Slashdot Mirror
EU Think Tank Urges Full Windows Unbundling
leffeman writes "An influential Brussels think tank is urging the European Commission to ban the bundling of operating systems with desktop and laptop computers. The Globalisation Institute's submission to the Commission says that bundling 'is not in the public interest' and that the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.' It says the Microsoft tax is a burden on EU businesses: the price of operating systems would be lower in a competitive market. This is the first time a major free-market think tank has published in favour of taking action against Microsoft's monopoly power."
"This is the first time a major free-market think tank has published in favour of taking action against Microsoft's monopoly power."
So basically it is the first time a "free-market" think tank has recommended policy that is against free-market principles. Makes sense. I guess it would be equally worth noting when a socialist think tank recommends policy in favor of a free-market. Am I right?
Creative Demolition
I can see it now... waves of people returning their "broken" computers....
Sounds like this would be more of Apple's problem if this actually went through.
Why should Windows be the only OS singled out to be unbundled? Let's stop these double standards.
My Little Opinion??
To create true competition in this sector, the way to handle it is to allow their base Win32 API's to be implemented or copied... (Meaning, complete legal protection) In short, legalize Wine and similar projects... Plain and simple.. If they were to officially protect the Wine project, and similar API projects, this would allow for huge amounts of investment into this sector. Within two years nearly ever version of linux would be able to run "cleanly" virtually any Win32 application. This would also force M$ to once again compete by trying to get people to buy windows because it is better rather than because they are simply doing it..
I don't think I follow. Are they suggesting that you not be able to purchase a computer with an operating system preinstalled? Or just not a computer with Windows installed? Does this group assume everyone has the capabilities to choose a compliant operating system and install it themselves? I don't think my grandmother would be able to get through downloading Ubuntu and installing it by herself.
The real issue with banning the bundling of operating systems is that it will incur extra cost and frustration for non-geeks (i.e. mums and dads everywhere) who don't know how to install an OS. Picture this: a random person decides to buy a computer and take it home. They get home, plug in and boot up. They hit a black screen with or something similar on it. They complain, try to take it back only to find out that they need to spend another $x on labour costs. The consumer is unhappy, the vendor is unhappy because they have an unhappy customer. But at least M$ gets shafted!
Really, vendors should be forced to ask the consumer which operating system their client wants and give prices for them to their customer for every new PC sale. That would promote fair market better than "banning bundling".
All that needs to be done is to allow any customer to refuse the bundling of Windows with a computer and be able to get a refund. It should be the purchaser's choice if he wishes to purchase Windows. I am sick of literally no OEM offering a No Operating System option, when it is so easy to purchase a company with an AMD processor or a Nvidia video card. And since the software itself is protected by an EULA which (as a contract) can be refused, this doesn't really need to be a law change. The customer should not have to jump through hoops to get a Windows refund or a no-OS option.
This could push more people towards Linux especially if they have low income and are looking for a cheaper system for school work. Especially if stores were to add a service where you pay a small fee for someone to burn a Linux disk. Ubuntu is an example of an easy to install distribution that they could hand out an FAQ with for the install process or charge $20(or the Euro equivalent since this is in the EU) to go through a basic install.I'm not really sure about the practices in retailers that deal with computers in the EU since I'm from the US so there might be some that already do something similar.
Back in the 70's, 80's when I was getting into coding (not really; hated it at that time), IBM was THE player. But they were holding back innovation. I became part of the group who was very anti-IBM and pushed both Unix and DOS (later windows). It was then that innovation really came about. MS is in the same boat now. They kill as much innovation as is needed to remain dominant. The best thing that can happen is for Windows to lose their dominance or at the very least, not be able to dictate to the market what will happen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If Windows is unwilling to lower it's prices and prevent manufacturers to sell other OS in their machines then absolutely limit how much it can be integrated into Windows. There are too many examples of windows killing it's competition and not letting go of it's 90% of market share. Why is it that we can't have a basic $50 windows license for example.
All that would happen is that vendors like dell would simply be required to offer alternate operating systems to their european customers pre-loaded.
It doesnt mean they are required to support these operating systems and they can still say "we recommend windows whatever". What might happen is that dell
might actually ask their hardware suppliers to provide linux drivers which could be a good thing.
So then I could buy a Mac computer without OSX!!!!
We need to privatize the government so these kind of ideas don't happen. I for one think Microsoft is an awesome company that sells really good operating systems at an affordable price. Hell, Microsoft lets me post on Slashdot with a pirated copy of Vista. Uh oh, 24 hours? What is this? NO CARRIER
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Write George W. Bush in for president in 2008!
Linux is communist!
