Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Windows XP N Flops
ChocLinux writes "Dell, Lenovo and Fujitsu Siemens have announced they have no plans to pre-install Windows XP N, the version of Windows without a bundled media player that Microsoft released to comply with the European Commission antitrust ruling. It is now almost six months since Microsoft released Windows XP N, and the fact that no-one wants to sell it suggests that this antitrust case may be going the way of the US one. Also, the article raises the question - now that RealNetworks has settled with Microsoft, will anyone bother to complain about this? Of course there's a chance that the EC might bring a new antitrust case against Microsoft, but how much more effective is that likely to be?"
Why didn't the European Union actually solve the problem, by forcing Microsoft to open up Windows Media Video? I think that would be fair instead of unbundling it like this. It does not solve anything, and people who get XP N, will end up installing WMP anyway.
Oh, and what about the 'real monopoly' in Windows? It is also known as Internet Explorer, and only God knows why EU did not do anything about that when they were at it.
Dvorak on Doomtech
Who didn't see that coming like a mile away? Windows XP N is a hard sell to say the least. Not only does it cost exactly the same amount of money as regular Windows XP, you will probably also get more support calls from angry costumers who say something along the lines of "why isn't video working".
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
... and it flopped. *Big* surprise.
Go somewhere random
/. chose to ignore: /. for the sake of starting a flamewar of course didn't mention anything else.
MS having to offer a version of XP without the media player preinstalled isn't the only outcome of the antitrust case and certainly isn't the most important part, yet
First off, people should be aware that MS was also fined 500 million euros, quite a lot of money, wouldn't you agree.
Second, and probably most important, the EU found that MS is on pupose hindering interoperability between its products and third party products. In essence, they use their monopoly on the desktop, to also sell server software. To counter this MS now has to disclose technical information to its competitors to enable them to compete on an equal footing.
Now of course MS is trying to give out as little information as possible, but they don't seem to get by with this tactic, which is of course a good thing.
Third, about the media player. I don't think it's that important if companies actually sell the version without the media player, what is important is the fact that it is now clear that bundling more and more desktop apps in order to utilize a monopoly in one area to get market share in an other one is a no-no.
I suppose there would be no appreciable mass market for a version of windows without IE either.
It would be nice if one these courts acted with clue and actually addressed the problem and not the symptom. Can you imagine if the AT&T ruling had been "offer phone service without long distance"? Instead, a court with balls actually broke up the old company and prevented the "parent" from competing in the market they had abused.
Yes, I know that's a gloss/simplification, but the point is that structural wrongs require structural remedies.
The real problem is the legions of lazy users that don't bother downloading alternative software. Everyone I know (even my parents, that are far from tech-savvy) are fully aware that there are alternatives out there. They just don't bother anyway. Should we really ship a completely stripped skeleton of an operating system? That's the alternative to bundling software with an OS. /lars
Also, the article raises the question - now that RealNetworks has settled with Microsoft, will anyone bother to complain about this?
Complain about what?? Is Microsoft to be blamed for companies refusing the carry Windows XP-N? Sometimes I wonder why submissions are worded just to make it through the Slashdot Editors.
I have also wondered why a company should be penalized for including a web-browser and a multimedia player. Every modern OS has one built in. But then, it could be just my biased viewpoint.
Life is just a conviction.
This just makes an easy out for Microsoft in the future. Now they have the excuse that their partners will not sell equipment without the bundled software (IE, WMP, etc.).
The only possible upside is that this could lead to a stronger argument for allowing the user to actually choose their own OS instead of just between the Home and Pro version of Windows.
What am I thinking? Then the manufacturers would actually have to hire tech support staff to help with more than just Windows. Yeah, that's gonna happen.
One small step of Europe towards capitalism one giant flame war for /.
Clearly, forcing a company todo/not todo something to increase competion isn't going to work. Ever. Especially since Operating System integration is *good* thing. It's a better user experience to have software as seamless features of Operating system rather than independent applications.
So we have customers who don't want the less-integrated version and a vendor who doesn't do a honest effort marketing the less-integrated version. And bureacrats are suprised? shees..
