Microsoft Ties Windows Live Services to OS

narramissic writes "Microsoft is tying its Windows Live services directly to Vista — a move that should sound vaguely familiar, as it is precisely what the company did to make IE ubiquitous among Internet users. 'A new unified installer for Windows Live services will help users download Wednesday's updates of photo-sharing, mail, instant messaging, online safety and other services, the company said on its Windows Live Wire blog. The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward.'"

Comments

Another reason..

[ynososiduts]

.. to not switch to Vista. They just keep adding up, eh?

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be "another reason", considering this download's completely optional?

Re:Another reason..

[RobertM1968]

Actually, this is for Vista and XP from what the article seems to infer/state.

Regardless of what the other guy who responded to you said, Yeah, it is optional now... but it is also still in beta. Only time will tell whether this becomes another "Automatic Update" item... ah well...

Re:Another reason..

[y86]

I like vista. I just installed it for work(I'm an ubuntu user), it runs smoothly on good hardware and can finally automatically download drivers.

It's still not as good as Ubuntu.

Re:Another reason..

[ackthpt]

.. to not switch to Vista. They just keep adding up, eh?

And yet Microsoft has most vendors no longer selling XP machines and that all seems just fine with the DoJ.

If it looks like a monopoly, smells like a monopoly and acts like a monopoly then it must be .. hey, we can still win the war!

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing to be anti-competitive, but having to compete with yourself in order to not be a monopoly seems a bit stupid.

Re:Another reason..

[calebt3]

You mean another reason to switch to Mac or Linux.

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, i'm running vista 64-bit and it wouldnt install for me

Re:Another reason..

[Ucklak]

IE used to be an 'optional' download - back when Netscape came in a box and was $49.95.

Re:Another reason..

[ozmanjusri]

having to compete with yourself in order to not be a monopoly seems a bit stupid.

It's actually the clearest evidence of Microsoft's monopoly we have.

In a competitive market, producers are forced to continually improve their products so customers will buy them in preference to anyone else's.

In the computer OS market, Microsoft is having to coerce people into "upgrading" to their newer versions because there's no improvements their customers actually want.

Re:Another reason..

[kestasjk]

.Mac is great, it just works, it saves me so much time, and it's built right in. It's stunning and breathtaking, it's the ultimate reason to switch...

OMG Windows Live! More like Windows Death, those monopolistic tyrants!

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

The name basically says it... LIVE is EVIL

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is implying. You're inferring.

Re:Another reason..

[Spleen]

It didn't take any time at all. Yesterday my Windows Server Update Services server asked me to approve all that crap. It's even listed as Beta. I declined, but it appears it's already in the windows update pipeline.

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

In a competitive market, producers are forced to continually improve their products so customers will buy them in preference to anyone else's.

You mean, as opposed to how FOSSies and MS competitors now have to approve what MS can or can't put into Windows?

If competition is so great, why do we have standards bodies? Who's to say that the IEEE's monopoly on the wireless networking standards isn't suppressing all the really great and new innovations which competition could obviously (by your reasoning) be bringing us? Were it not for the IEEE, we would already have 3,000,000 MBPS wireless connections, right?

In the computer OS market, Microsoft is having to coerce people into "upgrading" to their newer versions because there's no improvements their customers actually want.

Like the vast majority of Microsoft haters, you don't even understand who Microsoft's "customers" are. It's not you, it's not me. It's not your grandma. MS's customers are businesses, but MS is kind enough to actually put consumer-level improvements in their software. But like every other person who doesn't understand what they are talking about... you misinterpret those consumer improvements into thinking that's who MS is selling to.

That's also why you think Vista offers no improvements over XP: because, for a consumer, it really doesn't. But for a business running an Active Directory, there are tons of reasons to upgrade to Vista.

Your criticisms are primarily based in ignorance. You don't understand anything about Windows, thus you just whine about it. It's far better to speak from a position of knowledge... but I guess you'd just have to take my word on that.

Re:Another reason..

[Gotebe]

It's actually the clearest evidence of Microsoft's monopoly we have.

Let's not forget that being a monopoly is just fine by itself. Is stops being fine when certain behavior is encountered (which happened with MS, but that's another story).

Re:Another reason..

[bxwatso]

I know everyone hates MS, but they bought a competing browser to launch IE. Adopting another company's good ideas (Netscape or Xerox) is not stealing, it's a main engine of innovation and increased value for the consumer.

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is not a monopoly. Monopoly means that there is only one provider of a service. On the server, MS actually has some pretty fierce competition from a variety of people including Sun, IBM, Linux, and other *nix providers. On the desktop, MS still has to compete with OSX and Linux. Does it use heavy handed anti-competitive tactics to keep its stranglehold on the desktop- yes it does, and that is bad/wrong/pisses me off. But it is *not* a monopoly.

Lets be honest- for all the chest thumping about Linux around here, Linux has been in development since 1991, and Linux still can't compete with Windows even though it gives itself away.

I am being a little flamey I know, but its been a crappy day and the zealotry just got to me. Windows brought computers to the masses. If Windows did not exist, I highly doubt that Linux would have accomplished the same goal, and many of us wouldn't have jobs. Just keep things in perspective, its an OS, not a religion.

Re:Another reason..

[Jerry]

Wow!

What did you get for drinking the MS Koolaid?

Re:Another reason..

[itlurksbeneath]

Sorry, but buying up somebody elses crap is not innovation - it's being lazy.

Plus, it's not the source of the product that's GP's issue, it's the fact that what was once optional is now required - adding to the bloat of the "Operating System" by including in non-operating system functions that increasingly tie you to MS as it's sole source provider for everything.

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman. And WTF is with this line:

it's a main engine of innovation and increased value for the consumer. If that doesn't scream "I'm either a shill or a troll!", I don't know what does.

Re:Another reason..

[bxwatso]

Anyone who doesn't hate MS is Fanboy? I hate to use such a worn out phrase, but you are the Kool-Aid drinker for your knee jerk hatred of MS and Gates.

I am quite sure that Ellison, Jobs, and McNeally all pursued the same strategies as did Gates. For that matter, IBM, DEC, Wang, Sperry, and Burroughs also all pursued closed systems strategies. Gates was simply a sharper competitor (also IBM gave him an empire on a plate because they were beyond stupid).

All you MS haters just can't stand that MS's popularity runs contrary to your exquisite sensibilities. Apple made crappy products for about a decade, and that is not Gates's fault.

Not that it mattered, but I used to be a Mac user, and a Unix admin.

.Mac service

[OrangeTide]

Sounds like Apple's .Mac service, hasn't been too successful for Apple though.

Re:.Mac service

[i_love_unix]

But Mac users are neither nearly as ubiquitous nor as tied (real or imagined) to the OS as Windows users.

Re:.Mac service

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, Mac users are just as tired of Vista as Windows users.

Re:.Mac service

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be new around here... or a fanboi in denial.

Re:.Mac service

[Secret Rabbit]

It's actually reverse of what you think. Apple launched .Mac and offered it as it sits today. Whereas M$ released the services and /afterward/ is now tying things in. So, they really aren't the same, business-wise that is i.e. no shady business practices from Apple this time 'round.

Re:.Mac service

[OrangeTide]

I think it's shady to advertise iDisk on my shiny new iBook and then realize that to use it I have to purchase a monthly subscription to .Mac. And then wonder what would happen to my data if I missed a payment.

Re:.Mac service

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on. .Mac doesn't run on Vista. Heck, it barely runs on the Mac.

Re:.Mac service

[zunipus]

Oh dear. Apple haven't made shiny new iBooks in over a year and a half. I'm not aware of Apple ever pulling the wool over anyone's eyes about the cost of .Mac. When you get a shiny new MacBook (which replaced the iBook in early 2006) you have an offer provided for a free trial period on .Mac. If you don't like it after the trial period then you aren't charged. It's very simple.

As for what happens to your data, huh? The #1 rule of computing is (repeat after me): MAKE A BACK UP. If you don't and you lose your data, you get what you deserve. End of story. But Apple actually make storage of your data when closing your .Mac account very easy. In System Preferences you open the .Mac preference pane and turn everything off for your .Mac account. This includes syncing of critical files and syncing of your iDisk. When you are finished, Mac OS X will create a complete disk image (.dmg) of EVERYTHING you had uploaded to your iDisk. If you want to access that data later you just mount the disk image.

Imagine Microsoft making it so easy. You can't. :-D

Re:.Mac service

[Anonymous Coward]

What does Vista have to do with anything?

Re:.Mac service

[aedan]

.Mac did start out free and then became a paid for service about 5 years ago. That was a bit naughty. I had friends and family set up to use it and then suddenly it was pay up or ship out. I know they never promised it would stay free but they also never said they would start to charge for it.

I still like it though.

Re:.Mac service

[noradninja]

.Mac is based on iTools (not to be confused with Tenon's web application with the same name), which were Internet tools available free of charge for Mac users. .Mac is a suite of Internet services and software launched at Macworld Expo, New York on July 17, 2002, and initially offered several tools to subscribers:

HomePage - a personal web hosting service
iDisk - an online disk storage service
@mac.com - e-mail service provider
Backup - a personal back-up solution that allows users to archive data to their iDisk, CD or DVD.
iCards - an online greeting card service
iReview - a website review service
As iDisk made use of WebDAV technology and mac.com was an IMAP service, these services could be accessed from any other computer platform (although a Mac was needed to establish an account).

On September 17, 2002 Apple announced that more than 100,000 .Mac users had subscribed to the company's .Mac suite of Internet services and software since its launch in July.

On September 30, 2002, the iTools service was discontinued, though .Mac continued as a subscription service.

THIS is what I call a complete OS

[dws90]

Not only does it contain IM, photo-sharing and other similar applications, but it also comes preinstalled with the funeral services for when the applications die.
Hopefully, they will release a Windows Live mortuary sometime soon to make the package even more complete.

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[Karzz1]

...Windows Live mortuary...

I just know there is an oxymoron there...

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[Anonymous Coward]

So... would that be Windows Dead?

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[Opportunist]

Yet another one to add to the list of political correctness, military intelligence and Microsoft Works.

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[rolfc]

I'm not worried. Live messenger crash when it starts and 1 time out of 10, a page is readable in live mail. There is no way Microsoft will make this work!

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[Jarik_Tentsu]

(-1 Flamebait)

Without trying to play the Devil's Advocate, if you really think about it, ignoring the 'anti-competition' issue, for complete newbies to computers, wouldn't it be easier for them to buy their PC, open IE and then be presented with everything a normal user would need.

Rather than searching and trying to work out how to find an email account somewhere, they are presented with it, all easily accessible in front of them. And its so integrated into the OS, this'd make it even more simple.

For someone who's never used a computer, think about how hard it is for them to try decipher how to find a free web-based email provider, then learning that they have to click 'register', and then they have to bookmark the site lest they never find it again...

~Jarik

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[rolfc]

Of course it would, the problem is that monopoly thing that stiffles competition, raises prices och reduces choise.

If Microsoft didnt have near monopoly on OS and the other things, it would work, but as it is, allowing them to do things like this reduces competition and it is bad for everyone except Microsoft.