You know, when you first get a TV, TiVO, or VCR, it doesn't come fully set up. In fact, usually it involves you doing some stuff to get it to work at all. I don't see why they just can't read a box that says: "Requires Operating System" or something along those lines. Hell, even for any software, you have to know what its minimum requirements are. Mac users can't just walk in to a computer shop and expect any software they pick up to work with their computer; they have to look for something that says it's for Macintosh operating systems.
This will also affect another major computer maker who likes to bundle its OS with computers it sells.
This would be a massive boost for FOSS, the cheapest new computers in the UK are £200 ($400), Vista Home Basic OEM is £52 ($104) of that cost (prices quoted including tax, from ebuyer.com, but most of the bigger shops are about the same).
Given the choice of a 25% discount, or having Vista installed, I doubt many would choose Vista.
Technically they could reuse their old XP CD, but I think most shops would pre-install some OS, so the user knows that their PC is working when delivered.
As long as the user can press a power button, wait a minute, then be able to surf the web, most will never bother installing XP.
I was hoping people would convert because they saw that FOSS was more stable and secure, so this isn't quite the glorious victory I was hoping for, but a victory is a victory.
Why stop with a computer. When you buy a car, why allow tires, lights, sound system, seats, brakes, and the stearing wheel to be bundled with the car? Belts must be sold without belt buckles, shoes without shoe laces or velcro straps, lawnmowers without engines, .
The list is endless in the way we are inconvenienced by having to buy a product that works(ish) right out of the box.
It doesn't make sense for modern operating systems to come without a web browser, media player, desktop search, etc. The problem with Windows is not bundled software.
Bingo! This is what I have been saying for many years. Consumers should have the choice to buy ANY computer with their choice of OS or none at all. And if they choose to buy MS-Windows, they will see the price associated with it, not hidden away and pretend it is "free".
For those who want MS-Windows and want a customized install, OEM's can create appropriate "kickstart" CD's to wrap the loading of MS-Windows with all the appropriate drivers and addons. Pop in disk and wait. Plus, no more missing "recovery" discs.
Hooray, OpenBSD is going multimedia, matey!
Today is talk like a pirates day, right?
Copyright, and maybe patents.
What?
That alone should remove their monopoly.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
MS is only responding to market pressures from Linux. They have LONG ago quite worrying about Mac or Unix. That is why MS needs to be stopped. I think that they unbundling is a good start.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They also need to look the forced driver singing in vista x64 that forces people to have to pay to get there hardware and some kinds of software to work under windows x64 DRM system as well the other parts for the vender lock in and the other carp they must put in there hardware to get the driver singed we don't need slot machine level security with tilt bits that can go off with the littlest of thing goes wrong in every singe pc system.
And this is a big thing as the next windows may lock down unsigned code to a VM and If the singing is not free now we need to force it to be free and to be done by a 3rd party not M$ as this will kill off free software and open source software.
As far as I am concerned, Windows is already "Broken" the moment it's installed on the PC. A $400 'new' windows install, gets you a system that can not:
1. Playing DVD's requires EXTRA software (Broken Media Player)
2. Writing and Spell-Checking documents requires EXTRA software (broken wordpad)
3. Email Security requires EXTRA software (broken outlook)
4. viewing certain file types requires EXTRA software (indeo codec, broken due to licenses).
5. Recording sounds longer than 30 seconds requires EXTRA software (broken/useless sound recorder)
6. Internet Security requires EXTRA software (broken Internet Explorer)
7. Unable to set per-user file restrictions, VERY coarse control (broken multi-user capabilities)
So exactly WHAT am I getting for a 400 'Operating System'? what makes it worth 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a new computer?
-Is it the screen savers?
-Is it wordpad / soliarire / reversi?
-Is it Internet Explorer?
-Is it the new backgrounds / widgets?
Someone PLEASE tell me why I should shell out 400.00 to upgrade my operating system? Last time I checked, the core functions of the OS were to:
1. Manage and Allocate memory
2. Manage and Allocate IO resources / CPU resources
3. Manage files
4. Provide a consistant/document API for the programmer
So, windows does 3/4, and most of them poorly. Is this worth 400.00?
Yes, IBM was the big bad monoply way back when. But we need to remember that the BIG anti trust finding with IBM that relates to the OS wars of today is that it was found to be illegal for IBM to bundle OS-360 with its IBM-360 hardware. The release of the OS from the 360's hardware was what allowed Gene Amdahl and others to split off and form IBM-360-clone companys. It was an anti-trust decision that required the unbundling of the OS.
The big difference here is that rather than one company (Microsoft) bundling its OS with its own hardware, Microsoft has contracts with all the PC vendors that require them to bundle. So it is one step removed from the IBM situation.
The question (that has been asked before by the likes of Judge Jackson) is: what can be done about these very private contracts?
Forcing the market to change just makes things MORE expensive, not less.
...they did it little by little.
:-)
More expensive means more tax money. It's a *good* thing
They couldn't have done it without the bootleggers.
Don't Copy That Floppy
What?
