Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Windows XP N Flops

Posted by Zonk on from the bad-ideas-follow-bad-ideas dept.

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?"

47 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. No wonder it failed. by Nichotin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:No wonder it failed. by MathFox · · Score: 4, Informative

      The EC verdict had several points:
      1. A fine of ~500 Million Euro
      2. Windows without media player
      3. Making available documentation for interfaces.

      Microsoft is appealing the verdict and dragging its feet with respect to point 3. We'll need to keep up the pressure on Microsoft, the EU and others to have Microsoft open its interfaces.

      --
      extern warranty;
      main()
      {
      (void)warranty;
      }
    2. Re:No wonder it failed. by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows without a media player and internet explorer solves nothing...hell, even Gnome comes with a built in media player and browser now. Just as the grandparent said, the real problem is the file formats. If WMP played all the open (ie...no charge to Microsoft besides implementing them) file formats right off the bat, and wasn't so obsessed with spreading WMA/V, then it wouldn't be as big a deal. The problem is that since so many Windows users never install new codecs or new players, all they can play besides windows media files are mpeg and other old standards. So now all the media providers encode everything in WMA/V so they don't have to explain to these people how to install codecs and such. But then non windows users, are screwed because they can not legaly play MS's proprietary formats. Quicktime/iTunes is no better either.... IE's the same thing, if they ditched ActiveX and fully supported real standards, then it wouldn't be as big a problem. The bottom line is that their little differences from the W3C standards and use of "windows media" files help them to lock people into their operating system, and that's the whole reason for the anti-trust cases.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  2. Come on... by Inf0phreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ^_^
    1. Re:Come on... by n0d3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, it costs the same. And for geeks who want a sleek fast gaming only OS, they most likley use Prof and then nLite to strip everything including IE and MediaPlayer. If it where cheaper, then things would surely be different. OEMS would be more interested (saving 20 bux on the OS for example would allready be ok for them) especially since they can put mediaplayers back optionally. Since their versions usualyl come bundled with a whole bunch anyhow. Now, with the same price, what really is the point?

  3. This was software designed to satisfy bureaucracy by bheer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and it flopped. *Big* surprise.

    --
    Go somewhere random
  4. Some fun facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    /. chose to ignore:
    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 /. for the sake of starting a flamewar of course didn't mention anything else.

    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.

    1. Re:Some fun facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      First off, people should be aware that MS was also fined 500 million euros, quite a lot of money, wouldn't you agree.


      To you, me and the vast majority of people, yes, it's a lot of money. But to Microsoft it isn't.

      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.


      And this will do what, exactly? Make them misbehave some other way? Dodge around this particular method of sliminess and right on into some other method?

      Microsoft knows, and has always been able to see, what is "right" and what isn't. But like all large commercial enterprises they don't give a flying fuck about right and wrong.

      Get caught with your hand in the jar: your hand gets slapped, you pay a relatively minor price, and get to keep the VAST FUCKING FORTUNE YOU GRABBED DOING IT.

      Lots of incentive to change their ways, huh?
    2. Re:Some fun facts by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, people should be aware that MS was also fined 500 million euros,

      The problem with fining a monopoly is that they can simply pass the costs onto their customers. Unless the fine is large enough to cause Microsoft immediate cash flow problems they are likely to laugh it off.

    3. Re:Some fun facts by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft knows, and has always been able to see, what is "right" and what isn't. But like all large commercial enterprises they don't give a flying fuck about right and wrong.

      Actually corporations are ment to place profit above all else. If the aditional profits likely to result from breaking a law are likely to be greater than the likely losses from fines and lawsuits then they could argue an "obligation" to break the law. Even to treat fines as a "cost of doing business". Note also that lawsuits against a large corporation have little to no effect on their business. Simply the cost of paying some lawyers, not something which will disrupt a business. Whereas for an individual (or a small business) a civil case (as either plaintiff or defendent) may easily mean lost wages or having to shut down a business. Being accused of a criminal matter almost certainly will be disruptive to a person's life.

    4. Re:Some fun facts by Py+to+the+Wiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Actually corporations are ment to place profit above all else. If the aditional profits likely to result from breaking a law are likely to be greater than the likely losses from fines and lawsuits then they could argue an "obligation" to break the law. Even to treat fines as a "cost of doing business"."

      Using this logic a drug dealer could claim an "obligation" to traffic drugs since if the risk of getting caught was outweighed by the potential profits from selling dope. Similarly, if an athlete thought steroids could increase his chances of winning and the chance of getting caught was small, he could argue an "obligation" to use performance enhancing drugs.

      While the MAIN function of a business is to make money, making money does not absolve a corporation from all moral obligations. There's still a little something called "Business Ethics", and to me it's sad that people like you could actually think it doesn't exist.