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Yeah, definitely true. Also, lack of competition generally yields less quality...

I mean hell, look at Intel and AMD, or ATI and nVidia - competition has been the pure reason for the cheap prices and performance - not really need.

Why am I contradicting my previous comment? =P

~Jarik

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[dlapine]

Conversely, think about how nice it would be for someone who's never driven a car if the manual and further driving instructions were projected on the windshield? Rather than having to pick up a phone book, they'd be able to just hit their On-Star(tm) button and have a driving instructor come out an help them.

Of course, after 5000 miles of driving, it might be less fun. Let's not even talk about how annoying it would be on your second car.

Bad analogies aside, how time does a "complete newbie" spend on a computer before he/she isn't a newbie anymore? What percentage of the total time they spend on the computer is that? How much should we annoy people who know how to use a computer pampering to those just learning? I'm thinking that skying does it right: "bunny slopes" and "ski instructors" allow newbies a graceful environment without impeding those heading to normal slopes.

Besides, don't we already have Macs for the computing impaired? :)

Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS

[Jarik_Tentsu]

True, but at the same time, is it really that hard to disable a lot of these annoying nuisances? Windows XP SP2 straight out the box is almost unusable for me - I can't stand it...but give me a couple of hours to a tweak it up, and I'm quite happy to use it.

Similarly, I'm sure a lot of these 'features' could easily be disabled, either through GUI or through registry.

We have to remember, most of the world isn't computer literate, nor interested in becoming computer literate. They want it to all be 'in front' of them - they want the computer to know exactly what they want to do, and do it for them.

I know people *my* age...that is, teenagers who have been using computers heaps since they were young kids and I'd *still* consider them computer illiterate. Becoming computer literate requires a certain 'mindset' and a *want* to learn. One of the two should suffice. My Dad for instance, doesn't particularly 'want' to learn, but when a problem arises, he can usually work it out (being an electrical engineer). He has the mindset. But most people don't have the mindset, nor the interest. =S

And computer literate? Like I said, it's not hard for us to customize it for our own needs.

~Jarik

windows live

[Ice Station Zebra]

or is it windows comatose?

Re:windows live

[zeromorph]

I think "persistent vegetative state" is the word you are looking for.

Re:windows live

[Spy der Mann]

How about Windows Cancerous?

Re:windows live

[PPH]

Windows Undead.

Re:windows live

[Opportunist]

Considering the botnets spreading like crazy, I think it would be a fitting name.

Re:windows live

[Ice Station Zebra]

brains! brains!!!

Wrong

[bheer]

The problem with Internet Explorer was bundling with the Operating System (not that it was a technically bad thing to do).

In this case, it's a web download. Big deal. And it probably saves time for those who use all of MSN's services and needs to install/update them. Doesn't Google do this already with Google Pack (including the auto-update) ?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, you install Windows Live!

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzt!!!

The problem with Internet Explorer was paying/leveraging the Microsoft OS monopoly to force OEM and other companies to not include/support Netscape.

Re:Wrong

[yoyhed]

You fucked up. It'd be "In Soviet Russia, Windows Live installs you!". Maybe on slashdot.ru, people actually get it right when they use old Simpsons jokes!

Re:Wrong

[Waffle Iron]

On slashdot.ru, people misattribute old Yakov Smirnoff jokes to YOU!

Re:Wrong

[VENONA]

"...not that it was a technically bad thing to do."

It's a *fundamentally* bad thing to do. It lead to an awful lot of remote code execution exploits. It was originally done in Win95 days--before Windows had any notion of being a multiuser system. There was no privilege separation, so if IE was exploited, no system file, etc., was safe. I don't believe for a moment that Microsoft wasn't aware of this. I think they simply didn't care about their users.

It's *still* a bad idea. In fact, it's a fundamentally poor practice in secure systems design. The resulting system is too monolithic--it's a maze of interdependencies. That leads to security, patching, etc., issues. You may want to Google around a bit.

Re:Wrong

[murdocj]

Yep. This is the dumbest example of Slashdot FUD I think I've ever seen... and that covers a lot of territory. If you actually bother to read the articles, they're providing an easy way to download Windows Live. Whoop de do.

Given that this happened the same day nukes got flown on cruise missles across the USA, I think maybe people are just a little bit too focused on the evils of Microsoft.

Re:Wrong

[rtb61]

The real point is that like it's previous attempts, in combining too many bits together, if one bit fails, of if silly coding mistakes are made, other areas start to fail. Simple things like the same M$ "live' cookie being used all over M$ web services. I got sick of invasive record keeping searching so I killed the live cookie, no the first page of my live searches are Australian specific and the second page switches to UK specific, now that's really useful, not, but typical of poor M$ programming.

Of course because I killed the Live search cookie hotmail fails, oh well, it was only a dead letter box anyhow, so after 10 or more years of it, I am going to let it die it's graceless 90 day death. So to much linking together of services for privacy invasive marketing purposes, together with poorly thought out code, just leads to using other companies solutions or putting up with the faults, so, no cookies for you.

Re:Wrong

[bheer]

> It's a *fundamentally* bad thing to do. It lead to an awful lot of remote code execution exploits.

Providing a web browser EXE and standard URL parsing (urlmon), Network handling (wininet and now winhttp) and rendering (shdocvw) components + APIs as part of the base OS package is in no imaginable way a bad idea. Don't confuse MS's implementation for the RIGHT way to design things.

The BIG problem with IE4-6 was Microsoft using their brand-new HTML renderer to render *everything* -- as part of the "let's make it so that people can't help but use IE and forget about Netscape" strategy.

So everything from help to the filesystem to to the desktop to, god help us, system dialogs starting becoming render surfaces for HTML (the post-Win2K Add/Remove dialog uses shdocvw, and yes, you can use it too 'uninstall' IE. I think that's pretty funny.) Looks like no one thought for a minute about tainted input.

The comparatively smaller (because they didn't have the previous problem this would be less of a deal) problem is Microsoft's brain dead IE Zones model (which they moved away from in .NET, thankfully -- but IE+ActiveX is still stuck with it). At least with IE7 they've figured out how to separate the browser from the file manager. Removing that one "feature" alone decreased the attack surface 4X.

> In fact, it's a fundamentally poor practice in secure systems design.

No. Ignoring taint analysis is fundamentally poor systems design. Including a browser and standard browser-ish components and APIs makes just as much sense as including a TCP/IP stack with the OS.

But hey, as everyone knows, Windows just sorta evolved. It wasn't intelligently designed or anything :-)

Re:Wrong

[bheer]

> combining too many bits together

They're a bunch of different tools, all it's doing is providing a common installer+update. You can still get each piece singly. That's not bad. Of course, they *could* go down the AOL route and make it an all-or-nothing choice, but no one does that these days.

> Simple things like the same M$ "live' cookie being used all over M$ web services.

Hate to break it to you, but doing that doesn't require "combining bits" or shipping a bunch of software. Every large web provider does it.

And oh, if you're worrying about cookies, you won't be pleased to know that most serious web analytics folk do IP address block/URL visit correlation as well. It works really well at drilling down into different people using the same machine, but it also works really well on folk avoiding cookies. And this analysis can be done by anyone with a proxy between you and the site you're visiting.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

It's a *fundamentally* bad thing to do.

Which presumably explains why every other major platform went on to do exactly the same thing, I assume, because all those developers are stupid as well ?

It lead to an awful lot of remote code execution exploits. It was originally done in Win95 days--before Windows had any notion of being a multiuser system. There was no privilege separation, so if IE was exploited, no system file, etc., was safe. I don't believe for a moment that Microsoft wasn't aware of this. I think they simply didn't care about their users.

The nature of Windows 9x means that whether or not IE was "integrated" has no bearing on the security principles you're talking about.

It's *still* a bad idea. In fact, it's a fundamentally poor practice in secure systems design. The resulting system is too monolithic--it's a maze of interdependencies. That leads to security, patching, etc., issues. You may want to Google around a bit.

Every complex system is a "maze of interdependencies". That's the price you pay for a system based on modular, reusable components.

Re:Wrong

[aljova]

You're correct that IE being bundled to the operating system was a bad idea, but it was also a technically bad thing to do.
Having been forced to suffer through Windows NT from beta forward, I remember how this all went down vividly:

Internet Explorer was NOT added to the operating system because it was a good technical idea, they did so so that they could MAKE the argument that "We can't unbundle the browser because it's part of the operating system" in rebuttal to anti-trust concerns. They were unfortunately ultimately sucessful with this strategy

At the time they literally "staple-gunned" the browser's components into the operating system and what had been a reasonably stable operating system become completely destabilized. It was an absolute nightmare, and remnants of this kind of forced interdependency pop up all the time in whatever version of windows you happen to be running today. From installation issues, performance degradatation, to DLL conflicts and now a host of DRM tie-ins, this type of "business case" software crow barring is the worst kind of thing for us, the actual consumers.

If I could punt windows entirely today (I can't because my work requires it) I would do so in a New York minute.

Re:Wrong

[VENONA]

I can agree with much of that, from the standpoint of a desktop machine. But even in its original desktop context, it certainly faces a far more hostile environment that it did ten years ago. But now Windows has evolved into something much more. It's likely the most common server in the world, though that's hard to judge. Security is more important now than it was in '95.

I have to reiterate something you're apparently not buying. Complexity is the enemy of security. This is a secure systems design maxim. Taint analysis is a tool, not a maxim.

If something isn't present, it cannot be attacked. There is inherently less taint analysis (which is not a trivial thing) to be performed. I prefer modular systems which allow a minimal OS (scheduler, memory manager, I/O, etc.) capable of running a given workload, and being maintained with simple tools. Such a system does not need a Web browser, etc. It doesn't even need a windowing system. This is a system with a minimal attack surface, ideal for server loads from a security standpoint. In addition, the system can be maintained without GUI overhead. If the system is running slowly, for instance, you don't add the memory and CPU overhead of a GUI while troubleshooting.

I'm not advocating deploying such systems as desktops, but as a solid base upon which to build desktops., and much else. This morning, I was on a tiny little box (about 1x5x7 inches, Geode CPU, three Ethernet ports, power consumption maybe 4-5 Watts), adding code at the command line. Flexibility is a Good Thing.

I'm not bashing Windows. I know a few people who work in small business (and I mean *small*) who've never used anything else, and are too busy keeping the business afloat to think about what, to them, are irrelevant questions regarding OS aesthetics. Given their circumstances, they're entirely correct. People should run whatever they want to run. My only issue with Microsoft lies with their business practices.

Re:Wrong

[VENONA]

"Which presumably explains why every other major platform went on to do exactly the same thing, I assume, because all those developers are stupid as well ?" I haven't called anyone stupid. And "every other platforms" hasn't done the same thing. Without exception, they have remained far less monolithic than Windows.

"The nature of Windows 9x means that whether or not IE was "integrated" has no bearing on the security principles you're talking about."
I'm well aware that 9x were single-user. That's what I'd just *said*. That's what I was *complaining* about. You don't point a machine with no concept of privilege separation at public networks, unless you don't mind your users paying the price.