I also look forward to having the software unbundled from my TV, cell phone, DVR, Xbox360, car, and wrist-watch.
Apple isn't...
It is not necessarily illegal to have a monopoly. However, it is illegal to exploit the monopolistic position in certain ways, to the detriment of the free market. MS has been found guilty of various transgressions and has paid out billions of dollars in fines and settlements. MS became a monopoly by illegal coercive means and maintains its position through the same illegal coercive means. That is the problem.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I agree that a customer should not have to jump through hoops. But, you made the classic consumer mistake of assuming that a EULA is a "contract". In most cases it is not.
United States court precedent states that if you walk into a store, plunk down your money, and walk out with a product without having made any other prior agreements, then you have bought that product (not "licensed" it), and you can do with it pretty much what you please, within existing copyright law. Yes, that applies to software.
If you do not have a prior agreement such as a corporate licensing deal with the OS maker, and you just buy your product from a store, the "shrink-wrap" EULA has no legal force at all. A contract is a two-sided agreement. "Shrink-wrap" licensing, without prior agreement, is not a contract.
Not a special privilege. Anyone can use copyright and patents.
What happened to highlight and middle-click? :o(
"Cross-platform" apps frequently don't do it nowadays, it seems.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Finally some intelligent opinions in favor of the obvious. The key is that we have stifled innovation due to no competition. Force the unbundling and we'll all have a choice because we can show that other OSes are there and capable of doing what 90% of the people want. With bundling we don't have that at all as most that get a computer with a bundled OS have no idea that they have a choice. This is a FACT, and you can't deny it.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Bundling is the removal of choice, and unbundling does not preclude offering the OS as an OPTION that can be pre-installed. The key is to provide a choice for the customer to decide what, if any, OS they want to purchase with new hardware.
must... stay... awake...
Windows Vista alone isn't the problem, the problem is that most consumers don't even think they have a problem with hardware being bundled with software. How many people have even heard of Tivoization, GPLv3, or Free Software.
Would you like the option, to opt-out of buying...
- a Dell Desktop with Vista, for one with XP.
- a MacBook Pro with OSX, for one with Ubuntu.
- a PS3 with Bluray, for one with HD-DVD.
- an iPhone with AT&T, for one with Verizon.
The short blurb isn't very clear. Are they suggesting disallowing the sale of windows and computers together? I can't see them actually going whole hog and saying computers must be sold without an OS installed on them. That would be a huge step I doubt any politician is willing to go near.
I assume he meant that anyone can be granted special privileges under copyright and patents.
...and the refund should be the full value of a retail copy of Windows, in cash.
No sig today...
Anyone can *get* a patent or copyright, that grants them the special privilege of restricting other's from the use of the patented/copyrighted material. Hence, special privilege.
Great Intellect...
If this whole thing was to go through, it wouldn't mean that computers had to come OS-less -- what it would mean is that Windows would be optional (or rather, it would be optional not to get it) and that the computer would be $cost_of_windows cheaper without windows. Currently, even though a retail copy of Vista costs $250 or so, you only get $60 back if you demand a refund for the bundled copy of Windows.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I want a computer without Windows!! Where can I buy one...?
Answer: I can't.
Yes, there's some places to get one but they cost the same, or more, as a computer with Windows.
How can this be when a retail copy of Windows costs {$hundreds}?
"Unbundling" doesn't mean you won't be able to buy computers with Windows preinstalled, it removes the "bundle" aspect of the deal. Windows should be an extra and it should cost more than the basic model.
the "non-bundle" PC could even be the exact same machine but missing the plastic card with the license key printed on it. When you switch it on it says "(a) Enter Windows license key", "(b) Format disk".
It doesn't need to inconvenience anybody. It just needs to remove Microsoft's automatic inclusion in the sales loop.
No sig today...
Hey. My Phillips DVD (Stand alone) player came with software. I wanted to add my own. Can you tell them to stop coming with software. MS just makes the software. Apple makes the entire package, PC and software.
SimonTek
Exactly how many copies of Windows N has Microsoft sold?
Yeah, that's why this is a bad idea, as well..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
I've heard of code so tight that it screams, but that's some virtuoso programming to get a driver to *sing*.
And why are they singeing it? Or is that the secret -- singe the driver's balls & it sings?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
That forumula would make sense if all operating systems were equal in ability and cost. But they aren't, and even their utility is unequal. Is a rack server operating system, equal to a MacBook laptop operating system, equal to an iPhone operating system?
Thanks for the reply by the way, it appears more than one anonymous-cowards had the joke go right over their head. Whoooosh.
This would only serve to further entrench the Windows API.