The only proper way to deal with monopolies is to split them. Everything else is just bullshit.
If there where a "Microsoft 1" and "Microsoft 2", both with rights to sell current windows versions, Dell, Lenovo and Fujitsu Siemens would actually have vendors to choose from. And there could be real honest effort to compete and differentiate..
They should attack contracts between Microsoft and manufacturors. All these contracts binding the PC maker to Microsoft OS should be banned.
Then let the market decides which is the best OS. If it is still windows so be it. It simply means that the competitors aren't smarter than the competition from the 80's. When you have a competitive platform crippled with some many security flaws and PC maker free from any exclusivity, it must do the trick otherwise they are simply really bad at business.
Nobody knows how the PC market will involve technically in the upcoming years. But I guess that all OS should have a decent suite of multimedia softwares so clearly it is Microsoft's right to propose one.
For the little story:
I know that the EU commission has an open source plan internally (force subcontractors to code only under an open source license, etc.). It has been discussed for years (first time I've seen it, it was in 2000). It hasn't been implemented yet and worst it isn't part of their call of tenders requirements for web based applications on their Intranet/extranet.
Olivier
...when Apple bundle their internet browser (Safari) with Mac OS X no-one threatens an anti-trust case, but when Microsoft bundle their internet browser (IE) with Windows, everyone's up in arms...
VC-1 is the name given collectively to the WMV/WMA 9 codecs and it's an open, licensed standard just like MPEG-4 or MPEG-2. It's controlled by SMPTE, so MS can't modify the standard without their approval, and license fees are fixed (same thing as MPEG).
Also what's this IE monopoly you speak of? I'm using Firefox right now in Windows, works great. Windows seems to do nothing to stop it form working, and indeed will make it the default browser, if asked to.
force MS to only sell WinXP-N on the european market,
;)
this would help third party devellopers a bit too.
but what they will rule when ReactOS XP is released
If Microsoft is such a monopoly, why does my (NL) government only provide for a Windows application to fill in my tax forms? 2 years down the lane and they are finally building an Apple version as well. Why have I (and the company I work for) received many documents that can only be viewed by Microsoft software. Thank god most information folders are formatted using Adobe. To get back to the Media Player issue; you would have to install it anyway, since almost all the broadcasts of the (public) TV network are either Real or MS formatted, and Real is not a real option.
I would certainly choose it if I were to buy an XP licence since I really do not want the Windows Media Player. Why? Well, because it just isn't any good. It is a sluggish resource hog and where I run Windows it has been replaced by alternatives that are much faster and less prone to crash.
Do the arithmetic. A fine of 500 million euros sounds a lot, but it is a small price to pay when you are making $12 billion in net profits per year and can drag out a case for a good three years meanwhile doing exactly what you want to. Besides, when you make allowances for investment income and inflation, that 500 million shrinks to a smaller figure.
The really important point is #3, interoperability with other platforms. Naturally MS are holding out on this one too. It's likely to become even more important if webservices take off because with their OS Microsoft can act as a choke point between every provider and every end-user.
Microsoft are acting in a predictable way. They are a monolopy, and the way to continue with your monopoly rents is to fight every case with every method available right on until the bitter end. Do the arithmetic. It's a no-brainer. Only jail-time and billions in fines would make a difference.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
For whom, the hell, in the attic - and not where they belong (trash ??)
Fails to convince me. They would if they so needed. But why would anyone with a sane mind buy something less for the same price of something more ?
That's not really a surprise. For home-users, having media player is almost a requirement. A media-player-less windows would be much more suitable in a business environment. But unfortunately, XP N is based on XP Home, which is not usable in a corporate network. Besides, both the XP and XP N versions costing exactly the same makes XP N less interesting. The only ones who would be happy with people paying the same for less, would be Real etc.
.sig: No such file or directory
Had they dropped the N version price even a few euros below the 'normal' OEM, it would've been a surefire hit. Nobody wants to pay for medial player.
But since there was no price difference, this thing was DOA. Everyone knew it the moment it was announced.