"Every complex system is a "maze of interdependencies". That's the price you pay for a system based on modular, reusable components." Complexity can be minimized. In secure systems, complexity *must* be minimized.

Re:Wrong

[rtb61]

Rather pointless when I don't have a fixed IP address, pretty much the same as the majority of users. Of course well done on the quality representation of M$ corporation arrogance, we don't care whether or not you want to retain your privacy we will be invading one or the other. I really think you missed the whole point, ie. the search failure engine, where a marketed major search player's search engines breaks down due to faulty code and trying to stretch a cookie to far. Jamming live in with the rest will similarly cause expected failures. As far as live search is concerned http://mrl.nyu.edu/~dhowe/TrackMeNot/ makes more searches than I do, good luck with anal-ising them.

Re:Wrong

[BenoitRen]

Including a browser and standard browser-ish components and APIs makes just as much sense as including a TCP/IP stack with the OS.

What you seem to ignore in every post is that since IE4 it wasn't just that that was being done. IE was integrated in the sense that it planted itself in explorer.exe and shell32.dll, essentially taking over your entire desktop environment. Everyone was instantly subjected to all of IE's bugs and crashes, even though they weren't browsing the Internet.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

I haven't called anyone stupid. And "every other platforms" hasn't done the same thing. Without exception, they have remained far less monolithic than Windows.

GNOME, KDE and OS X have all implemented the same component architecture as Windows [and IE].

I'm well aware that 9x were single-user. That's what I'd just *said*. That's what I was *complaining* about. You don't point a machine with no concept of privilege separation at public networks, unless you don't mind your users paying the price.

Or you don't have a choice because there's no other way to deliver the users' other [more] important requirements. Like, say, legacy hardware and software support.

Complexity can be minimized. In secure systems, complexity *must* be minimized.

Other platforms with equivalent functionality have equivalent levels of complexity.

Re:Wrong

[VENONA]

>GNOME, KDE and OS X have all implemented the same component architecture as Windows [and IE].

None of these have stuffed so much into the kernel. They *can't*. They're userland. Win, OTOH, was GUI from Square 1, and has all sorts of things in the kernel.

>>I'm well aware that 9x were single-user. That's what I'd just *said*. That's what I was *complaining* about. You don't point a machine with no concept of privilege separation at public networks, unless you don't mind your users paying the price.
>Or you don't have a choice because there's no other way to deliver the users' other [more] important requirements. Like, say, legacy hardware and software support.

We were talking about the days when Microsoft first discovered TCP/IP networking, and the business rags were talking about their rapid turnaround. Neither legacy software or software support concerns apply, as there were none of either.

Both of these apply *now*, as I don't doubt that there are people getting bitten by running more modern variants as admin, just to get old games, etc. to play. There was a large hue and cry about that, when Microsoft finally began to get the security message, and some apps, games, etc., would no longer run. At one point, Microsoft had a rather lengthy list on their site. If they'd done proper multiuser/privilege separation back in the Win95 time frame, they'd have saved themselves and their users a lot of grief.

>Other platforms with equivalent functionality have equivalent levels of complexity.
I doubt that would be the case. The only way to know would be to do a complete call analysis across Win, OSX, KDE, and Gnome, which I very much doubt anyone, save NSA, has done.

Points that argue against it would include
a) Microsoft's 'embrace, extend, extinguish' approach to open standards would argue against it, as in what they did with Kerberos.
b) Much anecdotal evidence on mailing lists, etc, about subtly different APIs.
c) My personal experience when faced with attempting to secure a Win2K system, and finding an NSA doc with 20+ pages of registry edits *alone*. I doubt it's become less complex in the meantime.

Some added complexity is probably justifiable, as they do have real backward compatibility issues to contend with. But that was a bit much.

Re:Wrong

[drsmithy]

None of these have stuffed so much into the kernel. They *can't*. They're userland. Win, OTOH, was GUI from Square 1, and has all sorts of things in the kernel.

What do you think is in the kernel ? (This discussion is rapidly exceeding the scope of comparing IE on Windows to its counterparts on other platforms - unless you think IE is in the kernel.)

We were talking about the days when Microsoft first discovered TCP/IP networking, and the business rags were talking about their rapid turnaround. Neither legacy software or software support concerns apply, as there were none of either.

Perhaps you don't realise pretty much the biggest reason Windows 9x even existed *at all* was to deal with legacy hardware and software.... "None of either" ? Do the ~15 years of PC usage usage preceding Windows 95 - and the significant investment by users in hardware and software during that time - not exist in your world ?

If they'd done proper multiuser/privilege separation back in the Win95 time frame, they'd have saved themselves and their users a lot of grief.

They did. Windows NT. Users weren't really interested at the time because most of their software and hardware was unsupported and it needed a relatively powerful machine to run (another price you pay).

a) Microsoft's 'embrace, extend, extinguish' approach to open standards would argue against it, as in what they did with Kerberos.

You mean extending it in a way the protocol and RFCs allowed for ? How would that argue against Windows being meaningfully more complex than its functionally-equivalent contemporaries ?

b) Much anecdotal evidence on mailing lists, etc, about subtly different APIs.

You'll need to be more specific.

c) My personal experience when faced with attempting to secure a Win2K system, and finding an NSA doc with 20+ pages of registry edits *alone*. I doubt it's become less complex in the meantime.

What's in the equivalent Linux documentation ? (Although given that SELinux-capable distros didn't start showing up until 4 - 5 years later, the comparison is hardly going to be fair.)

Re:Wrong

[VENONA]

"What do you think is in the kernel ? (This discussion is rapidly exceeding the scope of comparing IE on Windows to its counterparts on other platforms - unless you think IE is in the kernel.)"

No, I'm talking about things like the GDI kernel data structures. A vulnerability there was reported in last year's Month of Kernel Bugs, and it turns out that it had been reported two years earlier, and was still unpatched.

"Perhaps you don't realise pretty much the biggest reason Windows 9x even existed *at all* was to deal with legacy hardware and software.... "None of either" ? Do the ~15 years of PC usage usage preceding Windows 95 - and the significant investment by users in hardware and software during that time - not exist in your world ?"

I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Certainly this is a strawman. At the beginning of that ~15 year period, you'd find personal machines like the Commodore PET. At the ~10 year point, my personal machine ran CP/M on a 4MHZ Z80A, with 64K RAM, and the only way I could talk to another system was over a 300 bps modem. WTF does ~15 years have to do with Windows backward compatibility? Though they're better at this than, say, Linux (which had a truly horrible ABI situation for a long time), Microsoft has broken backwards compatibility several times.

Once again, I have to reiterate that I was speaking of quite simply of the the folly of introducing a single-user machine to the Internet.

"They did. Windows NT. Users weren't really interested at the time because most of their software and hardware was unsupported and it needed a relatively powerful machine to run (another price you pay)."

So buy the expensive product or be exposed to risks you probably didn't know about in the cheaper product? Perhaps it was impossible to add multiuser to Win95 and still maintain the ability to run Win 3.1 apps. Certainly it would have been difficult, but I've never heard that it was even attempted. You're making a reasonable argument here, but (largely because of Microsoft's business practice record) I'm not convinced.

"You mean extending it in a way the protocol and RFCs allowed for ? How would that argue against Windows being meaningfully more complex than its functionally-equivalent contemporaries ?"

The purpose of the RFCs is interoperability. The MIT Kerberos team developed something quite useful, gave it away, and got an RFC out there to make it easier for others to implement, all in the name of interoperability, and helping the computing world. Microsoft took that product, and intentionally broke interoperability. *That* is illegal use of monopoly power, IMO. After a huge firestorm of bad press, they made the spec available if you'd run a .exe that forced you to agree that it was a trade secret, making it essentially unusable. Yet more hilarity ensues, and yet more bad PR.

That's a sweet bit of revisionist history you're working on there, but I doubt many people who've been in this game for long are buying what you're selling.

"You'll need to be more specific." (related to my "subtly different APIs" remark)

I'm not up for chasing down the references. Let's leave that one as an exercise for the reader. Anyone who wants to Google for Microsoft API weirdness, or undocumented APIs (cause of yet legal more problems in both the US DoJ and European Commission cases) shouldn't have much trouble.

"What's in the equivalent Linux documentation ? (Although given that SELinux-capable distros didn't start showing up until 4 - 5 years later, the comparison is hardly going to be fair.)"

There wasn't much there in way of Linux docs on the NSA site at the time, and they didn't release SELinux for another year. You could run SELinux in 2001, if you had too. Not "4-5 years later." See the press release at http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00027.cfm, dated 2 January 2001. I wouldn't have done it without a driving need, but I know people who had the ne

No! Buried in 4th from last paragraph

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the Windows Live unified installer also is still an option -- not a requirement

Move along.

good choice of words

[kallisti]

"This new suite of applications is a new way that we can make connecting, communicating and sharing anywhere a terrific experience on your Windows PC"

When reading this quote, I couldn't help but be reminded that the root of the word "terrific" is terrify. Which makes it pretty accurate.

Re:good choice of words

[Derek Loev]

Actually, the root is terrere.

Re:good choice of words

[_Sprocket_]

You scare me.

Re:good choice of words

[conteXXt]

great! Now it's terrible and it bites.

Actually, you are both onto something here.

Re:good choice of words

[Kaenneth]

"This new suite of applications is a new way that we can make connecting, communicating and sharing anywhere a terrific experience on your Windows PC"

When reading this quote, I couldn't help but be reminded that the root of the word "terrific" is terrify. Which makes it pretty accurate.

I thought it was 'tariff', as in a cost or fee.

Re:good choice of words

[illumin8]

"This new suite of applications is a new way that we can make connecting, communicating and sharing anywhere a terrific experience on your Windows PC"

When reading this quote, I couldn't help but be reminded that the root of the word "terrific" is terrify. Which makes it pretty accurate.

Even worse, when I first read that sentence, it looked to me like "... we can make connecting, communicating, and sharing anywhere a TERRIFYING experience on your Windows PC..."

Re:good choice of words

[jagdish]

That sounds mighty close to terror.

Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[vivaoporto]

what the company did to make IE ubiquitous among Internet users

Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too. Before Microsoft tied MSN Messenger to Windows XP, as the infamous Windows Messenger, ICQ ruled the IM world, and Yahoo Messenger was gaining a lot of traction. Months later, and every newcomer was using MSN, because "that is what comes with the computer", and everybody else had to get an account too, in order to stay in touch. Have in mind that I only know Latin America and Europe, so that may differs in other parts of the world, but at least in Brasil and Portugal, "MSN" is a valid substitute for "Computer Instant Messaging", the same for "give me your MSN".

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[benbean]

Now I'm as UNIX-loving and MS-loathing as the next Slashdotter, but in the early days of IM clients when, as you point out, ICQ was king of the hill, I went with Microsoft's solution when stuck using Windows at work because it was the better solution. Microsoft Messenger was lean, clean and fast at a time when ICQ, Yahoo et al were getting uglier and bloatier and more and more difficult to figure out. I don't think it's success is all down to purely being bundled with Windows. It was gaining mindshare before it was bundled in XP.

