Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Adds Years To Microsoft's 'Probation'
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Justice Department has added another two years to its agreement with Microsoft, extending the protocol licensing program that is part of the company's penance for anti-competitive activities. The organization feels Microsoft is providing documentation too slowly to its licensees." From the article: "At one time, the Justice Department and several state Attorneys General had sought a breakup of Microsoft in order to prevent it from abusing its Windows monopoly. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson at one point ordered such a move, though his ruling was later reversed on appeal. Ultimately Microsoft settled with the Department of Justice, agreeing to far more modest restrictions, including the protocol licensing program." Relatedly, regulators have cleared Vista of anti-competitive elements. They examined the OS on concerns an added search box may have given the company a home-field advantage.
I thought that probation was about...
well... you know...
keeping you from doing the stuff you got in trouble for .
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
"You haven't supplied the information you were required to as part of the terms of settlement, so instead of doing something about it, we'll give you more time."
This guy's the limit!
Two more years of looking the other way.
regulators have cleared Vista of anti-competitive elements. They examined the OS on concerns an added search box may have given the company a home-field advantage.
First software was designed to do stuff because it was needed.
Later, software was designed to do stuff that was cool.
Still later, software was designed to make money.
Then software was designed primarily by marketing departments
Now, software is designed by lawyers and the judicial system?
What a great world we live in.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Dear US Government, Leave Microsoft the hell alone.
I like Windows, I like IE, I prefer Google over MSN and nothing's stopping me from using it.
Microsoft products are default.. NO KIDDING, it's THEIR OS, not yours or their competitors.
If Google made an OS and integrated Google search technology would everyone cry foul? Probably not, the hypocritical zealots.
Let Microsoft include a default browser, search engine, mail client, antivirus/antispam, office suite, whatever. If there's something different I prefer I'll switch that element.
Thank-you for your consideration.
If you're hearing rhetoric about Linux, open source, or Mac and everyone's bashing Microsoft, you've found Slashdot.
Well maybe this signifies that the Justice Dept now realizes WHY Microsoft was brought before them and that their measures taken thus far have proven futile in getting the company to change their tactics.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I'm pretty sure that without a good strong light being shined on their shady business practices, they would have easily co-opted the internet, TCP/IP and all sorts of other "free" things today.
And a damn good thing too. We needed to save the co-opting the internet for the telcos.
Here, here -- A toast, to two more years being everyone's favorite illegal monopoly!
Cheers!
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
What a complete waste of time.
Has the State involvement in this issue achieved anything?
And how much did it COST?
We're all sitting here paying tax through our noses.
Who's spending this money?
What are we getting for it?
How many millions have been spent on this excercise which has had no significant impact on the MS monopoly?
Meanwhile over in the EU, Microsoft has been accused of exaggerating what is being asked for
and the difficulty of providing it.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I can only dream of a computing experience, which has lack of unknown formats. I would really be a lot more happy to see wmv files to be played without any problem, or office documents openning flawlessly in various applications.
.doc file created with 200x version of Microsoft Word is just like the feces of this application. And if we don't want to make Internet or our networks sewer we should definately stop sharing those crap (literally) through the wires.
Real question is why should we stick to just one application for any format. If every unique application made their own file format, nobody would be able to share anything, and why does Internet ever exists if we won't be able share our documents.
That's not an open source issue, or free market problem. It's the lack of mentality for sharing of information. People really suffer from these compatibility problems, and if someone made a research about the lost and or wasted time related to these issues, it would be easily seen that it's very huge problem that computer users experience. And with the growing trend of DRM and stuff we will just suffer this more and more.
People should convert, open, edit any format with any application coded for them. To let this, those willing to create a format, should clearly state specifications for these formats, or clearly state that this format is just for a specific application and should not be shared so that users won't use those files for sharing. A
Relatedly, regulators have cleared Vista of anti-competitive elements.
Nooooooo! That means the search box remains with MSN selected by default!
Why can't Microsoft be "fair" and set Google default like with the other browsers!
I'm devastated.