Why not just make it an optional part of the Windows installation process? Or for pre-built machines, allow the user to optionally install it when they first set up windows.
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
We will see version 2 of Steve's monkeydance soon?
-- Cheers!
Exactly, the point of XP N is that it doesn't have Windows Media Player. That's it, that's why it adds no value to anyone at all, and proof that the anti-trust enforcement people in the EU are idiots.
"For whom, the hell, in the attic"
for what, the hell, kind of grammar is this?
who thought of megacomputers when he read the subject?
Come on: when you read "N Flops", it is about floating point arithmetic, right?
Wouldn't we come under fire for having iLife with iTunes, and Quicktime bundled on our OS?
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Unless you are using mplayer or Real that third party player you installed is probably a wrapper around the windows media framework, Want to use Premiere? You're going to need WM. Want to use Zoom player? It's wrapped around DirectShow - no Windows Media player, no directshow. No directshow most third party players won't work nor will many games.
Actually I'd say Apple should come under fire for locking users into MacOS. I bought a computer not an OS. I want to run whatever I want on my Mac.
:-)
Installing things like "yaboot" on a MacMini can be really dangerous. Following the instructions to the T I ended up with a MacMini that I couldn't boot, boot from CD, etc [the lack of a BIOS is really annoying btw]. Fortunately I bought the thing at Best Buy and they allowed me to return a "non booting box"
Point is, Apple is just as guilty as say Dell for forcing users to use one particular OS.
I bought a ***COMPUTER*** not a MacOS box.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"I want a laptop but I don't want to be told what processor or OS I should run. Shouldn't I be able to determine that?"
Yep. I get ya. mobile AMD64 with a current(ish) Nvidia gfx chipset right?
That seems to be the impossible combination this year.
Last year Compaq/hp had them (non mobile 64 though)
Keep looking. Maybe next year.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Remember, Windows Media Player isn't just the application; it's all the codecs included with the application and the underlying WMPlayer framework within the OS.
With that in mind, why would any computer manufacturer which sells Windows systems, and caters to the home market, want to sell a crippled version of Windows, which can't even play a CD?
IMO this is very much a non-story and a whole lot of fuss over nothing; Microsoft have done what is required of them, at least in terms of the WMP-less version of Windows. Consequently, the PC builders have - not surprisingly - decided to vote with their feet and will continue to sell Windows XP with the integrated Media Player.
If we're wanting to discuss Microsoft's lack of compliance when it comes to opening up the standards as specified in the EU rulings, that's an entirely different matter. But it's also an entirely different topic of conversation which can no doubt be covered when the topic re-appears on Slashdot at some point in the future.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
I think the reason Apple isn't catching hell for bundling all manner of things with their computers these days is the simple fact that if they didn't, no one would be writing these apps.
That's a gross simplification of where the Mac market is (and was back when Apple decided to assimilate SoundJam and spit it out again as iTunes), but I think essentially true. When you bring an iMac home - that lovely Bondi Blue baby all the way through to the current iMac G5 with iSight - you expect this thing to do something. After all, whenever you bought a Gateway or a Dell it had all manner of goofy apps designed to print, view photos, edit little movies, play music, etc. During the OS8/9 you had to tweak, fiddle and install apps to do cool stuff. A bit of a pain for most people.
Since then, vendors have lagged in releasing apps for the latest and greatest MacOS offerings ... and Apple suffered greatly from the Application Gap between themselves and Windows.
Think independent. Why the hell would Steve want to be continually in the power of Adobe and Microsoft (to say nothing of Macromedia - heh, now part of Adobe-, Real, Quark and the others)? Apple has nooooo leverage with which to bargain and it's pathetic to have to beg. Soooooo ...
I for one applaud Apple for taking its future into its own hands and writing DAMN good software (or buying and vastly improving) to go along with it's nifty boxes and gorgeous operating system.
I think more people are sick of dishonest pro-Microsoft trolls who are such pussies that they can't express their opinions as logged in users.
Even the GNAA trolls have logins.