Having said that, I had cause to look at the current iteration of MSN Messenger Super Live Plus or whatever the hell they call it these days and I see that all that simplicity and cleanliness of interface went the fuck out the window. I quickly retreated to the safety of Adium and vowed never to look at it again.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[speaker of the truth]

Actually many of us switched to MSN because ICQ was bloated while MSN was lean.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[Bonobo_Unknown]

Another reason was that with ICQ you had to remember some 8 or 9 digit number to access your account. With MSN all you needed was your email address.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[weeb0]

Yes, and often when you ask somebody what is their computer (usually, I want to know the processor speed, memory) they tells me: my computer is windows XP, or my computer is windows 98 and he always hang. Moreover, they tells me that their disk drive is a 30mb ... DUH ...

1st: Windows is not a computer ...
2nd: It is not the computer that hang, it's the #$%^ windows!!

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[Opportunist]

In certain circles, the acronym MSN stands for "Malware Spreading Network" rather than "Computer Instant Messaging".

That would be 3 different letters, too.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[mseidl]

I bet Ballmer put a chair together when he got this decision approved.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[kc2keo]

Well... I like to use GChat thats part of GMail. I stopped using AIM and pretty much anything else because it was real annoying to get IMs when your working on stuff (insert joke here). For me almost everyone who said Hi to me said I have this problem with my computer and I need your help. So the bottom line is I just stopped logging in and use GMail. Its much less invasive. Sorry for the poor grammer and sentence structure Grammer Nazis :-P --kc2keo

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[Anonymous Coward]

That's weird. I don't know anyone who uses MSN. Anyone at all. And my contact list is pretty huge. It must be a regional thing, because if my experience is any indicator, nobody in the US uses MSN at all.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[gaspyy]

I think it's different from country to country. My European country is 100% Yahoo. No one is using MSN - no one. Skype is used for voice, but that's it.

UK on the other hand seems MSN to me. I have some friends over there and all of them are on MSN.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[aj50]

It wasn't shipping windows messenger with XP that helped push msnm but tying it with hotmail. Certainly here, hotmail was popular before msnm became widespread and if you have hotmail, you don't need to signup for a new account.

Windows messenger may have helped a little, but most people I know went and downloaded the newer msn messenger client because it was newer and "prettier".

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[sci50514]

In China, QQ dominates. I read a statistics somewhere that said QQ has almost 90% of messaging market in China. The size of the Chinese market easily eclipses the major markets in other parts of the world.

Re:Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[thebonafortuna]

That is an interesting perspective. I'm curious, if you don't mind, what age group you fall into?

I personally fall into the 20-25 years group. I graduated in May, and began my first job a little over a month ago. I was honestly a bit surprised to read your post, as nobody has ever said to me "give me your MSN". In fact, I have never heard anyone say that at all.

For me, my peers, and my coworkers, the dominant application is AIM, hands down. Yahoo! also has a decent following. I actually don't know anyone who uses MSN Messenger, or if they do use it, I'm unaware.

Any light you can shed on those you know using MSN Messenger?

hmm.

[apodyopsis]

It worked for them last time, and then only just. This time with most businesses staying away from Vista and many home users avoiding it because of compatibility issues, I think they sound slightly petulant and desperate.

However - the engineer in me reckons this is more about them wanting to support less platforms and trying to "get rid" (or obsolete) the older ones as fast as they possibly can.

Re:hmm.

[jnf]

I think your partially right, I know they dislike XP home because it lacks some security features that were available in later editions, but they cant just EOL XP Home; additionally, I think this is yet another attempt at a successful software as a service venture, you can expect a lot of things to have integrated live support over the coming years.

oh well

[kwabbles]

wget http://download.microsoft.com/WLinstaller.exe ./WLinstaller.exe

err:module:import_dll Library WINHTTP.dll (which is needed by L"Z:\\home\\kwabbles\\Desktop\\WLinstaller.exe") not found
err:module:LdrInitializeThunk Main exe initialization for L"Z:\\home\\kwabbles\\Desktop\\WLinstaller.exe" failed, status c0000135

No worky. Oh well. Back to reading slashdot.

Re:oh well

[DogDude]

You attempted to get a non-existent file. Do you have a point, or are you part of a "million monkeys on a million typewriters" experiment?

Re:oh well

[splict]

err:module:import_dll Library WINHTTP.dll (which is needed by L"Z:\\home\\kwabbles\\Desktop\\WLinstaller.exe") not found
err:module:LdrInitializeThunk Main exe initialization for L"Z:\\home\\kwabbles\\Desktop\\WLinstaller.exe" failed, status c0000135

So it doesn't work in linux, huh? Who'd a thunk it?

Re:oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're way ahead of me:

curl http://download.microsoft.com/WLinstaller.exe

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<HTML><H EAD><TITLE>The page cannot be found</TITLE>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" Content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<STYLE type="text/css">
  BODY { font: 8pt/12pt verdana }
  H1 { font: 13pt/15pt verdana }
  H2 { font: 8pt/12pt verdana }
  A:link { color: red }
  A:visited { color: maroon }
</STYLE>
</HEAD><BODY><TABLE width=500 border=0 cellspacing=10><TR><TD>
 
<h1>The page cannot be found</h1>
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
<hr>
<p>Please try the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.</li>
<li>If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact
  the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
</li>
<li>Click the <a href="javascript:history.back(1)">Back</a> button to try another link.</li>
</ul>
<h2>HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.<br>Internet Information Services (IIS)</h2>
<hr>
<p>Technical Information (for support personnel)</p>
<ul>
<li>Go to <a href="http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=8180" >Microsoft Product Support Services</a> and perform a title search for the words <b>HTTP</b> and <b>404</b>.</li>
<li>Open <b>IIS Help</b>, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr),
  and search for topics titled <b>Web Site Setup</b>, <b>Common Administrative Tasks</b>, and <b>About Custom Error Messages</b>.</li>
</ul>
 
</TD></TR></TABLE></B ODY></HTML>

Re:oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

err:module:import_dll Library WINHTTP.dll (which is needed by L"Z:\\home\\kwabbles\\Desktop\\WLinstaller.exe") not found

It looks like you ran into a dependency hell. Try to uncomment these in your repo config:

http://download.microsoft.com/apt/os/unstable
http://download.microsoft.com/apt/patience/testing

Re:oh well

[kwabbles]

"It looks like you ran into a dependency hell. Try to uncomment these in your repo config:

http://download.microsoft.com/apt/os/unstable
http://download.microsoft.com/apt/patience/testing "

Yeah - but "unstable" and "testing" are the only repositories Microsoft has. What now?

Not Vista ... to Windows

[Jim Hall]

Microsoft is tying its Windows Live services directly to Vista -- a move that should sound vaguely familiar, as it is precisely what the company did to make IE ubiquitous among Internet users. 'A new unified installer for Windows Live services will help users download Wednesday's updates of photo-sharing, mail, instant messaging, online safety and other services, the company said on its Windows Live Wire blog. The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward.

I hope I'm not misreading the article, but the summary appears to be incorrect. As I understand the article, Microsoft is integrating Windows Live more within Windows ... but I didn't see that it was being tied specifically to Vista. In fact, the article says "The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward."

Call me confused, but I think Windows Live will still install on XP. You don't need to upgrade to Vista to run Windows Live, if you already have XP.

Re:Not Vista ... to Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is integrating various pieces of their software into one downloadable installer. The 'Live Suite' can be installed on both XP and Vista. Think of it as Microsoft's version of the 'Google Pack'.

The title of this Slashdot thread is FUD.

Re:Not Vista ... to Windows

[KaMiKa-Z77]

I'm sorry, but how, exactly is MS "tying" it to the OS given it's a separate download. It's not like they're shipping it with Vista SP1. It doesn't come with the OS.

From TFA:

Using the Windows Live unified installer also is still an option -- not a requirement -- of the OS, so the services are not as tightly linked to Windows as IE was, Rosoff said.

All they did was come up with a single installer to put all the Windows Live crap on at once (if you chose to do so). Same thing could be said about Google Pack, couldn't it?

I don't mean to sound like an MS fanboy, but the whole article smells like trollbait

Oh well... there goes my karma...

Re:Not Vista ... to Windows

[ChatHuant]

The title of this Slashdot thread is FUD.

Much to my surprise, this time the FUDsters aren't the slashdotters; the FUD (including the title) is in the FA, which, probably being new here, I did read. The whole article (available here)is pretty much a lot of BS, but it sounded anti-MS enough that it was picked up and dumped on the first page by the crack team of /. editors.

Re:Not Vista ... to Windows

[Osty]

Call me confused, but I think Windows Live will still install on XP. You don't need to upgrade to Vista to run Windows Live, if you already have XP.

It's also not tying the online services to Windows any more than they already were. Live.com, Mail, Gallery, Maps, etc all will continue to work on IE and Firefox (and Opera in some cases), and on any OS that supports one or more of those browsers. Obviously the downloadable bits like Messenger are Windows-only (and IE-only, in the case of the toolbar), but that's nothing new.

Re:Not Vista ... to Windows

[NekoXP]

I think it's even LESS relevant considering Apple bundle and "tie" these features to their operating system too by bundling iLife and encouraging .Mac subscriptions (http://www.apple.com/dotmac/).

I downloaded the Windows Live installer and ran it on XP. Yes, it requires IE7, but that's pretty much a required upgrade here and it's probably far more to do with security updates and browser technology required to do it than it is to do with "we will never make it work on Firefox".

After all, everyone has to have IE installed on Windows, but they do not have Firefox when they first boot up. Microsoft couldn't use Firefox as a hard dependency. Removing IE from Windows means, removing internet access needed to download Firefox. So, you can't get rid of it any more than you'd want to get rid of Safari from MacOS.

Re:Not Vista ... to Windows

[petermgreen]

Removing IE from Windows means, removing internet access needed to download Firefox.
ftp ftp.mozilla.org
anonymous
anonymous
cd pub
cd mozilla.org
cd firefox
cd releases
cd latest
cd win32
cd en-GB
type binary
get "Firefox Setup 2.0.0.6.exe"

Re:Not Vista ... to Windows

[NekoXP]

Yes and Grandma is really going to do that herself isn't she?

Not unusual

[El Lobo]

It's not unusual, Tom Jones, that a company pushes web services to their current products. Apple does the same with the .Mac services. last time I checked, when you get a mac it comes ready to sign up to the .Mac services. And no, it won't work with OS9m it's ust tied to the latest OSX "whatever cat".

Google pushes for their gMail, gOffice (or whatever it's name is), just they don't "own" an Os (yet). When they do, besure as hell they will push and tie those service to it. Hell, I'm even tired of their toolbar being bunded with wathever proggy you download from the web.

So nothing to see here...Move on...

Re:Not unusual

[Adambomb]

And which of your counter-examples has been convicted of being illegal monopolies?

Theres a difference between unethically leveraging a product and illegally leveraging a product.

Both suck, but both are completely different beasts.