What I don't understand is that since the DOJ judegement against Microsoft they've had time to rewrite their entire flagship OS from scratch, yet still haven't been able to document it? How naive does the government have to be?
So where is the failure? And what is the alternative?
Perhaps there is too much corporate involvemeent in the State.
How much taxpayer money is being spent to create and maintain exclusive scarcity for MS and other IP claimants?
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
(rant mode)
I dont know if this issue has been looked at by the US or EU but it is much more of a concern to me that MS is activly releasing / selling software that is so insecure to the point that it seems to go out of its way to prevent techies and end users from properly securing it in order to keep (often confidential) data safe from malware, viruses etc.
There is also the wider issue of MS through their lack of a proper security model facilitating the creation and operation of botnets which are used to the detrement of users, businesses and the internet at large.
I use Windows and find it annoying that I need to apply 3rd party apps in an attept to minimise security risks to my computer when the OS maker should have secured the software before release.
Its not that I hate MS for their propriatory nature etc but I find myself trying a few Linux distos in an attmept to find a viable alternative although I am into the frame of mind that for my next computer purchase I will go for a mac depsite the high prices and the fact that I enjoy building my own systems.
If Windows worked properly and had a good security model then I would be happy; I think MS are wasting their time trying to fight the "pirates" and that their real problem (and as such priority) should be to make an OS that is suitable for widespread use. They should secure their software and if they feel the need add an "anti-piracy" function like activation, genuine advantage etc then whatever but make the software safe for people to use first.
(/rant mode)
I don't approve of laws designing software, but I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with stopping people abusing laws to prevent software from being designed. I also have no problem with laws that enforce progress.
(The State of Oregon recently received some thinly-veiled threats from Microsoft's CEO over Oregon's active support for Open Source - both towards Oregon and towards all Microsoft shops in Oregon. Although not a part of the DoJ lawsuit, and therefore probably not a part of this review, I would feel a lot more comfortable if States receiving such threats reviewed their legality. Last I heard, "demands with menaces" was not considered an OK activity.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Pesky gubmint, I want my gas guzzling death trap behemoth with no seat belts and impaling steering column!
Yeah, I know the market would have delievered it without Nader.
Xix
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
When the average person violates probation, they go straight to prison. They dont get a trial or a hearing to prove their innocence, nor does the state give them more time to get it right, or get their affairs in order.
The best word in the whole article is "settled" ... Microsoft settled with the government. This means if I get pulled over for speeding, I can settle with the office by giving him $50 and him leaving me alone, right?
When you settle in court, you settle with the person you wronged.... You can't settle with the enforcement -- or at least shouldnt be able to. Your punishment is your punishment.
Ahh.. just long enough for Vista to come out.
Friday we hate Sony..
Microsoft hating is so wednesday..
SCO hating is every other day of the week.. except monday.. monday we hate the patent office.
So, Microsoft violates their probation. What *should* happen is this:
The company should be disbanded, all its assets forfeited and sold at auction. Anyone on the executive committee of the company, and anyone else who knew or should have known that this violation would have occurred, should be sentenced to at least ten years in prison, and their personal assets forfeited and auctioned off.
Nothing less that that would happen to you or me and the company we controlled, if we purposely used our company to violate federal laws. The last thing we'd hear from a judge is "I see you are having trouble complying with the orders of this court. Perhaps if we give you a few more years to work on it you can get back to us on how you're coming with the whole court-mandated actions thing, okay?"
You and I wouldn't get that treatment. We would go to prison, our assets woudl be seized, and it wouldn't make the news.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
How naive does the government have to be? ... "nucular".
Definition.
I'm all for giving the editors a hard time when they fuck up the English language, but this isn't one of those times.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
The cynic in me suspects this is a move to ensure that the huge bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign donations keep rolling in from Microsoft at least through the next US presidential election. The only real downside of this ruling for Microsoft appears to be the risk of a less-friendly attorney general taking office -- that is, through a Republican Party loss in the 2008 presidential elections.
Europe's fine!
...why are they still allowed to include internet explorer with windows?