      --
      Fight the fall of slashdot by supporting PlayfullyClever in your sig.
    5. Re:Some fun facts by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      First off, people should be aware that MS was also fined 500 million euros, quite a lot of money, wouldn't you agree.

      I seem to remember a comment on the Daily Show the last MS go around that went somehting like "at that rate, Microsoft will run out of money just 100 years after the earth crashes into the sun."

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    6. Re:Some fun facts by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And since their monopoly is primarily responsible for that 10b, they'll happily write off 500 million as a cost of doing business.

      The size of the fine has to be greater than the size of the reward to mean anything.

  5. barn door, horse... by chub_mackerel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:barn door, horse... by Malor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Microsoft breakup wouldn't be like AT&T. It was split into seven regional phone monopolies... it was so enormous, so vast, that breaking it up just made smaller monopolies. And the barriers to entry for competitors were very high, so the newly-freed subsidiaries were able to learn how to compete again without facing that much local pressure. Millions of miles of wire, built up over a hundred years or so, is a pretty powerful competitive advantage.

      Microsoft would become two monopolies if it was broken up; Windows, and Office. (it would likely spin off a third company, call it "Microsoft Other", but that one wouldn't have any monopolies.)

      My initial thought was that the individual monopolies would be more subject to attack, but I'm no longer sure that's the case. I'm sure both sides of the business have been restrained to benefit the other; Windows probably can't add anything that would compete with Office, and Office ships only on Windows and OSX. If it split up, Office would be instantly ported to Linux (they probably have a working port running already... they'd be dumb not to) and probably Solaris. Windows would start adding more Office-like features. Each product would become better than it is now.

      A monolithic Microsoft is about money and power, and it's a less effective competitor because of it. A broken-up Microsoft would suddenly have itself as an indirect competitor, and that kind of an organizational shakeup would have a very good chance of refocusing them into the lean, mean, NASTY competitor of yesteryear.

      Obviously this is all guesstimation, just from observing Microsoft and other large companies over the years. But if my guess is at all accurate, the open source crowd most emphatically wants Microsoft huge and evil. It's the most fertile possible ground for free software.

      But if it IS broken up, the outcome isn't likely to be the same as AT&T. Microsoft would become only two monopolies, and the barriers to competition in those fields just aren't that high...nothing at all like building all that physical wire. The BEST possible outcome to leave them big, dumb, and nasty. But if they do break up, AT&T's history is probably not a good example from which to extrapolate.

  6. Huh! and is MS to be blamed for that?? by cyberjessy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Huh! and is MS to be blamed for that?? by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Every modern OS has one built in.

      That's not true.

      Mac & Windows have them built in, but they are a minority.

      Which, pray, is the built in Web Browser for OpenBSD 3.8 ?

      How about Solaris 10 ?

      What Media Player does FreeBSD ship with ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Huh! and is MS to be blamed for that?? by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Informative
      What Microsoft should be penalized for with regards to the browser is that, historically, they wouldn't let any other browser be available as an icon on the desktop on a new system. They wouldn't let *anything* appear on the desktop except regular Windows icons. Breaking that agreement would cost a PC manufacturer their cheap Windows licensing deal.

      OK, so that's understandable from a support perspective. The Microsoft support desk wouldn't want to deal with any random crap loaded up by the manufacturer, particularly if some of that random crap made the system unstable.

      That doesn't make it right, though.

    3. Re:Huh! and is MS to be blamed for that?? by macpeep · · Score: 5, Informative

      Incorrect.

      The situations is exactly identical on Mac and on Windows. On Mac OS X, the web browser (HTML redering) functionality is WebKit and Safari is just a thin GUI shell around it. In the same way, IE is just a thin GUI shell around the web browser (HTML rendering) functionality embedded into the OS.

      If you remove the IE shell, nothing will break in Windows. However, if you remove the HTML rendering capability lots of things will break. In the same way, if you remove Safari nothing will break in OS X but if you remove WebKit, tons of things will break. There's a HUGE amount of applications that rely on WebKit!!

      Of course Slashdot readers often overlook this fact because they think it's cool to bitch about Microsoft.

    4. Re:Huh! and is MS to be blamed for that?? by marsonist · · Score: 2, Informative
      The difference, plain and simple, between Microsoft and Apple is that Microsoft is a monopoly and Apple is not. Legally they bear different burdens.

      Apple has Safari/Webkit bundled with the OS, but as they only have single digit market share this bundled applications can not be used to twist anybodies arm. They can't make proprietary web extensions that fail to render on other peoples browsers, no developer would use them.