All Microsoft has to do then is make it a little more of a moving target, and we're worse off than when we started. More apps would be made for Windows because it's more prevalent, but only Microsoft's version would (relatively speaking) work. Do you think a business customer would take the risk of using an iffy clone implementation instead of dropping the dough for Windows? Do you think Dell is going to load "Freedows" on personal machines any time soon? Even if Freedows were better than the original, it would not hurt their revenue.
As the sibling already point out, the API is legal to copy now. However, what we really need is nobody using their crap at all.
The idea that there is a market for operating systems is a complete myth. It supports the myth that consumers choose Windows. They do not. There is a market for computing systems only, balls to browser.
The $299 iPod touch music player has a better Web browser than a $1299 Windows Vista PC. If there were a market for PC operating systems somebody would have eaten Microsoft's lunch before that could happen. The iPod touch is also more reliable than a Windows Vista PC.
The market is for applications, ways to customize the basic computer. For a Windows PC that means office tools. For an iPod touch it is music, movies, Web sites, Podcasts. Much higher-level stuff than the operating system.
If Apple published a CD with the iPod's operating system on it they would instantly have 100% of the "market" for iPod operating systems. That would just be Enron accounting, it's made-up. People aren't actually buying anything, there is no competition there, no supply and demand. The demand is for iPods. This is even more obvious now that CD/DVD/hard disk is giving way to more chips. The iPod is a chip. A CD with the iPod OS on it would soon enough be a chip. All you're doing is splitting the iPod into two non-functional halves so you can extort money out of the person who bought one half and needs the other. It's a waste of time because there is honest money to be made selling enhancements to a functioning iPod, or a functioning PC.
Really, it is. If this were to be taken seriously and go a head, it would be in their best interests to stop selling software in Europe. And while most /. readers would probably jump for joy if that happened, think about the ramifications for consumers and the software industry. As much as most people hate Windows, in a lot of regards it is a necessary evil.
Sure, the chances of either happening are slim, but you never know.
Unbundling would probably mean that the seller would have to list the price of the operating system separately and that there would have to be an option to pick only the computer or only the operating system (for the listed separate price). It would not mean that you could not get the computer preinstalled with the operating system. However, pricing would probably change because the computer store could not list artificially low or high prices for the operating system component (otherwise the consumers would pick only one or the other). The real price of the operating system would become more visible and hopefully also more reasonable. So it would be good also for the Windows using population.
This is how anti-bundling regulations have been used in case of GSM phones and GSM subscriptions here in Finland. Of course you can buy them from the same place at the same time, SIM card preinstalled, but you also have the option to search for the best price for them separately (they must have a separate price plan and you must be able to buy them separately). Bundling was only recently allowed for 3G phones to offset their higher cost.
Personally I wouldn't reccomend banning bundling. I would go for legislation to mandate an OEM provide multiple choices of OS on their platforms which Dell and HP are starting to do, but more across the board. So in the end the consumer has the choice
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Last time I checked, beating someone so badly they have to go to the hospital was still a crime. Even for black people. Even though the race mongers Jackson and Sharpton need a good beating.
Am I the only one who was clueless about what the subject of the story was when he read the title?
Anyways, I think this is a terrible idea.
Instead it should go like this:
But forcing them not to ever include the OS will just piss a lot of users off, even though they are lame windows users they do deserve some empathy I guess...
Would be fun since they are not really MS-specific so if this idea gets executed it will be a no for Dell's ubuntu PCs and more enjoyable it will also screw Apple pretty badly...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
They also need to look the forced driver signing in vista x64 that forces people to have to pay to get there hardware and some kinds of software to work under windows x64 DRM system as well the other parts for the vender lock in and the other carp they must put in there hardware to get the driver signed we don't need slot machine level security with tilt bits that can go off with the littlest of thing goes wrong in every singe pc system.
And this is a big thing as the next windows may lock down unsigned code to a VM and If the singing is not free now we need to force it to be free and to be done by a 3rd party not M$ as this will kill off free software and open source.
So you are agreeing that this move will raise the price the average consumer will pay for a computer, and arguing that this is good because more tax money will be generated? And this will help the market how? Have you thought what you are advocating through at all?
Microsoft certainly gets the the protection of both copyright and patent law. For you people claiming that natural monopolies exist, they also get to leverage any 'natural monopoly' that trade secrets alone would give them, because they can get some of those patents issued without fully disclosing their methods as the law theoretically requires. The current government not only protects Microsoft's monopoly status by the laws it has, but by selectively enforcing some of them, or are some of you actually claiming that Microsoft can fully disclose necessary information to get the protection of patent law, and simultaniously keep that same information as a trade secret? Neat trick, that.
Microsoft also gets the protection of Trademarks, including having a trademark on the term Windows in a computer related context, even though there's prior art there (prior art restricts patents, not trademarks).