Czech language for absolute beginners
Microsoft Vista was delayed for an additional two years. Microsoft insisted the time similarity of the delay and court order were only a coincidence and had absolutely nothing to do with them trying to hijack standards.
usual monopoly crap i imagine
instead of moaning about what people willingly spent their hard earned cash on offer a compelling alternative. Then you can have the moral high ground.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The average person also doesn't get to haggle over their punishment.
... is costing Bill now. Although it was pretty funny at the time ("Real glad to be here, my other invite was to go hunting with Dick Cheney").
Plus, Preston Gates is no longer helping out.
-- more cynical than you
True that. True that.
The problem lies not with Microsoft doing anything illegal, or unethical, and even the bundling of software isn't the problem - it's doing it while being popular that's the problem.
Everything Microsoft has done either is being done or was being done not too long ago by other software development companies.
The problem is that Microsoft succeeded by doing this, while the others did not.
Take Apple, for example, they bundle a lot more into their OS than Microsoft does but they aren't even glanced at. Including the 'search' feature that is talked about in TFA pales in comparison to Spotlight in OSX - but no one has a problem with Apple.
Others will raise the fact that "it's different for Microsoft because they have a monopoly". Which is true - but they have a monopoly because their Operating System is designed to work on the most popular systems available. Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer.
It's not like Microsoft designs their OS to work only with the machines they build in-house.
In fact, they can't. They'd never be allowed to. They're not allowed to do a lot of things that every other company is allowed to.
Personally I believe it's wrong to impose such huge regulations (that stem from laws that were never meant for this kind of business) on Microsoft. A lot of these regulations are ridiculous (though some do promote competition).
My biggest problem with the continued litigation and dragging down of Microsoft with superfluous rules is that it doesn't help the consumer. These regulations are supposed to help the consumer - but they don't.
There's no excuse for the EU forcing Microsoft to un-bundle Media Player from Vista. I mean, come on, I thought that was the most retarded thing I'd ever heard.
But then they decided a 'search' feature might be too much.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
I remember in the early 1990's people thought Bill Clinton was crazy for suggesting that some day every middle-class family will own a computer, and every child in the US will be taught how to use one... Well, here we are here, and, truthfully, thanks, in part, to Bill Gates.
/computer, and slowed innovation, until Microsoft lit a fire under their ass and caused them to evolve (and I am saying this as someone who owns and uses Macs almost exclusively).
c le/2006/01/12/AR2006011201251.html )
I know Microsoft is evil, anticompetitive, and all, but, honestly, they did bring innovation (and pushed Apple to innovate), they established a de-facto standard for personal computing, and they made owning computers easy and accessible, which stimulated the demand, driving the prices down.
Remember that before MS's rise, Apple was just as bad, given how they got all happy and cosy with their market share, kept the prices up, $5000+
Isn't it sad that any company that is becoming succesfull is automatically punished with breakup threats, union re-negotiation (and unionizing), and even direct legislation, as in the case of Walmart:
(Maryland lawmakers bucked the will of the state's Republican governor and the nation's largest retailer yesterday, voting to become the first state to effectively require that Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
I know that unchecked monopoly is anti-free-market and is thus bad, but there just has to be a middle ground between estabishing monopolies on the one side, and punishing success of the other side.
That legal strategy was designed by Real, Netscape and others to yield compensation dollars. The problem with Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior has to do with Inter Process Communication (IPC). A file is a form of IPC. A network message is IPC. If the details of the various forms of IPC are widely available products can interoperate and that is bad for Microsoft's market share. I believe that if a product is completely dominant in a market (e.g. Exchange / Outlook mail system on corporate intranets) the details regarding it's IPC should be made available so as to reduce the liability associated with using that product. In this particular case that liability is the unfair business practice of forcing other companies out of a market by leveraging undisclosed IPCs. Secondarily there are a number of other very good reasons for having alternative programs that understand the same IPCs but it's not clear that they have legal bearing.
I'm by no means a MS fan boy, though I do use XP.