Re:Not unusual

[Petrushka]

Arguably, you err. Windows Vista does not have a monopoly, ergo this is not abuse of a monopoly position. (Arguably.)

Re:Not unusual

[bigstrat2003]

Being convicted has no bearing on whether or not what you're doing is wrong. Apple is just as wrong as Microsoft in this regard, whether that means they're not wrong, or they're very wrong. I mean, if Bob the Murderer and I were both running around killing people we didn't like, it wouldn't be a valid defense of me to say, "And which of those two people has been convicted of murder in the past?".

Re:Not unusual

[amorsen]

Being convicted has no bearing on whether or not what you're doing is wrong.

True, but being a monopoly does. The rules are different for monopolies.

Re:Not unusual

[damncrackmonkey]

"The U.S. Government's assertion that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market might be the most patently absurd claim ever advanced by the legal mind. Linux, a technically superior operating system, is being given away for free, and BeOS is available at a nominal price. This is simply a fact, which has to be accepted whether or not you like Microsoft.

Microsoft is really big and rich, and if some of the government's witnesses are to be believed, they are not nice guys. But the accusation of a monopoly simply does not make any sense."

Neil Stephenson (a bit dated, but so is the monopoly case)

How does this help Microsoft?

[stoicfaux]

I understand that making something easy to use makes it more likely to be used. But unless MS force feeds it to you when you boot or install Vista and XP, why would people choose Live over the more established brand names such as MySpace and YouTube?

MS would need a big marketing push to gain mind share, and I don't think an optional web install will do it.

Re:How does this help Microsoft?

[TrancePhreak]

Live isn't just about blogging and videos. It's also about gaming. Think XBL for Windows.

Re:How does this help Microsoft?

[Constantine XVI]

Nope, that's a completely different "Live". There's Xbox Live, Windows Live, then Games for Windows Live, which is almost exactly XBL for Windows.

Re:How does this help Microsoft?

[stoicfaux]

Heh, "Live" is starting to remind me of when MS added ".Net" to every product they had. It got to the point that no one knew what ".Net" was or what it was good for.

How many companies have a well known brand names that covers multiple fields or product areas? Kraft is known for certain food products. Ford is known for cars. I'm pretty sure that most executives would never try to extend the Kraft brand name to include cars, and ditto for Ford and food products. If 'Live' stands for everything, then it also stands for nothing specific. What's next, Live Office? Live Media Player? Live Active Directory Server? =P

Re:How does this help Microsoft?

[Tacvek]

Well actually Xbox Live is the same service as "Games for Windows Live". (one subscription covers both). Windows Live itself is just a rebranding of most of MSN. This seems likely part of a long term strategy to kill off the MSN service entirely. The "Office Live" service is a completely unrelated service. (Not related to any other "Live" service, or even related to Office).

Also for what it is worth, Microsoft is working to tie the Windows Live and Xbox Live services a bit closer (hence the windows live messenger on XBOX360)

Re:How does this help Microsoft?

[elrous0]

Because of MS's "cool" factor?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to listen to my Zune.

Re:How does this help Microsoft?

[Constantine XVI]

Now that you've jogged my memory, there is an Office Live. It looks to be more of a collaboration tool for "real" MS-Office, instead of a online office suite in the vein of Google Docs.

Screwing up XP?

[Jabbrwokk]

I sure hope this doesn't come as an auto-update, magically appearing on my XP machine one morning asking me to sign up for all these Live services I don't want. MSN Messenger is annoying enough, just deciding to be there one day after an update although I have tried to get rid of it many times.

Re:Screwing up XP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree, I have immense hassle removing crud from family & friends PC's almost immediately after any Patch Tuesday. Bastards.

I've converted 2 to Ubuntu, expect to have the whole village converted soon :-)

Re:Screwing up XP?

[calebt3]

I don't know how to remove it (never tried), but you can open Live Messenger, go to options somewhere in the menus, and tell it to not run at startup somewhere in there. Then install Pidgen if you do want an IM of some sort. Sorry for being vague, but I kicked Windows off my machine a few months ago and haven't had to disable it since.

Re:Screwing up XP?

[Achromatic1978]

Name the last new program, a la Windows Live Messenger, that was auto-installed by Patch Tuesday.

Go on, I'm waiting.

Real curious.

Re:Screwing up XP?

[Jabbrwokk]

Thanks, I have done that, and even gone into the object manager to disable what I can in there, but a few times in the past, Messenger has just shown up again. Hasn't done it for a while, though. I have Pidgin running, which is fantastic.

Windows Live - obsolete

[Ethanol-fueled]

I've been using Hotmail since '99, before M$ bought them out. After that, Hotmail (like other M$ products) became slower and more bloated with every "update". Now they can't(or don't want to because of backroom deals) filter out junk mail which goes directly into my inbox because spammers are spoofing my own e-mail address( how irritating )! Then there's the constant "legit" M$ spam which gets into my inbox at least 3-4 times a week no matter what my filter settings are. Fuck that. My primary account is now a Gmail one.

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter 1.05? (very minor bug fix release)

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[microbee]

I am not getting many spam emails for my hotmail account except those marketing ones from Microsoft itself. I keep this account only because I use msn. I use gmail for real emails. But those Microsoft emails are indeed damn annoying.

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Microsoft buy Hotmail out in '97? Two years before you started using it?

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[Ethanol-fueled]

I may have my facts wrong as far as when Hotmail were bought out.
To be fair, Hotmail didn't start sucking until a few years ago.

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[einhverfr]

I thought MS bought Hotmail in 1997, but kept running it on FreeBSD until sometime in 2000 simply because nobody could figure out how to migrate that sort of environment over.

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[kevinadi]

You don't need to use a hotmail account to keep using MSN. Once you're in, you can change the email (thus your msn ID) to whatever you want. If not for MSN, I don't think anyone would willingly want to use Hotmail anymore nowadays. Be warned that if you don't login to your Hotmail account in 3 months, it will disappear. This surprised me at first, seeing how my Yahoo account was practically untouched for more than two years but still intact.

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[DavidD_CA]

When you've had your GMail email address for as long as you've had your Hotmail address, please email me and tell me you're not getting any spam.

Spam is certainly not unique to Hotmail users. I pay Postini $2/mo to filter my email, and that only weed out about 95% of it. Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, their users all get spam too.

About the only "backroom deal" that Microsoft is likely to get is from Microsoft itself. And one could easily argue that they're entitled to send you their own spam if you're using their free email service.

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[bigstrat2003]

Hotmail is actually pretty slick now, you should check it out. I still don't use my account (except to sign up for sites which I KNOW are going to spam me), I've switched over to Gmail for anything important, but I was really impressed the first time I logged in after the revamp (don't know how recent it was, I'm guessing 6 months to a year ago).

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[notaprguy]

This is modded as interesting? Please. Hotmail works just fine for me and millions of other people. If you're getting a lot of SPAM on Hotmail it's because you're doing something dumb. Signing up for too many porn emails? I get maybe 2-3 spam emails in my Hotmail inbox a day among hundreds.

Re:Windows Live - obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

You can set up a custom filter under options to deliver all emails from microsoft directly to the junk mail folder. Works a charm, and kind of fitting.

Your are correct, the submitter is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is tieing Windows Live to... Windows! Shocking. What next? Will their Office live be tied to Office?

This /. entry is inaccurate...

[Giolon]

All MS has done is to package their various Live services into one installer that works on Vista or XP. They're not tying it to Vista in any way. I don't see what the big deal is.

A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[MightyMartian]

We at Microsoft are committed to improving the user experience by (I'm going to fucking kill Google....) encroaching our monopoly into every facet of computer usage (I'm going to fucking kill ISO...). The latest in our long-term plan to completely undermine the capacity for any other software company to influence you is our integration of our software update mechanism with our Windows Live Service (I'm going to fucking kill Sweden.... At Microsoft we believe that competition is more unhealthy than AIDS or swallowing plutonium, and we always seek to find new and inventive ways to completely fuck over any potential competitor. (I'm going to fucking kill Firefox... Another important strategy is planting our arrogant, brain-dead employees on such evil forums as Slashdot, to defend our market-crushing actions. (I'm going to fucking kill Richard Stallman...). We have already submitted the Department of Justice to our terrifying (and patented) Microsoft Bob Rays, which have rendered them simpering, inept and blind half-wits. (I'm going to fucking kill Ubuntu...). We at Microsoft value you, the consumer, for your deep level of mental retardation which allows you to continue funneling billions of dollars to us (I'm going to fucking kill Linus Torvalds...). Thank you for being perhaps the dumbest generation of idiots that the world has ever known (I'm going to fucking kill OpenOffice...).

Re:A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[conteXXt]

Such a shame that I can't mod this past +5 funny.

Rest assured, my new friend, that smallint cannot truly represent the level of funny I got from this post.

Kudos

Re:A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[Daimanta]

You forgot the *throw chair*

Re:A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

No killing man, we don't live by the law of the jungle. We capitalists are much more subtle.

replace(kill,buy off);

Re:A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[Jeek Elemental]

there are probably chairs in orbit after the iso vote

Re:A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[rgo]

Such a shame that I can't mod this past +5 funny. Such a shame that I can't mod this post +5 insightful.
I would have done it, but I can't because of this post.

Re:A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[cadeon]

Such a shame that I can't mod this past +5 Redundant.

Re:A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

No way this is a real public service announcement from Microsoft! They would never put the whole thing in bold face. There would also be little (r) and (tm) marks in tiny circles.

I'm going to study this closely for other evidence that it may be a fake.

Depends on the region and age group

[tknd]

When I was in high school and college, AOL Instant Messenger was really popular. It was pretty much AIM or die. The first big thing was ICQ but had a ton of rough edges. You used to have to click or tab to the "send" button and the window would only show one message at a time rather than a log of messages. You were also given a number instead of an account name so it made it much harder to remember other's numbers or even your own. It did have some of the best off-line features though. With people outside of the U.S. however, Yahoo was gaining quite a bit of traction. Later, I found that older coworkers preferred MSN. Years later, I still find the same thing happens. The younger American high schoolers and college students prefer AIM while the older generations prefer MSN. Many people I know from other countries still prefer Yahoo.

Now I've given up on IM. At home I don't run any client because the last thing I need is someone talking to me and consuming my free time. The greatest invention is the buttons on cell phones to silent the call without the caller knowing. This is good because the caller will usually assume otherwise or leave a message. With IM however they just keep leaving messages because they expect you to be there. The same thing can happen on cell phones but usually people have some decency to understand that they're making an impact on your cell phone bill.

Re:Depends on the region and age group

[JediLow]

Heh, well... the number thing did work - I still remember my number from... 11 years ago.

Re:Depends on the region and age group

[Xtravar]

Just log into all of them with Pidgin (formerly Gaim) and then put up a mysterious away message that alludes to being a tortured soul.

Re:Depends on the region and age group

[m50d]

That's because you're a computer nerd (one can tell by the fact that you were using the internet at all 11 years ago). Normal people can't and don't remember those numbers, so ICQ was pretty much doomed once normal people started to outnumber geeks on the internet.