The problem is, that although most things can work fine under linux, they still tend to be easier to get working under Windows.
;) ). And the hibernate function doesn't seem to work properly either.
Example: Ubuntu 5.10 -- I absolutely love it to bits, but there is one machine I have with a wireless card that I can't get working. Another that does rather irritate me is that I like num-lock *enabled* when I log in; to do this in Ubuntu involed installing some package or other and making some config changes... and that ignores the time to google to find this info.
Other minor issues... my laptop won't _restart_ under Ubuntu (accepting that I need to restart less
I know most of these are driver/firmware problems, and are difficult to resolve if the manufacturers are not being proactively helpful.... but on the other hand, as an end user, I don't care -- Windows works "better" in the sense that it does the things that I expect it to do!
Not antitrust enforcement ... but EU antitrust law itself. That the EU thinks Microsoft's behavior in bundling a media player with Windows should amount to an antitrust violation shows, at best, marginal understanding of the purpose of antitrust laws. That seems to be the motto of the EU these days, however, where a little knowledge is definitely a dangerous thing.
I dont know how you managed to bork your mini, but you have the option to buy your Mac from YellowDog, and they are running Linux just fine. Yellow Dog
Dvorak on Doomtech
What simple socialist view. No one forced me or you to buy a Windows PC. I could have bought a Mac and so could you. Maybe you could run a Linux box but you have Windows. And, as for monopolies, AT&T DID only work with AT&T phones - Bell was the only telephone supplier in the US at one time. If you had a phone, you had a Bell supplied phone. Never heard anyone complain. Now you can buy phones from your local dollar store and look at what you get.
Microsoft doesn't have to release anything. Let the great engineering talent in this country and others develop a true competitor to MS. Why don't they do that? Oh, there's no money in it. Look, I agree we'd all be better served if operating systems were independant of various vendors. But who would make sure all apps would work with an open OS and where's the incentive to improve it? You don't have to love MS and I don't, but until there's a better alternative that works with MS, it's not right that MS has to give anything away. The real motive the socialist EU has is the fine - 500 EU if I recall. Just think of how the Euro politicians could spend that!
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
Nothing has really changed with all this except that the fat-cat lawyers have gotten so much much richer from all of the litigious engagements going on here there and everywhere!!!
Some of me almost wonders if there is "purchase" money floating around whereby someone from MS quite literally purchased and owns someone involved in these countries where they can ensure a successful outcome or at the very least, a trivial one.
Definately something smells rotton in the hills...
Cheers;
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
What can you not run? Where did you get the expectation that going outside the Apple Distortion Field would be a nice experience? As far as alternative operating systems go that can run on Mac Hardware, it's pretty easy to find out what will and will not run. YelloDog Linux is pretty clear.
What? Which particular OS are you forced to use? We've bought Dell's with Linux at the company I work for. As far as home use goes, I think I heard there is a FreeDOS version so you can put on whatever you wish. Regardless, Dell doesn't force you to do anything if you don't choose to purchase from them. If their selection doesn't suit you, go elsewhere.
No, you bought a MacOS box from a niche company that provides a particular experience with their software/hardware.
"GNU/Linux --works-for-me,"
I like Linux, but here's the problem for most consumers:
1) iTunes doesn't work. Please spare me the whine about how there are alternatives. Nobody cares about them. iTunes has to work.
2) OpenOffice 2.0 is okay, although you'll have to twist some arms.
3) All those cool utilities that come with people's camera won't work.
4) Most printer drivers for those inexpensive new printers won't work.
5) No consumer level photo editing software. And if you say "gimp", I'm going to drive to your house and poke you in the eye
6) None of the millions of little special interest applications won't work.
If all you're doing is browsing the web and writing letters, Linux is fine. But if you have an iPod, or use a digital camera/movie player, you're screwed.
Sorry, but the bar moved for Linux. Office is no longer the hurdle for adoption.
Apparently you need to speak with the judges of the US DC circuit court, because they don't understand the term 'monopoly' either. After you clear it up with them, maybe they'll help you explain it to the European Commission.