:D
All I wanted to say is how exactly is it anti-competetive for them to bundle apps? I wouldn't even consider it anti-competetive to completely disallow add-on programs under their OS. I just don't understand where everyone got the idea that an operating system cannot include EVERYTHING a computer needs. Windows haters whine and complain about how it includes no useful software compared to other OS (notepad, calculator.. etc. All junk supposadly) then they start bundling somewhat useful apps (IE, Media Player, etc.) and they are anti-competetive.
What exactly is it? Did they have an ad-campaign touting their lack of features or something making it false advertising? If that isn't it then I dont understand the problem..
If they are in fact being anticompetetive then why are they not being sued for bundling an OS with their xbox consoles? Or even better.. for not making it easier to install linux on them? I understand its a "game console" which doesn't specifically say it has the ability to install 3rd party applications.. but neither does "personal computer".
Note: Most of this is in fact taken to the extreme, in which case I still think they have done nothing wrong. Also note that I DO think it sucks that they dominate the market, competetion is great... I just don't really think its their fault or they should be hurt for it. I'd like to see some other players step up and release an OS and featureset as easy to use with as much software as windows.. or possibly binary compatability / good emulation for windows apps.
I guess thats the point to an extent? If they documented everything better it would be much easier for someone / some company to do just that
Btw doesnt this psuedo-html crap to post here drive people crazy?
Just like Titanic is *obviously the best movie ever made. Look at the box office.
(note: set sarcasm detectors on 'stun')
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Quick (no Googling), other that OO (which doesn't depend upon making a profit for survival), what other word processors or spreadsheets are available?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Two more years of looking the other way.
Do you mean Republican Congress' stance on Bush, or the Justice Dept's stance on Microsoft?
who gives a rip about bundled software? Everyone bundles. Duh. Their biggest crime is their illegal collusion with hardware vendors. That's their biggest lock on the market. Everything else flows from that- all those nice customers to bully and abuse, all those captive devs trapped in lardy Microsoft Foundation Classes, and their giant politician-purchasing war chest. The DOJ doesn't want to punish MS, it's just a big empty show.
we will end no whine before its time
Those who try to document Microsoft's abuses find that there are too many to investigate and explain.
For example, Ed Foster's Gripelog has a story about Microsoft's Harshest EULA. Windows users who download the "High-Priority Update" called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification are required to agree to a new contract. Ed says, "Not only does Microsoft place restrictions on your right to criticize the software, it won't allow you to uninstall the software or to test it in an operating environment."
EULAs are a unique kind of contract in that they supposedly allow one party to the contract to force new contract provisions on the other. Contract law has always held that forced contracts are illegal.
If you buy, agree to the terms of use, and install Windows for your company and train your staff to use it and applications you buy for it, your total cost is far greater than the cost of Windows. Yet EULAs supposedly allow the software provider to change the contract provisions at any time, with no restrictions whatsoever. Your only option if you don't agree to the new contract provisions is to lose all the money you have invested and stop doing business until you can get new software. This is especially severe when a company has a monopoly on the operating system your business software needs to run.
The concept of fairness is completely absent from EULAs. Those who write EULAs believe that they can do anything they like. If you go to your kitchen and find a Microsoft employee eating your ice cream, check your EULA; maybe Microsoft has decided that Microsoft employees can raid your refrigerator.
Someone may justifiably bitch when adverbs are used indiscriminately. Fortunately, that disease is mostly restricted to journalists who write sophomorically to communicate effectively to the childishly demented general public.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Mod parent up please. Internet would be better user MS than user AT&T and Google!
Remember several months ago out Gov'ment asked Yahoo, Google, and MSN to turn over our search term lists?
Well, Microsoft's MSN was the ONLY ONE THAT REFUSED to violate our privacy, while google and yahoo rolled over and let the Gov't Eff us in the Ay.
Due to regulation, such cars will never make it in the US, which is a shame since they could get the same MPG as a hybrid car but with half the cost and twice the performance (like a motorcycle).
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Try troll, flamebait, raving loony.