At this point, Microsoft gets the protection of IP doctrine, which mean its lawyers can contend that what they really have isn't patents, trademarks, trade secrets, contracts, and copyrights, but some generic thing called IP, and that IP is some sort of nebulous thing, that has the infinite duration of an enforced trademark, but doesn't require enforcement. It has all the rights associated with copyright, but doesn't expire. It has the rights associated with traditional written contracts, but can be handled by a EULA which takes effect without a chance for the other party to read it before purchase. And, as I noted, it gives the same protection as patents when Microsoft wants it to, but doesn't require disclosure. Note that Microsoft's stock disclosure says that IP assets make up well over 1/2 of the capital assets of their corporation and this determines their stock valuation based essentially on their own claim for that IP's value. Note that this value is not subject to property taxes or short term capital gains tax, and some of it is not taxable at all, and so Microsoft's corporate taxes are proportionately lower than a more hardware oriented competitor (i.e. Apple), or a hardware oriented partner (Dell, Intel, etc.).
Who is John Cabal?
Let's ban compilation to make sure all software is open source. That must be great for business!
- Won't make Vista any less dog-slow than it is.
- Won't break Excel's 256-column limit
- Won't integrate Word and Excel into one seamless package
- Won't revolutionize the filesystem, e.g. with tags (breaking the strict hierarchy) or replacing it with relational database
- Won't add RTOS capabilities to an OS that also runs the most popular business applications
- Won't give us a standardized, robust, open standard platform for rich Internet applications.
Why is it we care about unbundling again?Most EU members don't recognise software patents anyway, and there is an EU law, implemented in almost if not all member nations which allows reverse engineering or decompilation of code, despite the EULA.
Just prohibit them from charging more for the retail version than the OEM version. BAM problem solved. No more incentive for vendors to grin and bear it with the crazy per-machine deals. No more ways for Microsoft to threaten them with increased OEM prices if they sell Linux. No more pressure on consumers to buy a new motherboard just to get a new OEM license. It solves it all. Just require that Microsoft set one single price for their OS across the entire EU and prohibit them from charging as much as a Euro-cent extra for the stand-alone version. Once you stop them from playing games with the prices you have basically stripped their monopoly from half its power. The next step is to require that official institutions use open standards, and suddenly Microsoft's monopoly doesn't look half as scary any more.
So would apple be allowed bundle OS X with its computers, under this proposal?
Geez... Now I'm answering a Troll! Look what /. has made me do!
A similar thing has happened here in Australia. The Federal government had opened a tender to supply regional areas with high speed broadband. The 'monopoly holder' in Australia is Telstra, who own the landlines. The government has legislated that Telstra must lease their lines to competitors to provide some sort of competition, enabling 'free market' forces to operate in the telecom industry. This didn't work as planned since:
A. Telstra still gets the leasing fee for lines that that own.
B. Others can't be competitive because they have to pay Telstra.
So with the tender, instead of going with the cheaper option of landlines, they have selected a WiFi system instead from a Singapore company, forcing an alternative and attempting to break the monopoly that Telstra is.
This is good.
Detractors (ummm... read Telstra) are complaining that it is a 'duplication of services' and everybody agrees with that and most support the government's decision.
Now the EU (and the rest of the world) have a keen insight into MS whether they are right or wrong. Although it isn't a monopoly as there is competition, it is plainly obvious that they 'own' PCs. Their policy is to buy out startup companies, force proprietary software (Office) into institutions and so on.
The think tank has a valid point since MS is not a self-regulating company being a behemoth that is stifling OS development.
In a 'free market' you also have government intervention like trade policy, variation of taxes and duties which are effective.
One way that the EU could try and make a difference is to tax PCs that contain MS as an operating system so every time you buy a PC with MS on it, you pay 10% more that goes (let's say) into a fund to support their competition.
If MS were self regulatory, then they would do the same, or just provide the OS and allow others to provide the GUI.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Dickheads. If they unbundle the OS and the hardware, Windows marketshare will decline only marginally. A lot of people will just install pirated Windows. Free Windows downloads on Piratebay!
2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
Many of the comments on this story have been written by lying astroturfers. Lots of misdirection, irrelevant issues and noise to drown out substantial argument; deliberately confusing standards with monopolies, pretending installation time has something to do with it and many other deceptive arguments.
Fact is, If the free market was operating correctly then forcing M$ to unbundle wouldn't affect anything; pricing and consumer choices would already be optimal and no harm would be done.
However, M$ fights unbundling tooth and nail (just look at the astroturfers here!) because the know damn well they have an unfair advantage because of it and they want to maintain their advantage and monopoly.
One of the prerequisites of a functioning free market is informed consumer choices. In part that requires price visibility plus the technical knowledge and ability to choose. M$ wants none of that.
---
I love the free market zealots who think monopoly is a good thing.
How could such a thing work from a retail perspective?
I agree, Windows bundling is anticompetitive - but what can you do?
By the same justice of course, it will be illegal for Linux to be pre-sold with a computer, because such a thing would also be anticompetitive.