The very fact that Apple exist and sell their own operating system means that Microsoft does not have a 'monopoly' on desktop operating systems.
The courts disagree. You'd better straighten them out.
Similarly, Microsoft were never convicted of being a 'monopoly', which in itself is not illegal, they were convicted of 'monopolistic practices'.
Of course they weren't "convicted" of being a monopoly. It's not a crime. But they were found to be a monopoly. A judical finding of fact like that is a big deal, because it's a prerequisite to being convicted of leveraging your monopoly in anti-competitive ways. Without that judicial finding, you have a simple, slam-dunk defense "We can't have abused our monopoly because we don't have one."
Of course, this being slashdot, this comment will simply be ignored, or even modded 'troll'.
Yep. Sometimes /. moderators *do* get it right.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
...build your own notebook.
e .asp?article=articles/archive/c0509/31c09a/31c09a. asp&guid=8211E93568BC44CCBB9A7980FB4250D3
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/articl
Not exactly what you're describing, but it's a start.
1G$? I wish, it's only 600-700M. A 1:2 exchange rate would rock but the Euro is worth about 1.2 dollars on average.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
It strikes me as the whole world is playing Siedler from Catan. Once a company actually makes it big, with a product that obviously is accepted well by the consumer (sorry, but people would not buy Windows (in the beginning) if it wasn't a good product and help them do things easier than anything else -- point me one business executive who has time to type some 20 commands so he can share it with someone... He'll rather have the option to click something.) it gets attacked from all directions -- but in the end, I think Microsoft is just satisfying the consumer's needs. Everyone wants out-of-the-box solutions. Linux just won't do here (for now). Windows works when you install it on a PC... Simple as that, on a Unix based system you have to goof around for 5 days to find the right friggin drivers not in beta for the latest graphical card. It's a cold harsh reality that too-devoted Linux users won't admit - Microsoft saw the market first, had the cash and positioned itself to where they are now. By adding new features they are simply moving the consumer to be more inclined on buying their solution than to install Linux and have a hard time. The Regular Joe doesn't have time to play around with different config files to set the resolution of the LCD screen... But anyway, by forcing to remove something as "important" as WMP I think the EC is going in the wrong direction, in one that will eventually hurt one thing that matters the most -- the consumer. But that's just my 2 cents...
What? Which particular OS are you forced to use? We've bought Dell's with Linux at the company I work for.
Buy a consumer desktop from Dell without an OS and we'll talk.
On anything considered a "server", you can buy it with linux... but if it's meant for end user, it's windows, or microsoft stops giving them deep discounts.
~W
sig?
But MacOS has far more than a BIOS. It has OpenFirmware. It's like a BIOS except it doesn't require your machine to start up as if it were a processor made in 1982, and its programmable (scriptable)!
I'm a bit shocked you manged to make your Mini unbootable, even installing iffy software. I'm not completely up-to-date, but booting with command-option-N-V held down should have fixed you up. Or perhaps booting with command-option-O-F and typing "reset-nvram" at the prompt.
I take it inserting a CD and holding down C during boot (or just option and selecting the CD from the list) didn't work?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Apple has even gone as far as saying that windows will run on its future Intel based systems. Don't blame Apple for other developers unwillingness to develop G4/G5 compatible OSs
Ubuntu 5.10 works on PPC hardware, thank you very much. As for creating an unbootable machine, I have wiped more than one Mac HDD, installed Ubuntu, uninstalled Ubuntu and reinstalled OS X with no more trouble than restoring the OS to a Windows laptop. (Because, in the end, I decided that I preferred OS X for what I wanted to do.) However, I disagree fundamentally with your post. Apple are in the business of supplying boxes to run OS X, not vice versa. And Dell does not lock you into an OS unless you want them to support it - which, much as I dislike Dell, seems quite reasonable to me.
Pining for the fjords
> Actually I'd say Apple should come under fire for locking users into MacOS. I bought a computer not an OS. I want to run whatever I want on my Mac.
Actually, you didn't buy an x86 system so theres a lot of stuff you're not going to be able to run on it. Apple is foucused on providing a unique user experience so their system is obviously going to run different than a Dell box would.