More like say anything mildly negative about MS and get modded to oblivion, as near as I can tell. Oh, and one more thing, tell Bill, Steve and Darl, they need to spend some more money to get you guys into a better Troll-school. You used to like Linux? Hard to believe. Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver, though.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
The whole theory of copyright is to provide an "incentive" to bring beneficial creations out into the open. Considering that it has been proven that MS violated this purpose, an appropiate punishment wouldn't require Microsoft to do anything - it would simply assert that Microsoft copyrights could no longer be enforced.
But as it is, the punishment that Microsoft gets is nothing compaired to the punishment we get as Microsoft still has the nearly unlimited right and leverage to squeese and sue us using copyright controlls - minus one or two exceptions. This "punishment" did not eliminate their ability to abuse, it enshrined it. However it is probably for the better, because the problem isn't Microsoft. They are just a symptom of the kinds of problems copyrights cause as they are brought to their logical conclusion. Get rid of copyrights and the other problems will solve themselves.
Microsoft is either
Incompetent - Evidence: Vista has been being delayed again and again.
or
Anticompetitive - Evidence: Open Document Format plugin team had to use undocumented APIs to write the plugin.
Microsoft may be both, but I am leaning toward anticompetitive.
They are being given two more beers!
So they can celebrate being able to violate federal law over and over with impunity.
Bill Clinton does the same thing and he gets impeached.
Internet, Schminternet,
Microsoft protocol
Documentation is
Coming too slow.
Hurry it up, for your
Anticompetitive
Tactics sow hatred for
Your CEO.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
I always wondered why the DoJ settled this case. They already had a conviction. The conviction was not reversed, only the penalty was. This was in the penalty phase! Imagine a bank robber being convicted, and then the prosecution going into settlement talks over the penalty.
OK, now I'll stop pretending to be naive. I knew in 2000 that if Bush was elected, his administration would drop the ball on this case. Was I right?
As it turned out, that should have been one of my lesser worries about a Bush administration.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
lead compliance lawyer for M$ on this antitrust settlement. Now, I have hated microsoft since I was first offered and turned down a job in the early 80s, and turned down offers from M$ in 84 and 87. I'd be rich by now, yes. I made a 'bad' decision financially. However socially I can sleep well, knowing that the evil empire doesn't utilize my brain cells for its domination. The real kicker is not only are they evil, I'm not rich, but my best friend from 6 months old onward thru high school is their lead compliance lawyer brought in to make sure they are 'legally compliant'. We can't talk shop, about anything work related at all, nor can we really talk at all, and thus I hold microsoft responsible for destroying my friendship with my best and longest friend (of some 35+ years now). Bill Gates, you got yours coming dude, the gates of Hell are awaiting for your soul. The song burn baby burn, with lyrics like, "a Microsoft inferno..." comes to mind.
Jackson's findings of fact were not overturned. They are here. Penfield's Conclusions of Law and Order are here. The findings of fact were not overturned. Both are available as .html or .pdf or wpd files (but not, interestingly, as .doc [=MS Word] files).
Penfield's remedies are here. The gutted final judgement produced by the DOJ cave-in and the Appeals court kowtowing to MS is here here. It's a mere slap on the wrist. "Pretty please, play nice, now, or at least don't get caught flagrantly breaking the law." I wonder how much $jack the DOJ and US Appeals court judges cost. Less than an hour's profits, I'd bet. Ask your MS pals.
More on this and other MS litigation over here.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
If it's enforced, it's not binding anymore, is it?
I'm sure there's some ammendment out there that could be used.
...to just stop throwing good money after bad. Microsoft today doesn't make any money for the business world, nor does it make government more efficient. It *costs* the economy to stay stuck on windows. Inertia and very pointy headed people are why we still have this abominable affliction.
Well, that and outright bribes and the fact that it is SO broken than an entire industry has grown up around the fact that it needs to STAY broken to be profitable for them. In "administration", in "applications and support" and also in hardware. Vendors rely on microsoft staying at around 75% functionality, so they can keep selling newer models with the "new" windows periodically. Peoplke have been mass brainwashed into actually believing that "windows" is what a computer is, and that a few vendors make "windows computers". There exists nothing but a "windows" computer. I know people who think Macs are just very expensive "windows" computers.