      Microsoft, on the other hand, is the clear market leader. They can add some wonderful proprietary extension to Internet Explorer, tell developers that this new extension will function on 90% of the target clients browsers, and sit back and watch competitor's browsers get pushed out of the market.

      Clear market leaders, like Microsoft, are legally expected to play by different rules, and for good reason.

  7. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    One small step of Europe towards capitalism one giant flame war for /.

  8. Wrong target by oliderid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  9. It is open by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It is open by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      you aren't forced to use Windows Media Player, or Internet Explorer, or MS Office,

      You are if people supplying or selling the data or entertainment media you want to access only supply it in these proprietary (I include IE here, we all know lots of sites only work in IE) formats. You can use various codecs etc, but when it comes to DRM you have no legal alternative. So this is handing MS a monopoly on downloadable media because they can tell all the vendors they only need to supply in one locked format, paying Bill his tithe for every download. Trying to forestall this is what the whole case is about, not the players per se.

    2. Re:It is open by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need to pay attention. It's impossible to install Windows, and nearly impossible to get the Microsoft published updates for their terribly secure OS, without Internet Explorer. It's also nearly impossible to take Internet Explorer out. And any hardware vendor that tried to install Netscape or now Firefox as their default browser or even include it on the desktop as an alternate to Internet Explorer suddenly finds its OEM license prices raised, and threatened by lawsuit if they reveal the predatory pricing. MS got caught repeatedly doing this sort of stunt.

      The same sort of monopoly predation just got revealed in court, if OEM vendors produced systems with the Real multi-media software installed instead of or even in addition to the Windows Media players. It's nasty, and it's illegal in most country's anti-monopoly or anti-trust laws. The difficulty is in getting Microsoft all the way through the courts: actually pressing suit against a company the size of Microsoft is no small feat. Unfortunately, judges like Judge White in the most recent US anti-trust case against them are far too willing to ignore blatant criminatlity, even revealed in their own court room, in the interests of "promoting competition".

      I urge you to go investigate the courtroom dealings of companies like this over at http://www.groklaw.net./ The behavior is quite scary.

    3. Re:It is open by tshak · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's impossible to install Windows, and nearly impossible to get the Microsoft published updates for their terribly secure OS, without Internet Explorer.

      It's an outrage. You can't update Microsoft's software on 3rd party platforms! To make things worse, Windows update only works on Windows! They force you to use their platform to update their platform! It doesn't even work on Linux!

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  10. Tax application (application) by owlstead · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  11. I didn't even know there was one by borud · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  12. Small fines = big profits by FishandChips · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  13. It's all about the price by Jarnis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. Make it optional by StoatBringer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  15. Does this mean that... by tsa · · Score: 2, Funny

    We will see version 2 of Steve's monkeydance soon?

    --

    -- Cheers!

  16. Am I the only one by Kj0n · · Score: 3

    who thought of megacomputers when he read the subject?

    Come on: when you read "N Flops", it is about floating point arithmetic, right?

  17. What player do you use? by poptones · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:Speaking as a mac user, it pains me to say this by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  19. Re:Funny how... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well yes but someone who wants to drive a Renault has only one supplier, Renault. Yes you can buy cars from other companies but if you want a Renault then Renault seem to have the monopoly on that.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  20. Re:Speaking as a mac user, it pains me to say this by mytec · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    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.

    Point is, Apple is just as guilty as say Dell for forcing users to use one particular OS.

    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.

  21. It doesn't work for most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  22. Re:You do not understand the term 'monopoly'. by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  23. I dunno about yaboot... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  24. Re:Speaking as a mac user, it pains me to say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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.

  25. Re:Speaking as a mac user, it pains me to say this by kallisti777 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Buy a consumer desktop from Dell without an OS and we'll talk.

    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."
  26. Re:You do not understand the term 'monopoly'. by Keeper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:XP "Home" N by zachdms · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, there's XP Pro N too. Got a copy in my office. :)

  28. VC-1 is just the video codec by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  29. Re:Restrictions don't work by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Informative

    started making some kind of strangely huge and complicated "communicator" that crashed every ten minutes.

    I can't remember using Netscape 3.0, but I used 4.0 quite a bit on a Windows 98 machine, and Netscape was far more stable than Internet Explorer. I could literally use it for hours at a time, with multiple windows open. I tried using IE more than a few times, and multiple browser windows caused IE (really the entire OS) to choke after a while. If you compare the integrated components of IE, memory usage wasn't even that much more for the Netscape suite.

    Anyways, if you look at the graph of usage you'll see that, while the Netscape suite was released in '96, Netscape share didn't really begin to plummet until '98, when Microsoft integrated IE 5.0 into Windows.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  30. The Fine by __aamkky7574 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Serious question: where does the 500 million go? P.