The retailer would have to provide some kind of OS with the system, if you prevent OEM bundling.
Does this mean MS will just have to muscle on the computer retailers instead of OEMs?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Most users are not geeks. Most don't even know Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.
Most geeks don't remember that the Windows key strokes are ctrl-insert, shift-insert. They just added the ctrl-c etc to cater to ex Apple customers. (good to have choices about which hand you use as well.)
Try it, these even work on Linux (at least Gnome)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You mean that you can get a computer for less than the cost of Spyware Blaster + AdAlert + Spybot Search and Destroy + cCleaner, because if so, I want one?! The first three can clean a lot of crap of a system, without needing very much in the way of technical knowledge, and a simple FWSE search of each running process and then deletion of the unwanted ones with cCleaner is not overly difficult, even for a non-technical person. Simply re-installing windows, after backing up desired files, is not that hard, and again, if you can get a computer for less than that cost, I want some of these computers. Even if these free computers are pretty sh*t, they could be clustered together to make a decent system.
I think teh newspaper article would have been better if it had explained how to use the first three tools and where to get the, since that would have been far more useful than anti-M$ whining.
This is bullshit.
If I am running an OEM PC company, then big government can say that it's illegal for me to ship with whatever OS I want, provided I can get discounted OEM prices from the OS manufacturer, or buy legal copies of the OS myself at retail, or load free as in beer OSes??? And you guys applaud this bullshit?
You forgot to add in the cost of time and knowledge. They're the big gotcha here.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
If there was no option except computers without operating systems on them, there would be a solution.
1) Installation routines would get a lot better.
2) There would be a separate business right next to the big box store that installed OS's (like there is an eye doctor "Next" to TSO, not "in" TSO).
3) BIOS might get a lot smarter.
4) Folks would mail order computers that came with an O/S.
5) You would buy the O/S separately and then pay a small fee to have it installed (like video cards).
etc.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It would take about ten seconds to be able to use your new Windows PC. ...assuming you purchased a little card with a Windows license key printed on it.
As a separate item.
Last time I bought a laptop I got a similar option on bootup, except it was a choice of language for the Windows installation. I chose "English", the disk whirred for twenty minutes, I had Windows installed.
It was a definite improvement on my previous laptop where I was forced to install a pirate version of Windows to get it in English (and where I still can't install the latest versions of Internet Explorer, Media player, etc. because Microsoft has convinced themselves I'm a criminal).
No sig today...
> It doesn't make sense for modern operating systems to come without a web browser, media player, desktop search, etc.
:-)
That's not what this EU suggestion would achieve; the opposite in fact. When you buy a computer you would get to choose what software should be installed on it. You would only pay for exactly the software you want. Now, I know the comments I'm going to get "that's imposssible; nobody would be able to choose; how do you do that etc.". This choice is in fact what happens every time you install Linux. During the process you get a choice of software options. You choose only what you want. Microsoft could not only do the same thing; they could in fact actually legally use RPM and Yum to install Windows (provided they followed the GPL).
If this was properly enforced at an OS feature level by the EU people would be able to get exactly the computer they wanted. Need an office suite; just choose MS Office ($100) or Open Office ($10). Don't need WGA; no need to install it. Don't need Windows DRM; no need for you to pay for it's development etc. Prefer Apple DRM for some sick reason; that's your choice
The only reason that this benefit isn't available to consumers today as standard is that Microsoft wants to use it's illegally obtained monopoly situation to force people to buy things they don't want to buy.
The people who want to choose from a list with "MacOS XVIII", "Plan 10" "FreeBeOS", "ReactOS Hurd", "AmigaOS Phoenix", etc, already know how to get them. They already have choice. You even said yourself that the field allows for the selection of no OS, so what's the problem?
My grandmother, on the other hand, couldn't give a rats ass about having the choice for AmigaOS Phoenix, and, in fact, it will confuse the hell out of people who have no interest or need to learn about all of those things. It's not popular to say on slashdot, or course, but, like it or not, the ubiquity of Windows is the single greatest thing that ever happened in terms of mainstreaming PCs and making them accessible to "normal" people.
This is a lot of special interests bitching and trying to get favors from their regulatory pals. It has absolutely ZERO to do with what's good for the typical customer of a PC vendor.
Excellent point, but did you have to post as an AC?
huffing and puffing trying to persuade the USAF to throw a chair war-head from Redmond all the way to to Brussels for him.
I hate Windows. I detest Microsoft. But it would be sheer madness to mandate that an operating system can't be included with a computer. It would make just as much sense to mandate that microwave ovens be sold without the software to operate them or that cars be sold without engines. It's an accident of computer history that the OS is sold by a different company than the one that makes the computer. It doesn't have to be that way -- and it WON'T always be that way, IMO. Microsoft will eventually lose its dominance, but the proper way to deal with it is to quit buying the junk that Microsoft makes. I frequently hear people claim that we HAVE to buy Microsoft products, but I assure them that I haven't given a penny to the folks in Redmond for many, many years.