I'm using one right now... let's talk.
Vanya's Law: "In any culture without irony, fart jokes will be the highest form of humor."
Look, I'm no fan of the EC decision. I think it was counterproductive and ill-thought-out. I expect that the Court of the First Instance will eventually turn off XP N, precisely because it's quite clear that Monti's Mounties hadn't read Bork on antitrust.
But it certainly doesn't show a marginal understanding of the prupose of EC antitrust laws -- seeing as how the EC (with court supervision) decides what those laws mean and what their purpose is. There's a legitimate question about how much antitrust laws protect competition by protecting competitors. The US has taken a pretty radical position here, holding that protection of competitors is not a valid purpose of antitrust laws. The EC, and the rest of the world, does not. The US may be (and, in my opinion, is) right, but that claim certainly requires a lot more evidence than we've seen so far.
The courts disagree. You'd better straighten them out
The court held that Microsoft held a monopoly on x86 computer desktop operating systems. Apple was explicitely excluded from the market chosen for the DOJ lawsuit.
If your market is simply "desktop computer operating systems", then the court did not rule that Microsoft held a monopoly in that area.
The best thing that ever happened to Microsoft in the anti-trust department was Apple's decision to switch to Intel hardware.
>Good or bad, consumers LIKE what Microsoft offers
For a given definition of the word 'like', yes.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Gentoo built fine on my Mac Mini. It's the boot loader that failed to work. And *all* of the key combos I read about online [none of which were documented by Apple btw] failed to work.
Once the boot loader was installed [and failed to boot linux] the box was hosed. The Mini would always load the bootloader [regardless of whether my gentoo boot cd was in or the OSX install cd] and the keyboard combos failed to persuade it.
That's what I call OS lockin.
At least on the PC it's a simple matter of changing boot order in the BIOS even if the disk is hosed you're not lost.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I do not care what software comes with it. Fedora/debian and may other distros come with TONS of software. But, I can uninstall it. And its not a big deal. I cannot uninstall IE, or WMP. These also pose a security threat. So, not only do I not want the programs there, now I have to maintain them to prevent my machine being hacked. This is what I don't like. If I was able to uninstall it, I would be much more inclined to purchase it.
And, with the way MS works, doesn't anybody think that nobody is buying it because of what MS does? Do you think MS gives dell the same discount on Xp N as they get on XP?
Well, all in all... oh wait, I forgot, Im posting this from linux so I guess I don't have to worry.
Yeah but then they come bundled with some cheapas broadcom 4400 series eth card that doesn't work in linux or whatever.
Why don't laptops just come with a couple mini-pci, maybe a mini pci-e, cpu, ram and HD ports and just let you sort it out. Make the motherboard replaceable [and the lcd] and voila. The only significant challenge is matching the lid to the case. Maybe sell the case and make the LCD insertable.
Point is I should be able to build my own laptop given the major components. I wouldn't mind a new Intel Pentium M based laptop if I got to choose what else went in it.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Bundled applications are SO not the problem with Microsoft.
This whole fiasco was merely a way of making people think something was 'being done' about the Microsoft problem. Don't look behind the curtain.
The reason this is a flop here is because I cannot buy it. Give the option of this or the normal Windows XP, of course I'd take this one. No way would I want the crappy Windows Media Player given the choice.
I bought a ***COMPUTER*** not a MacOS box.
No, you bought a product made by Apple. They develop their products as they see fit for their target audience. While you can do what you want with their product, they do not need to support your use case. You need to find a product that meets your needs. It doesn't sound like Apple develops what you are looking for.
The last thing we need is the government telling Apple to waste time and money making their product do things that their target market doesn't care about.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The court held that Microsoft held a monopoly on x86 computer desktop operating systems. Apple was explicitely excluded from the market chosen for the DOJ lawsuit.
Is that true? I don't recall that, but it makes sense.
The best thing that ever happened to Microsoft in the anti-trust department was Apple's decision to switch to Intel hardware.
That is a very good point, and one I hadn't considered.