This is beyond nuts. Completely. It's abhorrently *wrong* that things have gotten so far out of hand with this.
Microsoft has turned into the planet's largest ever make work busy-work project.
Thanks for the warning, That is a vile EULA, even by MS standards. Particularly troubling is the business about it getting into the BIOS, WTF is that supposed to be about?! I will never accept that EULA. I was thinking of booting my Windows partition tomorrow to let it update, as its been 2 or 3 months. Plan A:shut the box off, then 1) disable eth0, 2) reboot, 3) disable Automatic Updates, 4) shutdown, 5) re-enable eth0, 5) reboot, 6) cherry-pick the alleged security updates, and 7) reboot into Linux. OR Plan B: reboot and then 1) install another Linux distro or FreeBSD over Windows, and be done with it (no steps 2-6 in Plan B).
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Think of the ramifications involved in buying slashdot alone:
Microsoft with their cronies: Hey, we want to co-own you.
slashdot: F*** you. We'll take you to court.
Microsoft: We own the courts.
slashdot: Then we'll kill you.
Microsoft: Damn.
That said, it's only a *tiny* bit unrealistic.
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
Do you have any evidence refuting these allegations?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Could be true, could be false, I just do not have any info to decide.
I tend to think I am extremely conservative myself, but I do believe "anyone who makes up their mind before getting the facts is a effing idiot" as someone once said.
I CAN say that so far (about a year) I have not seen any dildo dispensers etc. in my dorm, lol. And I have not seen any at Harvard last year (though from roommate-wanted ads it seemed the whole place was full of homosexuals).
The point I was making is that some of us are utterly ignorant about the ideas and beliefs of our compatriotes, that's all.
As a former MSFTie I can tell you why "it takes too long" to provide documentation. Because they don't have any (except in rare instances). They have to write it from scratch by looking at the code.
Windows users who download the "High-Priority Update" called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification are required to agree to a new contract.
Yes; we agree to a contract covering the WGAN tool, not Windows. The EULA for Windows XP is not affected.
it won't allow you to uninstall the software
The licence actually says "you will not be able to uninstall the software". That is not the same as you aren't allowed to uninstall it; MS are not denying you permission, they're saying that it isn't possible. In other words, they have not provided an uninstallation tool. I see nothing in the licence that forbids you from ripping it out yourself, if you are so able.
If you buy, agree to the terms of use, and install Windows for your company and train your staff to use it and applications you buy for it, your total cost is far greater than the cost of Windows.
As it is for any OS or application; I'm not sure I see the relevance. If you give everyone Linux (whether freely downloaded or bought and paid for), you still have training costs and quite possibly costs for commercial apps. The total cost may be lower (especially if you don't buy the distro or a support contract), but it's still higher than just the cost of the OS.
If you go to your kitchen and find a Microsoft employee eating your ice cream, check your EULA; maybe Microsoft has decided that Microsoft employees can raid your refrigerator.
That sort of crap would be struck down by a court in seconds. Just because something is in a contract (even an honest to goodness, negogiatable, signed on the dotted line contract) doesn't necessarily mean that it's enforceable. For a clearly absurd example, if my employment contract stated that upon leaving the company, I had to give them my first born child as a replacement, that would not be enforcable. For a more realistic example, some/most anti-compete clauses are not enforcable as they contravene restriction of trade laws.
Yes, it's a crap licence, but it's not quite as bad as either you or Ed Foster make out.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
They tried to, but failed.
They had their on 'MSN' network that rivalled AOL but didn't link to the wider internet.
They had 'Windows Mail' which was not SMTP or IMAP/POP based.
Bill gates himself said there would never be an MS internet division.
The internet, however, took over, and open standards won out. MSN was reduced to a mere portal and MS was forced to have an internet division. Windows mail few people remember (if you ever install a Win95 machine for testing though it's still there).
I'm actually thinking something a bit different. Is this a common microsoft practice? I mean, do you have to agree to a new EULA everytime (or most of the time) you apply patches to Windows? It's been a while since I've used windows so I really do not remember the process, but is the time you take to read the new EULA counted when people are comparing windows vs linux?