"in future", not "going forward"

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you say "going forward", an MBA gets to downsize a tech geek.

Well in messenger's defense

[Sycraft-fu]

It was a lot better than ICQ or AIM, which were the other big two. ICQ started really going down hill especially when spammers started to figure it out. I pretty much stopped using it in late 1998/early 1999. AIM is, well, AOL. While I've not doubt the packaging helped it, I think it was also that you were getting ICQ expats looking for something new that didn't bite. MSN may not have been perfect, but it was the best I found.

Re:Well in messenger's defense

[ady1]

Nonsense. MSN messenger was/is/will be a half baked product with no original or better implemented feature set whatsoever. Even at this point, it isn't as functional as ICQ was back in 1999. Personally I think that the thing which killed ICQ was the AOL acquisition of it rather than MSN messenger. It got useless after AOL acquired it turned it into an ad platform of theirs and made the footprint ridiculously heavy.

Re:Well in messenger's defense

[Woy]

Also the ICQ client taking longer to load than autocad left a bad tast in my mouth everytime.

It's a technically awful thing to do

[EmbeddedJanitor]

IE hangs, whole OS shits itself.

Re:It's a technically awful thing to do

[bheer]

That was never IE's fault. It was Win9x's problem. If an app hung under Win9x, there was a good chance of the OS going down (because of the weird remnants of cooperative multitasking lurking about in Win9x). By contrast NT4 (with the Active Desktop+IE4 Shell Update) and Windows 2000 never had a problem if IE crashed (and IIRC it crashed far less than NN4 did).

By the way, the problem in bundling IE wasn't technical: all they did was add a browser to Windows, and make the components + standard APIs available to all Windows apps. If you think that's technically awful you should go back to using VMS. No, the problem with bundling IE was the business practices that accompanied it.

Re:It's a technically awful thing to do

[EmbeddedJanitor]

This is not just a Win9x thing. It also impacts WinXP, and likely Vista (not that I'd admit to running Vista).

EXPLORER.EXE runs the desktop view and seems to share some DLLs etc with IE. If IE hangs in certain ways it seems to hang EXXPLORER.EXE too. THis can only be resolved by a reboot (which cannot be launced via software because EXPLORER.EXE is hung). The only solution seems to be a hard reboot.

Re:It's a technically awful thing to do

[andreyw]

Uh no. You can still invoke the task manager, seeing as it's unrelated to explorer.exe, kill explorer and start it again.

Re:It's a technically awful thing to do

[EmbeddedJanitor]

You can't always launch the task manager since that requires EXPLORER.EXE's cooperation.

Re: It's a technically awful thing to do

[Dolda2000]

Have I missed something? Not that I use Windows all that often, but last I tried, running the task manager with M-C-Del requires none of Explorer's cooperation, since M-C-Del isn't handled by Explorer (and, in fact, cannot be, since M-C-Del is a "secure key combination" in NT, and always goes through the kernel to a privileged handler). I've used it several times to kill Explorer when it has hung.

Re:It's a technically awful thing to do

[andreyw]

It, in fact, doesn't.

Re: It's a technically awful thing to do

[bheer]

You're right. Ctrl Alt Del is NT's Secure Attention Sequence and it will get the message. The problem is sometimes it may not be able to display Task Manager anyway -- but the GP was wrong, this isn't because of "IE" DLLs, it's most usually because of GDI resource issues / video driver issues.

Easy example: if you play Half Life 2 on Steam, HL2 has a sound stutter problem that can bring your PC to a halt. Ctrl Alt Del often doesn't work then, because (I'm not a DirectX programmer so I'm a bit vague on this) whatever paints the screen is stuck and can't display task manager (remember HL2 runs full screen, often at a different resolution than standard Windows). Most people reset or switch off their systems at this point.

But NT/Windows isn't really dead at this point -- you could actually use Task Manager "blind", or you could actually reset the display by using Alt-Tab (which HL2 IIRC doesn't trap) and opening a fullscreen console, which zaps the GUI and brings you to "text mode". You can then use pskill to kill HL2.

Re: It's a technically awful thing to do

[Anonymous Coward]

M-C-Del? You can always recognize a fellow emacs user ;)

Live Monopoly Reflex

[Doc Ruby]

Microsoft waited until the Feds and seven of 12 states let them off the hook for monpoly noncompliance. Then they flexed the monopoly muscle. And why wouldn't they?

And why should we stand for it?

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[dpilot]

Well if they were "let off the hook" by the Feds, then clearly the original ruling was in error, and so was this article, for using that legally loaded work, "tying."

Conclusive evidence of more of that Linux-biased, Microsoft-hating Slashdot meme at work.

(tongue so far into my cheek that it hurts, on this one.)

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[jt2377]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mac .Mac is closely integrated with the Mac OS, and having .Mac can extend the functions of many programs, most notably within the iLife suite. Among the most notable:

        * iDisks can be mounted as any other volume on the Mac OS desktop. Furthermore, it is possible to mount the public portion of another user's iDisk. This mechanism was one of the early ways to receive free software as part of .Mac. It is possible to queue files for upload to an iDisk that is offline, though actual uploading will be done only when the iDisk is mounted.
        * Address Book entries, iCal dates, Safari bookmarks and, as of Mac OS X 10.4, keychains, mail accounts, mail rules, mail signatures, and smart mailboxes can be synched with the iDisk through iSync (prior to 10.4) or .Mac syncing (in 10.4), allowing easy synchronization between multiple computers.
        * iWeb allows users to create web pages that can be uploaded to iDisk and published.
        * Similarly, the iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand, and iTunes libraries can easily be uploaded to iDisk (subject to various licensing agreements).
        * Backup can be used to make backups to iDisk or local media.

yeah...whatever.

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[Doc Ruby]

Except that the bundling isn't a tool for Apple to abuse its monopoly. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

Microsoft does have a monopoly. This MS Live bundling is one way it's abusing that monopoly. Like IE bundling was another way.

So yeah, thatever.

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[jt2377]

except for the fact that MS isn't bundling Windows live down on you like .Mac as many on slashdot already point out that Windows live is essential like Google pack where you as user download and install it. the old "monopoly" b.s. is getting old.

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[Doc Ruby]

"Old monopoly BS is getting old"?

They're still a monopoly. They were an obvious monopoly, an officially declared monopoly, and they haven't been stopped. They've continued to abuse it.

Look, you just proved yourself a Microsoft slave who will say anything, as long as it's got English words in it, to "defend" Microsoft, no matter how nonsensical. The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly but Apple is not doesn't affect you. You're like a zombie shambling at me flapping your lips with nonsense. You might be uncomfortable that Microsoft has been a monopoly so long, but slaves like you are what keeps that monopoly working against the entire industry. Stagnating it and threatening us with worse than useless security.

Go shovel your bullshit at someone stupid enough to listen to it.

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[jt2377]

you turn a blind eye when Apple is doing it with "monopoly" execsue is getting old.

it seem to be the only excuse for bashing MS without any metric. from the article and many other slashdotter have pointed it out. Windows live service is not bundle but it seem like you can't wrap that around your little mind and you are also ok with Apple bundling .Mac because Apple is not "monopoly". Double Standard, much?

why do you reply to my bullshit?

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[Doc Ruby]

I care about monopolies because they affect me. Apple's bundling isn't a monopoly, so it doesn't affect me.

Why do you care about it? Because it's a fallacious way to say "MS isn't so bad". That was "old" when it began.

I reply to your bullshit because I don't want others seeing it unopposed. But thanks for asking. There's nothing more for me to do here.

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[jt2377]

I care about it because zealot like you will bash anything related to Microsoft without either 1. read the article or 2. bashing because it's Microsoft on the headline and the only fucking excuse that you have seem to be Microsoft's "monopoly".

1. You can buy PC with Linux or Windows and you can't buy Mac without Mac OS X.

2. You can buy bare bone PC before the Microsoft "monopoly" lawsuit.

3. You can build PC without Windows before the Microsoft "monopoly" lawsuit.

WalMart was selling Microtel PC with Linux before Dell. Even Dell was selling FreeBSD PC before Ubuntun.

Who have the monopoly here? Apple or Microsoft?

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[Doc Ruby]

Microsoft is a monopoly. In other news, water is wet.

The bundling doesn't make it a monopoly. The bundling is a way to abuse a monopoly. To abuse one, you need to first have a monopoly. Apple does not have one to abuse.

Of course, you won't accept that. You'll spit back some more bullshit that looks good to you, because your brain is stuck on "Microsoft is good". But we know Microsoft is a monopoly. It's been proven in every way. And freaks like you eat it up, and keep it going. You deserve it, but we don't deserve you.

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[dpilot]

I can't believe this one got modded "insightful". I expected nothing, or perhaps "flamebait" or "funny".

Depending on how people took it, and whether the response was to the comment in the parenthesis, I might be just a little frightened.

Microsoft needs beta testers for .Net, Silverlight

[Locutus]

they're just leveraging the fact that there are many who've been suckered into using Windows Live and now those same people are going to be force fed Microsoft's latest stuff. Now Microsoft can pump up the numbers of users for press releases to make it seem like the world+dog love their shit. You know, just like how they paid off companies like GoDaddy to put parked domains on Windows to pump up MS IIS numbers against Linux/Apache. They also end up with a bunch of beta testers who aren't savvy enough to do any public damage when things fail. They won't be posting to /. that's for sure.

LoB

I have nothing witty to say,

[botkiller]

So I'll just leave it at, "Gross".

these tools are nice

[icepick72]

From the perspective of using Windows Vista, I just installed the beta of this optional software, and it's very welcome providing a centralized desktop environment to manage my Live services. Makes life easier and faster. In the end isn't that what software should strive to do?

Re:these tools are nice

[ScrewMaster]

Makes life easier and faster. In the end isn't that what software should strive to do?

It's less a matter of what software should strive to do, as it is what Microsoft is striving to do to us with it.

Re:these tools are nice

[icepick72]

I see Microsoft is your enemy, not mine. Do you think Microsoft is trying to do something to us? You are in good company here.

Re:these tools are nice

[ScrewMaster]

I'm one of the people (and there are many on Slashdot) that have been in the computer business since before there was a Microsoft, who have seen the incredible damage that company has done over the years, and who also hope to still be around after Microsoft's hegemony has run its course.

So is Microsoft an enemy? Depends: if I were a company trying to get into the operating system or office suite business I'd certainly have to contend with the barrier to entry posed by Microsoft. They aren't my personal enemy either (chair-throwing bald men aside) ... but that doesn't mean that I deliberately blind myself to all to bad things Microsoft has done, and is continuing to do. They're a profitable organization, to be sure, but they're not a good one.

Microsoft's success comes at a price, and we're all paying it.

Re:these tools are nice

[Anonymous Coward]

No one ever forced you or anyone else to pay Microsoft. Dell, HP, Compaq, Acer, Gateway and a 1000 more PC manufacturers chose windows to build their PC business and the result was lower prices, faster computers, better software (across the board), more peripherals and a 1000 other things including, tah dah, profits.