Whether you're a Mac user (as I am) or a user of Linux or BSD or some other little-known OS, we do better when we produce or recommend alternatives to Microsoft that actually work well for end users. Mandating that computers be sold without operating systems would end up hurting the vast majority of people -- who DO want to buy a computer that they can just turn out and do work on. Unlike many geeks, "normal" people don't want to be forced to buy components and make them work on their own. To FORCE this takes away people's freedom to choose. They deserve that freedom, even if many of them make a choice that I despise.
David
If this (suing Microsoft) is needed in order for us (Europe) to get competitive on the software market, it says more about the state of our capability to produce better. btw the unbundling will not be better for consumers as claimed. Only the computer service companies will benefit. The amount of helpdesk calls will grow in no time when people search and install the necessary features on top of the OS.
They seem to have their roots in The Economist, which has always been skeptical about Microsoft and other monopolies. They are Liberal in the European sense of the word.
So why is it astroturfing when people disagree with you? Can you provide some specific evidence of comments here that are paid for? If you have FACTS, let's hear them. Otherwise, you're throwing around charges that you can't back up.
David
Unbundling by itself is not going to help matters much. Even if such a regulation gets through in any country/region, the hardware vendors will still support only one OS. It should be mandatory for hardware vendors to certify their products on two competing operating systems from different vendors.
this is the DUMBEST idea i've ever heard.
the only reason DRM is an impediment to compatibility at all is DMCA section 1201 and it's zombie-like clones in the EU and elsewhere. Banning circumvention of drm is not remedied with a ban on drm, it's remedied but UNBANNING circumvention of DRM.
The very description is utterly rediculous. If "technical protection measures" were "effective", they wouldn't need legal protection from circumvention, because they would be uncrackable!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"PCs that contain MS as an operating system so every time you buy a PC with MS on it, you pay 10% more that goes (let's say) into a fund to support their competition"
Meaning what ? Another fucking bureaucracy selecting what constitutes a "valid competition" with the inevitable bribes , scandals and all that shit.
Fuck, some people just never learn.
Force MSFT to only sell Windows XP. Have them spin off new products into independent, 100% publicly held companies with no MSFT cash injection. Do this until MSFT market share drops under a random low percentage. This would encourage investment in Windows XP compatibility layers. Wine, Crossover and new Windows XP competitors would benefit greatly. Windows XP and clones would become a generic competitive unified technical layer offered by different parties.
Seriously, this does sound like a superior solution that would actually work in the real business world.
Seems like a sensible plan. Afterall, don't all the computer shops force you to separately buy an over-priced USB lead to go with a new printer? Why not do the same for an OS? Then, those in the know can do like we do with the USB leads - get it somewhere cheaper.
Nobody is suggesting you should not be able to buy a computer with a preinstalled OS and ready to go. The suggestion is that you should be made aware at the point of sale of how much of the purchase price is the OS, and that it should be illegal for an OS supplier to make agreements based on exclusivity. If Dell wanted to sell nothing but Vista they would be allowed to, but they would also have to sell the same computer with no OS at all, and Microsoft would be barred from any agreement which penalised them in any way at all for doing so.
There are so many posts on this thread that are simply incorrect that I suspect that MS' lobby firms are astroturfing like crazy - they've had a bad week, even that bastion of respectability Scientific American called them "Micro$oft" on their website this week, in a rather hostile article. Obviously people are starting tog et the drift at last.
As an aside, in a world of "free markets", the internal management of many company sales departments is actually profoundly anti free competition. I suspect that one reason so many North Americans (and more traditional Europeans) have difficulty with the concepts of competition law, despite its great age, is that "business as usual" is profoundly opposed to it.
Pining for the fjords
I don't know about in the EU, but Microsoft doesn't have a trademark on "Windows" in the US, presumably because it was denied for being too obvious.
Instead, they have a trademark on "Microsoft Windows."
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
well this is a tuff one, i hate microsoft, but i also hate the EU..
what business does EU have telling MS to do anything? what business do they have fining MS either?
correct me if im wrong but the EU is not a sovereign nation, most of its member nations hate the origanization and only are considered part of it because their leaders lied them into it in the first place. now they are going to tell the world how to do business?
on the other hand MS does have some pretty shady practices.
but forcing PCs to be sold with no OS is retarded
we should have the option though (and the option not to pay for an OS)
The next laptop i'm buying i hope i won't have to pay that MS tax. So i'm waiting for a laptop without OS and with OpenGL 3.0 support, and also where i can have the full stack of software completely opensource, e.g. no closed source graphics drivers. Go Europe go !