Just a thought...
Since the "probation" is a meaningless joke, it matters not at all if they continue it or not.
Sorry, I wasn't sure if the subject line was too subtle. I wasn't being serious.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
I understand what you're saying, but you seem to have some facts wrong. I've been using or helping troubleshoot people using MS Windows from 3.1 to Windows ME, and I personally have used Windows NT 3.51, 4.0, and XP, along with Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, and ME, and my recollections are very different from yours.
I don't remember MS Word ever being bundled with the OS - it was always a separate program (and an expensive one) used to compete with WordPerfect. There was a small word processor called Wordpad that showed up in every version of Windows I've ever seen or used - it was under the accessories.
As for taking IE out of the OS, the reason it was incorporated into the OS in the first place was to give it an edge against Netscape, and the big stink in the court case was that Microsoft claimed that IE was an essential part of Windows, and therefore couldn't be removed without crippling the operating system, and therefore the user couldn't be allowed to have a version of Windows that didn't have IE installed (again, more important because of competing against Netscape at the time than anything else). Now, a huge number of the security holes in Windows exist because IE is incorporated into the operating system, and it now has to be removed for safety more than anything else.
As far as not being able to open up documents from Windows 95, Microsoft has a tendency of changing the Word document file with each new version of office, so older documents aren't necessarily compatible with newer versions of Office - a key reason why there's such a focus on open standards for documents right now.
Microsoft may not force you to install their products, but they do abuse their monopoly. They just do it more or less invisibly. They force vendors to put Windows on every new computer (or have the price for the OS jacked up on them), they modify the way IE views code so that pages will render differently on IE than they will on other browsers, they keep changing the nature of MS Word files so that you have to upgrade to a new version of Office - the abuse is there. And, my own feeling is that with the DRM material in Vista, Vista will have some other stuff we haven't been told about that is very frightening.
(Let's just say I'm waiting with bated breath for the next version of Xandros so I can finish my migration to Linux at last.)
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
"C" average student...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I never received my money from the settlement eventhough I sent in the documentation they asked for. Seems to me that they have never complied.
He Decided that gas saving hybrids were a threat to oil industry profits and so he eliminated the Clinton era hybrid project.
5 8
and
He Decided to keep Microsoft intact and eliminate any efforts to bring operating system competition back to the market.
He is "The Decider". He says so himself( http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a79
and a more comical/musical link http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ )
Brilliant or Idiot? History will play this one out while the Republican party tries to rewrite this history for decades to come.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Many of the Dell OEMs I have seen tend to bring their Realplayer or MusicMatch for the sole purpose of prompting an upgrade when you need certain features, thanks to the shareware-ification of commercial software. Similarly, think of 6-month internet / Antivirus subscripions.
That said, I bought a Compaq laptop to find that it had Acrobat Reader preinstalled --first time I see this needed addition, since most users have n clue how to view PDFs. The other thing I noticed was that to browse the web my first time, a Compaq screen came up and offered a choice of Netscape, which I took until I transfered my trusty browser installer a couple days later. I would have preferred FF.
Dell OEMs come with reinstall disks (BIOS-specific to avoid piracy ) while the laptop has the utility partition model for system repairs. I am VERY afraid of wiping the laptop or obvious driver availability issues. There is a "ONE-time" disk creation tool in case the partition gets wiped after that, but it bothers me that I am limited to creating a single set: Those are MY CD-Rs and you know how faulty CD-Rs are. Plus the tools are sure to be BIOS-locked anyway.
I remember breaking an old HP and finding that the included recovery CDs refused to recognize my BIOS so that I could reinstall. I was out of warranty and suspected the media was in good condition. I didn't bother ordering another failed set of rescue disks.
I prefer full version install and OS disks bundled with OEMs, but they are pretty scarce. Lots of the sofware bundled these days is free trialware anyway. And don't get me started about MS Works and WordPerfect, because they are a nightmare file-format wise. When will OEMs include OpenOffice?