I wonder if the fact that Apple is trying very hard to ensure that OS X will not run on standard Intel hardware is enough to avoid changing that finding. I also wonder if Microsoft could have released a version of Windows for PPC in order to force the definition of the market to be broadened, making it more difficult for the court to conclude they had a monopoly. Finally, I wonder if Apple had been included if the ruling would have been any different... even excluding Apple, Windows was not the only x86 computer desktop operating system, just the one with 99% of the market.
All very interesting, anyway. Thanks for pointing that out.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Bo knew exactly the type of stunts MS would pull, e.g. XP-N costing more, running slower, breaking compatibility etc, so he let MS choose a price that they expect a media-less version to be worth.
The sting here, is that if XP-N is not being used, assuming this is not due to a technical issue (which by itself would mean MS has not complied with the court order), then it's lack of take up must be due to MS valuing WMP too low. e.g. If the cost of WinXP-N equals WinXP then WMP must have a value of 0. To demostrate they choose an appropriate value, MS will have to drop the cost of XP-N until there is at least some takeup.
In my view, the EU should haul MS back to court for non-compliance of their order. Although I note the EU may be choosing to hold off doing this until they resolve other issues with MS.
Actually, VC-1 is just the name for the SMPTE-standardized version of the WMV9 and WMV9-Advanced Profile video codec. There isn't any standardized version of WMA (although open source implementations certainly exist).
You're right on the license fees - one can get those from MPEG-LA without having to get approval, or write a check to, Microsoft directly.
My video compression blog
Or shows a complete disinterest in what people demand from their OS.
/dev/null (nul for your windows users). Rinse, repeat.
I really don't understand why this case was brought (or why the case against IE was brought).
Basically, it boils down to this: People demand that their OS does something. MS puts that something into their OS. Those who were providing that something before MS got off their ass and made a passable product sue (remember that Media Player has been in windows since 3.1; Real got interested in bitching when they gave it a facelift and a better featureset). Microsoft pays lots of lawyers to get the dogs off their back, and ends up navigating the path so that the suit's effect is ported to
I don't care. In windows, I use Media Player Classic with (QT|Real) Alternative. For video conversion, I use FFMPEG. In Linux I use xine. Real's a virussy (as in it behaves like a virus, taking over anything to do with media without mentioning it), and WMP's just kinda useless.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Serious question: where does the 500 million go? P.
Is there a GUI configuration option in Windows for numlock state after boot then? (I'd want it off by default).
Have you tried installing Windows from scratch using the disc(s) provided by MS (not your PC vendor)? Is it easier than installing and configuring a Linux system and applications (providing the hardware has software for it)?
In my experience there are tons of stuff that a Linux install does for you that would take ages hunting down drivers and downloads to make the latest MS OS do as well. In all fairness neither are perfect.
If your hardware isn't supported well enough on Ubuntu, at least try something like the latest Knoppix or look into buying some hardware that is supported - see what the FSF recommend; in shops ask to boot with Knoppix before you buy a laptop. It might be worth it - these days Free Software makes available pretty much anything that is reasonably needed (provided you don't need perfect interoperability with proprietary software). After all you wouldn't expect hardware that doesn't mention Windows to work in Windows would you?
Most good Linux distros provide a lot of GUI configuration tools so the command line can be avoided entirely, even for setting up a web server, for example (personally I find Fedora with Gnome to be good).
If you don't like Free Software compromises, don't use Linux. Personally I much prefer these than the compromises MS get people to make.
Is that true? I don't recall that, but it makes sense.
;)
The market in the finding of fact is not defined that explicitely (several pages of text and justification), though the 'summary' I list above is an accurate depiction.
I wonder if the fact that Apple is trying very hard to ensure that OS X will not run on standard Intel hardware is enough to avoid changing that finding
I suspect that is a reason, though not the primary reason; Apple's is primarily interested in protecting the profit margins they make on their hardware.
One of the justifications the judge used to exclude Apple from the relevent market was that you had to switch to an Apple branded computer to change operating systems (which was an expensive 'burden' on the consumer). However, one has to wonder if that reasoning would be valid if a vendor artificially restricted which computers their OS would run on.
