to just work. They could care less about the negligable differences between Real and WMP. To these folks the PC is an appliance and they want all the tools they need included.
This was not about the consumer, who has not really suffered because of this, but becuase the Europeans want to show that they have some power too. The result was a completely stupid decision. We all knew it, but should not be surprised that a bunch of lifer bureaucrats didn't get it.
Opening APIs and amking sure that any Windows component cna be replaced by a third party component in a way that will allow all other Windows components to still work and all MS and third party apps to work is the solution.
The real issue to me isn't whether Real was harmed but is the consumer harmed. Typically this is determined by price. Like it or not, MS has not raised prices and has continued to add capabilities for no increase in price. That is good for the consumer.
And, if you don't like MS and what they do, buy a Mac or Linux. There are alternatives. There is choice. Oh, you say a mac is more expensive? Guess that means you are getting benefit from MS creating a standard. You say Linux is harder to use? Then MS might be making things that meet the needs of their users better than the competition. You say that all the applications you want and need only run on Windows? That's the nature of capitalism. People build for the market where they can make the most money.
I prefer to NOT HAVE a non-removable, pre-installed microsoft's media player and be able to install the software I like without having to worry about software I don't use acting up on me behind my back and doing stuff like stopping other software to work right
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
"consumer choice" which we now know was a load of BS.
No, not at all. You are neglecting the incompetence explanation.
And for what it's worth, I'd say the EU antitrust remedy is thus far apparantly maginally *more* competent than US antitrust remedy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I recently installed Linux (first Knoppix then Xandros) on a machine too old for XP. The machine was for my daughter for school (projects, research on the web) and just for fun (games). I immediatly ran into problems using a USB wireless adaptor I have to connect it to the internet. I then bought a ethernet NIC and wireless bridge. Haven't had time yet to make the bridge work - the instructions are convoluted. I also have to see if some language software she needs to use that is made for Windows will work under WINE/Xandros - after I find the time to learn how to use/configure WINE. My point is using Linux is not simple and involves a huge time investment. Most people are busy and can't spend lots of time to learn Linux well enough to make it work for them. When it Linux becomes as easy as XP - plug and play - then the masses will start using it.
When MS has to keep releasing -N versions, at least it can never claim WMP is part of the OS which cannot be removed or replaced.
You know... I tried this product, and it asked me to download a media player. Then I thought to myself... "hey, maybe I should try linux..."
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
...If they never even give us the opertunity to choose it?s px?b=&c=ie&cs=iedhs1&l=en&oc=D07247&rbc=D07247&s=d hs&sbc=iedhsftdppdesktop1
Look at Dell's website, there is no option to choose Windows XP N:
http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.a
Media Player has come a long way from the horrid version 7 uggh. Even though version 10 does have a better interface (and is my choice for playing videos) I think that Windows should be bundled with a Media Player. Just Windows comes with an Internet browser and an e-mail client, heck even Apple's OS X comes with Quicktime preloaded and is bundled with many applications.
I personally think its stupid to take Media Player out of Windows. Sure people might not know the alternatives but a media player it a piece of software no computer should be without. With all the media content on the net and embedded in websites etc they know the majority of people running Windows are able to view the content. Unless Winamp etc (I dont care for Real Player, I think their software are pieces of advertising shit) has an activeX control for embedded videos etc, removing Media Player does more harm then good.
show me a linux distro aimed at home users
I shouldn't have to say anything else on that argument. You even quoted it in your subject.
Gentoo? Fedora? Try Ubuntu or SuSe (even).
OOI what other 'home' friendly distros are there? I want as few options and choices, max support, and lots of NON DEVELOPMENT non techie things installed, and not cheapo games or a million shells.
Anything I can give as a choice to someone without regretting it later.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com