Do you remember the IBM PCjr? How about the original B&W Mac that was at least 2x the cost of a color PC?

You had and continue to have options. You could hand assemble the whole computer. That's how Dell got his start, in a dorm room in Austin. I remember his store off of Lamar, in the back of a strip mall, next to an R/C shop. His Mom worked the register.

You and your ilk are a bunch of whiney brats who want their cake and to eat it too. BOO HOO, my computer came with windows installed and it cost less cause they installed a bunch of crapware, BOO HOO. Now I have to hand install my own favorite OS, BOO HOO. SOB -puts CD in tray- SOB -pushes power button- SOB -hits return a bunch of times- OH, THE HUMANITY!

Re:these tools are nice

[ScrewMaster]

What I'm trying to get across to you is that there have been many promising technologies that were crushed under Microsoft's heels. Microsoft (and, for that matter, Apple) would have you believe that the path the personal computer revolution went down was the only one possible. And maybe it was, but the sad fact is we never got the chance to find out, because Microsoft forced us down that path.

This has nothing to do with what Windows is or is not ... it has to do with Microsoft's vicious intolerance of anyone or anything that gets in Microsoft's way. Feel free to apologize for that monster if you wish. However, as an engineer who's been in this business since since before there were personal computers, I can tell you that that company has done more to hold us back than any other single entity.

Not like anyone else cann use Windows updates...

[flyingfsck]

WTF would Linux or OSX do with Windows bug fixes?

The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Jon.Laslow]

Common, people, actually go and look at what they are doing for a change. This isn't something that is being bundled with Windows (Vista or otherwise), it's a download, just like the Google Pack. You can still get the programs seperately, or you can use this new installer to pick and choose. This isn't something that will come in the form of an Automatic Update, because not only is it from different product group ("Windows Live... is branding and nothing more), but things like Live OneCare require a Paid Subscription past the trial period. Rant over. Karam down the drain. I'm just sick of seeing so much FUD on Slashdot, anti-Microsoft or otherwise. I know it's not going to stop, but can we at least calm it down a little?

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

Puleeez! Stop, relax, then get a clue... there was no FUD involved in my speculation - just simple track record, and plenty of facts that I go into below.

MS has OFTEN tied their services together (MSN, IE, components of Office, etc). Almost every part of their new little package is something they are trying to tie to Vista.

It currently isn't part of "Automatic Update" - but it IS still beta. That it ISNT a part now, doesnt mean that it WONT be... kinda like the whole Messenger thing for a while. Oh wait, I thought you said they dont do things like that since it's a different product group. Just like how their original intention with other parts of Windows Live (from different product groups) was to tie them into Vista. And how they have filed patents to tie them all together - and into the OS - for the purpose of gathering demographics and other info on users of any of their products.

While my post was speculation; they've already filed patents that support it, they've already done similar things with products from other groups in the past (and antitrust pressure seemed to be the only thing slowing it), and the software can easily (as they mention) update the applicable components - of which, numerous are not subscription based (and some of those, like Passport used to be in order to use many services, can become required subscriptions).

Your only supporting speculations seems to be:

• This isn't something that is being bundled with Windows (Vista or otherwise), it's a download, just like the Google Pack. You can still get the programs seperately, or you can use this new installer to pick and choose. You probably meant "Until they change that... and after all it's a beta - and they better not be FORCING it on anyone at this point."?
• This isn't something that will come in the form of an Automatic Update, because not only is it from different product group ("Windows Live... is branding and nothing more), You probably meant "Oh, that's really irrelevant, what was I thinking? They've done that in the past with products from different groups - especially if it extends them into another area in a monopolistic way."
• but things like Live OneCare require a Paid Subscription past the trial period. You probably meant "Since the program updates and changes services that are installed, I dont know why I wrote this - it's a moot point"

Sorry, that's what I read in your post...

-Robert

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

For the idiot mod who thinks the above post was trolling...

MS Advertising Patent

In order for this to work, MS needs to tie together all their diverse products from all their product groups... This was the patent that was previously discussed on /. that I was referring to.

Please feel free to point me to where I am wrong...

And no, I am not going to quote the specifics of the patent any farther than I have discussed them. If you don't have a clue about a topic, don't moderate it.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

Well, my profile should confirm I am not twitter...

And my next post on this topic should point you in the right direction to point out it is perhaps far more than speculation - since MS patented something that requires them to do everything the poster I was replying to said they wouldnt.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Jon.Laslow]

Wow...

Take a breath, then relax.

Better now? Good. I like the highlighting, the added speculation on my thoughts is very creative, although more than a off the mark. Well, completely missing it would be more like it. In all honest, your post only proves my point further in that nothing Microsoft does can go without FUD, and any defense of them must be fanboyism of the worst sort.

In the end, time will tell, and you never know - I may be completely wrong. My money, however, is on this staying in the "Live" services end of things.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

Hey Jon,

Read the article on TheRegister - or the two patents they reference (one is in another article - and is also very relevant to Windows Live Services). My speculation on your thoughts is more accurately my re-wording them to conform to 2 (or more) patents MS has already filed for that indicate such intent. :-)

-Robert

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Jon.Laslow]

Can you point me to the articles in question? I'm having a bit of a time finding those specific two.

Thanks!

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

Sure... they were one post up I think....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/18/microsof t_advertising_pc_patent/

Part of which state:

Microsoft has filed a patent (here) that threatens to breathe life into Bill Gates' and Ray Ozzie's Frankenstein-like Windows Live "vision", unveiled in November 2005, for putting annoying, in-your-face internet adverts inside your most important Windows applications.

Which references this Patent:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1 =PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO% 2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070157227%22.P GNR.&OS=DN/20070157227&RS=DN/20070157227

The patent and the article go into more detail... but some neat parts are section 8 and 11 - as well as the other parts that would indicate the need for a cross-program API (thus linking Word, whatever Outlook is called today, various other Live services, IE and who knows what else) in order to fulfill that need.

This new post seems to be one of the steps needed. TheRegister and others seem to have speculated such tying together of products - even before this announcement was made. If that happens, do you honestly think (that once this is out of beta) MS will ask you if you want to do this when MS has to do this in order to make their advertising/spying framework operate? I dont. Especially with the "coincidence" of this announcement being the major step that they need to make mainstream in order to make it happen.

I could be wrong... but I doubt it... and other tech people have already speculated it with the patent (and one other that I cant dig up) seem to support quite nicely.

-Robert

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Jon.Laslow]

I think one of the biggest hurdles Microsoft would face in implementing something like your suggesting is the DoJ. After Google forced the Desktop Search subject, Microsoft has to submit copies of SP1 for inspection to make sure they aren't interfering. An update on the scale of incorperating these features into Windows would really have to come in Service Pack form, which would certainly be caught. Although I can see how such conclusions could be drawn, I don't see it as being something Microsoft could actually pull off, even if they really wanted to. It's just too far-reaching. And besides, technical support for MS would have a fit at needing to support all of these extra 'features'.

As an aside, slightly away from this topic, most of the not-so-computer-savy people that I've worked with before are constantly complaining about Microsoft *not* incorperating features like these in Windows. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

I agree that they would have some significant hurdles to overcome... but the problem(s) I see is they wouldn't have filed the patent if they didnt intend t use it, they already announced (MS China) working test models, and they frequently (as DOJ and EU cases prove) release things of questionable legal nature and then deal with the backlash later.

And yeah, there are probably people who would welcome it.... but to the level of intrusiveness MS is discussing (emails, documents, music, Live related data) I think that number is few and far between...

:-)

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[yabba-dabba-do]

Then why did my WSUS server grab 7 Windows Live (Beta) updates Wednesday morning? Granted, since I use WSUS I have the option of not approving them for installation, but what about Joe User who installs everything without looking?

This will be just like IE.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Jon.Laslow]

Technically, they're already doing it anyways with the Start Search and Windows Desktop Search, as is Google in serveral areas, just not from an ad perspective (although many people already believe both are using that without user knowledge/consent). In terms of this, though, I fully expect it to be exploited in a variety of different tools and ways, but I'm still highly-doubtful them doing it on an OS-integration level, unless it is a free (as in beer) ad-sponsored version of Windows (which I personally don't like the idea of).

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Jon.Laslow]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head when you say "updates". Remember, "Microsoft Update" has the ability to pull updates for other, already installed Microsoft apps, not just Windows. Chances are, your server pulled them because Microsoft made these updates available for already installed clients. Try actually doing those updates on a naked-install of Windows and see what happens. Then post screenshots!

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

Well, actually, neither are doing it to that extent... MS's plans (and patent) include things people thought were sachrosynct such as emails, Word docs, your iPod, other documents created with other MS products, and all Windows Live services - in conjunction with their earlier patent which is related; and includes grabbing and determining such things as your location, age, gender, etc...

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Macthorpe]

It's not. The writing style is completely different.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Macthorpe]

Let's be brutally honest, email hasn't been sacrosanct since Gmail arrived.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[ultranova]

Common, people, actually go and look at what they are doing for a change.

I would, but I'm kinda afraid that I'd end up on some Microsoft server which would try to use a Firefox bug to auto-downgrade my RH9 install to Windows Vista, and then send a letter to the BSA.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[bigstrat2003]

If this guy were Twitter, he'd be far less rational. Unless Twitter has picked up that skill recently, I think they're different people. ;)

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[djlosch]

I'm just as pro-linux as the next slashdot geek, but look at it from MS's standpoint. If they try to innovate, they're seen as monopolizing, anti-trust violating, anti-competitive, baby eaters. Examples: -- Adding WMP, IE, MSNIM, and MS Works as pre-installs. -- Building up the Office line past Word, Excel, and PPT, into Visio, Project, and OneNote If they don't innovate, they're seen as stagnating idiots falling behind. Examples: -- 2+ yr old versions of FF, Opera, and Safari are still years ahead of IE7 -- Aero features (and speed) are a joke compared to C-F and OSX's compositor -- Ubuntu's sudo decimates UAC Someone has to say it. MS is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[notaprguy]

You use one word that turns your post from interesting to, IMHO, nonsense: tying. Microsoft's whole strategy for the last 15-20 years has been about integration. Their users have benefited greatly from integration. Framing something that many users (individuals and businesses) see as a benefit (integration) as a negative (tying)misses teh whole point. Yes, there are people out there who want to cobble things together themselves - essentially making the user into a system integrator. But the vast majority want their hardware and software to just work, connecting the information and devices that they use automatically. I'm not saying that Microsoft or Windows Live is doingn that perfectly today but there is absolutely nothing wrong with them trying. Use of the word "tying" reminds me of Republican sleaze tactics to frame issues like the inheritance tax with divisive words like "death tax." All the sudden a reasonable thing - making it harder for the super rich to pass down vast amounts of wealth to their heirs - turns into an evil attempt to "tax death."

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[marcello_dl]

Historically, when it comes to Microsoft, FUD is not the right term.