Finally, I wonder if Apple had been included if the ruling would have been any different... even excluding Apple, Windows was not the only x86 computer desktop operating system, just the one with 99% of the market.
Today, Microsoft holds roughly a 90% share of the desktop operating systems market (if wikipedia can be believed). In 1998, I believe the figure was closer to 84%, though I can't seem to find the numbers anymore. I don't remember if that number included DOS or not.
If Apple had been included, I believe Microsoft wouldn't have been ruled a monopoly; they wouldn't have spent the time and effort restricting the relevant market otherwise.
All very interesting, anyway. Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem. Its always fun to have a conversation with someone who doesn't reply foaming at the mouth.
I'm QUITE impressed. Seriously. The last I'd heard, Dell had to create what were basically different product lines in order to be able to sell computers with linux, so that they could keep all "Dimensions" and "inspirons" branded as computers that came with windows.
Wow. That's a big leap forward.
sig?
So this is not some wild claim about
Win XP doing "N flops" for some very large N?
Man, this is gonna get me Trolled/Flamebated into oblivion, but I can't resist...
Let's change just one tiny word in that sentence, without in any way altering its core meaning, and see what we get:
Interesting, no?
I'm not by any stretch an MS apologist (love Firefox!), I'm just sayin'. Something to think about. Oh, and if someone is a Linux or Mac user, then they're quite clearly not in any way, shape, or form any part of Microsoft's core audiance or "target market".
However, back to the other side of the coin... While MS attempts to make their OS versatile and capable for a wide range of users (because, obviously, it's the profitable thing to do), they also cater greatly to the "ignorant masses" (ignorant as in uneducated), as that's where the money is for them. They're not only practicing vendor lock-in, they are (and have been for years) facilitaing user lock-in as well. Face it, if you're doing anything remotely professional (like the game I'm developing), and using software made for Windows to do the job, it's a massive pain in the ass to switch over to something else. Not to mention that depending on what you're trying to accomplish, you could lose a huge chunk of end-user customers by switching your product over to Mac or Linux for example.
MS is basically saying "hey end-user, wanna have access to the widest variety of professionally-made games? You'll need our OS." And, "hey game-dev, wanna SELL your game? The most gamers are on Windows." They have everyone by the short hairs. It's a win-win situation for Microsoft, and a "WTF?!" for everyone else.
Dude. It's not about satisfying bureaucracy; it's about stopping the abuses of a monopolistic company that's deliberately disrespecting the societies we live in. You have every reason to want this to succeed, and none to expect it to fail, except for awareness of the fact that Microsoft are intent on circumventing the laws of our societies as long as it means profit for them.
The reason it failed is because Microsoft didn't market the thing like they market other products. I've never even heard of Windows XP N before now, and I have access to Microsoft's "special" news releases, training materials, etc. They still advertise Windows XP here, but I've never once seen an add for XP N.
So. Yes, it failed. But it failed because the company doesn't care about what the judge told it to do, just like when a judge tells an unruly kid to wise up and get back to school, it has no effect. What we need to do now is take harsher measures for the good of our society, not give up because an unruly brat doesn't see what's in everyone's interests including its own.
.In reading this, I glance to my lonely AOL cd.....and replace my cup of coffee on it so I won't stain my desk. I don't readily understand why this was forced, Window$ doesn't force you to keep using any of the proprietary(I know the spelling is wrong) software. I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but Bill Gate$ and his cronies at Micro$oft might have put these things in Window$ for the old ladies and other people who have no clue nor need to go and download Winamp, FireFox, Thunderbird or any other Open Source style program. All in all, Window$ was designed with the retarded user in mind, so to sell it WITHOUT something that Window$ is semi-known for would mean a failure in sales, proven here. So with that being said......PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T KILL ME!! I DON'T LIKE BILL GATE$!!
" i r 1337. j00 a l0z3r "
That talk kinda makes you cry, doesn't it?
That's right..cry those nerdly tears