I'd go for FMT:

Fear, Materialization, Told you so.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[marcello_dl]

LOL Integration? Apple has a far more integrated system than MS (third party apps unless they are a port show also a good degree of integration) and way less headaches. MS stuff doesn't even agree on keyboard shortcuts and widgets look (at least on XP with old-look windows appearing sometimes, which says a lot of the poor design that must be behind it)
Why? because integration is relevant for the user only at UI level. So an integrated system can be modular nonetheless.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[notaprguy]

You're dissembling. My point is that Microsfot's stragegy is to offer an integrated set of software and services. Quite honestly, they have a much more challenging job than Apple because Apple is the ultimate closed system...their hardware and their OS. Microsoft makes software that runs on billions of combinations of hardware and software. If you didn't know...doing that is tricky. Saying that integration is only relevant to the user at the UI levels suggests you don't know what you're talking about. Here's one easy example. One of the big challenges facing software in general is synchronizing. Synchronization should just happen according to rules set by the user. Making all of that happen is hard.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Aqualung812]

This isn't something that will come in the form of an Automatic Update

It is already on my Windows Update Services 3.0 server...yes, the betas.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did my WSUS server grab 7 Windows Live (Beta) updates Wednesday morning Because you're an idiot and checked the box for those products to be updated. You can also update MS SQL server with WSUS, doesn't mean it's bundled into Windows.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[wwahammy]

The impression I'm getting is that Microsoft is using Windows Live as a way to add stuff to the Windows "package" without worrying about the anti-trust issues. For example, previously Windows included Windows Messenger and lets be honest, it sucked but it was bundled. Now in Vista they have an advertisement in the welcome center for Windows Live Messenger. Windows Live Photo Gallery is a replacement of the built in photo gallery (which isn't really that bad to be fair) but includes more functionality. None of those programs are part of the official Windows API or built in so you can't say they're bundled. Are they taking advantage of their monopoly in this case? Possibly but in a less blatant way than before. Microsoft would be incredibly stupid to add these programs into Windows as that'd be an invitation to additional scrutiny by regulators and lawsuits by competitors.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

Actually, I think marcello was trying to point out more than just UI related issues - I believe that was just an example he was citing.

MS has done a POOR job integrating their apps. Part of that is because many of them are apps that were bought, and thus dissimilar on how they implement certain functions/behaviors. As in his example, that is one of the reasons why there is little UI consistency in their apps. Now the issue I see is that UI consistency on the level marcello discussed should have been something easy to rectify a long time ago - yet MS hasn't. Apple's advantage may partially come from it being a "closed system" - but personally I think that a moot point. We aren't discussing differences in UI and integration of WordPerfect/OpenOffice and Access. We are discussing UI and integration issues in MS products with other MS products... and in that case, being a "closed system" or not, is entirely irrelevant.

In addition, as is shown by this latest move, many of their "integrated set of software and services" are only "integrated" in a fashion that MS benefits from - with the addition of some UI changes to make the "integrated set of software and services" look consistent - and even those UI changes aren't consistent enough (as has been previously complained about in respect to Vista and various MS programs that don't have the Vista look).

Currently, their integration ideas seem more related to their advertising framework than anything else. But time will tell.

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[ACMENEWSLLC]

>>This isn't something that will come in the form of an Automatic Update

Sorry Charlie -- this is something that showed up in my WSUS server as an automatic update last night. Along with over 4000 other updates. Guess they wanted to try and hide it. Oddly, setting it to approved doesn't install it.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1119/1338400500_df5 58e53d8_o.jpg

Re:Not like anyone else cann use Windows updates..

[m0nkyman]

Host them for the Windows computers behind the firewall that should be between any Win*/Vista computer and the internet.

How exactly will this...

[calebt3]

affect Mac and Linux users? This is just idle curiosity on my part, because I feel that the only way that Live search has any advantage over Google or Yahoo is that you can search for pictures the that are the size of your desktop. ...
Wait---Can Yahoo do this?

It could be worse

[obeythefist]

They haven't tied it in as a "critical" update through Windows Update or anything. They're playing by the rules but only barely, and they are definitely testing their boundaries constantly.

Just makes you think if that whole Netscape antitrust thing hadn't happened just what they could be doing with Windows Update. Firefox Removal Tool as standard? Clippy popping up and saying "It looks like you're dual booting between a sanctioned Windows OS and another, dangerous OS! I've removed the offending partitions for you."

Re:It could be worse

[EraserMouseMan]

and they are definitely testing their boundaries constantly

Who wouldn't?

Who's just going to roll over and die? When somebody lable's you as a monopoly that means that you are an extremely agressive company and doing so well that everybody is scared of you. Why would a company in that situation just give up and let everybody take back their market share? I don't understand why people act surprised that MS would continue to constantly test their boundaries.

Press F5 now to Upgrade...

[Rgb465]

Maybe Im missing something, but I always figured the best thing about web services, and Im assuming 'Windows Live' is mostly just a bunch of web services, is that the only action required to upgrade a client is for that client to press the REFRESH button in their web browser of choice...

Huh?

[Gavin Scott]

Sorry, I RTFA and it was the worst heap of rubbish I've read all day.

It's author seems to be utterly and completely clueless about everything mentioned.

There's not a single thing that justifies the word "tying" that I can see. Microsoft have some OPTIONAL add-on set of services that you can install if you feel like it. It's not mandatory and they're not saying it will be. It's no more "tied" to Windows than any other piece of software.

I think I'm going to start a blog where I too post nonsensical tech stories with headlines solely designed to push the buttons of reactionary Slashdot readers, then clean up on the Google ad income.

G.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I RTFA and it was the worst heap of rubbish I've read all day. All I can say thank heavens you don't read Slashdot..... wait a second.....

Re:Not like anyone else cann use Windows updates..

[Opportunist]

Disassemble them for fun and profit.

Here we go again

[davmoo]

Has the news become so slow on a daily basis that all you people can do is try to create controversy where there is none?

Not to mention Windows Live Club!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Windows Live Club. There were all these word games and all, and then you got points, and for a certain amount of points, you got a free Zune, or Windows Vista or office 2007 or some other piece of crap. The catch is that every time you played a game, it would automatically do a windows live search - whether you wanted it to or not. Their search rankings went up a good amount after they began the, uh, "service".

Steve, Steve, Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the chair down, Steve (I'm gonna fucking buy stock in IKEA), I'm still sitting in it. (I'm gonna buy LOTS of fucking stock in IKEA)

My friend Vista keeps watch overme.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything coercive is optional in one way or another, isn't it? It's hard to tell what their intentions really are because they are such quiet and nice people. Whatever their intentions, we can be sure that they will keep you save!

Jives with current IE7 search

[baronturner]

The bundling is in symmetry with the IE7 embedded toolbar search - ya can't select a regional google as a search provider (google.co.uk, google.ca, etc...). Since they hate Google it's not something easily rectified. Maybe time for Google to make their own browser, even their own OS. If Microsoft want to fight this way surely Google have enough ammo to fight back. Haven't noticed any talk of this regional selction, despite our articles, blogs and 'Cutts' -read the full story here at: http://www.turnerdow.co.uk/seo-IE7-Search-Steal.ht m

Apple

[nkv]

Isn't this similar to what Apple does with their iLife (I think) suite?

-1, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

You suck, troll.

"Tied" how?

[Jugalator]

Can't these tools be uninstalled? Anyone? It just sounds like a regular bunch of software you can opt to install if you wish to me.

No

[Adriax]

Raaaaaaam...

Or you could ...follow the directions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go the the Find Another Search Provider Page.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/searchguide/en -en/default.mspx#

On the right there, there's a nice big yellow box titled "Create Your Own".
Open a search in another window to http://www.google.ca/ and search for TEST
Paste the URL into the Box in the Search Provider's page, and call it Google Canada
Select Google Canada as your default Search provider

Voila.

My, that was hard wasn't it. Want to have a go at proving black is white? Though I would suggest avvoiding Zebra Crossing if you do.

AOL in the US

[sentientbrendan]

Things like IM are all about what social group you are in.

In the united states, AIM is still by far the most widely used chat protocol
http://www.bigblueball.com/forums/general-other-im -news/34413-im-market-share.html

AIM is actually pretty nifty if you don't try to use the new clients from AOL (which installs crap in the backgrount). Most people I know either have an old version of AIM (installers for every version are available online) or use third party clients like trillian, gaim/pidgin/adium.

Google's trick of automatically signing you up for google talk and automatically adding your friends to your contact list will probably pay off in the long run though. I already sign onto both AIM and google talk on my pidgin client.

Could someone explain

[sentientbrendan]

How this is tying anything into the OS?

The article itself was vague, but the other linked page indicated that all that microsoft was doing was releasing an *installer* that would be available online for some software.

This doesn't seem in any way analogous to what they did with IE, since the article doesn't claim the software would be bundled with windows itself. This is much less than what the article title claims.

This slashdot article was so uninformative and fear mongering, I almost mistook it for FOX news. Seriously, some of the editors need to quit doing stuff like this.

yes, and?

[poot_rootbeer]

Were any of you really expecting an offering called "WINDOWS Live Services" to be intercompatible with Linux, OS X, or CP/M?

Oh Please

[mpapet]

Let's not forget that being a monopoly is just fine by itself.

Monopolies destroy wealth, eliminate innovation, and, in Microsoft's case especially, destroy interoperability.

There is no good monopoly, Microsoft is one of many monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies that harm everyone.

Re:Oh Please

[Keybounce]

A monopoly, by itself, is nothing more than one single vendor dominating a market. By itself, it does nothing more than change the price point slightly -- instead of being concerned with "Minimize cost per unit, price just above cost, sell high volume", it becomes concerned with "Maximize total profit by reducing volume and increasing sell price".

The problem is "We control market X; we will leverage our control of X to take over Y".

The first is legal; the second is not.

It was microsoft's attempt to turn "Control of the desktop OS" into "Control of the internet" and "Control of applications" that got them into trouble.

It was the Bush (? Or was it Regan) administration that permitted a slap-on-the-wrist punishment to go un-appealed.

Gads, California got more ($5000) for the destruction of the public transit system back in the early 1900's than the U.S. got for destruction of the independent computer software market and internet applications. (Or do you understand what it means when microsoft "extends" the html standard, while still permitting these documents to be tagged as ".html", "text/html", when they are really ".ieml", or "application/IE-markup".)

How is Apple Different?

[bxwatso]

So, when MS bundles small applications with Vista, it's evil, but when Apple bundles similar applications with OS X, it's "all the stuff you want."

If you don't want what MS is selling, just don't buy it. MS is hardly a monopoly for the individual user anymore.

And?

[nurb432]

So a manufacturer ties their products together . what a suprise! This was never expected

Ford or GM doesn't do that, nor does GE.. Yep, this is really surprising.

late breaking news

[wardk]

Franco is dead

Wrong

[mpapet]

A monopoly, by itself, is nothing more...

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_maker

A concise, widely accepted and universally taught analysis of why monopolies are bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss The deadweight loss is what you and I lose in dollars and units under Microsoft's market control.

The first is legal; the second is not.

Let's leave "legal" and "illegal" to the lawyers and increasingly the politicians who control the DOJ.

Please divorce yourself from these politically expedient ideas. They directly harm you.