Except maybe Finland, and we have an extremely regulated gov't owned monopoly.
.. for whom? It hasn't made price drop in England or Germany, actually the opposite happened. So why should we privatize, again? So that fat bastards hoard even more capital, at the expense of consumers, workers and of the stability of the energy supply?
Unfortunately, right wingers in power in Brussels want to force the "market" on us, claiming that it would be better
Visit European Tribune for more on this issue.
is not shipping a system. Whole point is I can point my mum to something on the Dell (or Apple) website, tell her to order that and know she'll be able to browse the net within half an hour of the tap at the door.
I usually build my own, but there's something to be said for knowing that the OS is installed and has configured drivers for all the chips in the box.
The answer, which is surely what MS is tryng to move the market to anyway, is to include a 'trial' version of windows. It arrives free on the Dell box with say a $30 trial and if you like it you have the option of paying say $50 outright or $5 a month to activate it - oh and did we mention for a mere $5 a month extra we'll chuck in Office? Extra $2 a virus scanner etc etc. In the same way you'll find a trial version of Norton on the machine today, you'll get a trial OS.
To avoid people ripping Dell a new one, they just include a dual-boot to linux option.
So - EU is happy as hardware is no longer being used to bundle software.
Dell's happy as MS is now paying them to pre-install their software on their machines.
Linux fans are happy as more people are buying machines with Linux installed and ready to go.
MS's happy - they've got their claws into you, your visa details on record and can upsell you anything in their product library (why settle for $20 or whatever the OEM icense nets them) Windows fans... well they're not so happy. If you wanted a Dell box with Vista on it, you're now paying more to MS and subsidizing everybody who ran Linux instead... well can't keep everybody happy all the time..
I disagree. If there is a demand for computers preinstalled with whatever operating system and bundling by hard-/software vendors is not allowed, then new business oportunities for smaller players will arise. They will provide exactly that service, that is, installing an operating system (and possibly one ore many applications) on the newly bought computer.
That - in my book - is preferrable to "no choice" because of a monopolist strongarming the market.
And after these commercials we will continue our normal programme
I second the sibling's motion. Curiously this is exactly what we need to introduce an element of competition into the markets and hopefully get M$ to improve their product (and/or reduce it's price). I welcome any arguments against this idea.
Computers can come with an OS, just not a paid one. Do not force people to pay for that... i known you're used to paying the toy in the happy meal, but i would prefer not to, since i always throw the toy out.
Linux could be a major player in the Desktop OS market if they gave up choice, gave up control, and treated closed source vendors as valued members of the community. That isn't going to happen though, there is never going to be just one Linux distro, nor is there ever going to be just one Linux Desktop Environment. The community is never going to stabilize interfaces in order to allow proprietary hardware and software to work reliably 100% of the time on Linux. These things are not going to happen because they go against the values that make linux what it is today.
Mac isn't going to sell OSX for beige boxes, they aren't going to turn Macs into beige boxes. Whatever their reasons, Apple isn't going to compete either.
In the world of Desktop Operating Systems, Microsoft is the Else. If Linux isn't right for you, and OSX isn't right for you, you get Windows, and right now there are an awful lot of people who fit into the else, and I don't see any way to incorporate those people into Linux or Apple without giving up most of what makes those systems great in the first place.
or at least misleading. it is not about windows unbundling (i.e. splitting it in parts), but unbundling windows from the hardware (i.e. making the ms oem contracts illegal). these oem contract are anticompetitive, and should have been prohibited a long time ago. imho of course
Then neither does MS. You have it one of two ways:
1) Windows and MacOS directly compete. They are two different OSes for the same basic market (average home users). The fact that Apple is a one vendor solution isn't relevant, it is still competition in the same market. Well, if that's the case, MS doesn't have a monopoly. Apple has a small but stable (and even growing lately) marketshare. They've been around for decades, so clearly MS is not a monopoly and hasn't forced them out.
2) Windows and MacOS do not directly compete. While they do the same thing, they are different markets. Windows is targeted at arbitrary commodity hardware whereas Apple is available only on a special platform. There is no direct competition. However, that means that Apple is a monopoly. Nobody else competes on the Mac platform (and they work hard to keep it that way) and there isn't another company providing a consumer OS on a premium platform.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have "MS is a monopoly because they have no competition," and "Apple isn't a monopoly because MS competes with them." Either they both are or neither is.
Just because there hasn't been a court case about it doesn't mean that Apple isn't a monopoly. Also if you want to look at anti-competitive practises, they are the kings. They are all about "You will run our shit only on our platform."
It's becoming more and more like its ridiculously overweight child, the U.S. of A.
To avoid that, simply make sure the customers know they need to have an OS too. Once at home, they can install the OS themselves. Probably the most difficult part of installing an OS is looking for and installing the drivers. Other computer hardware comes with driver disks, so I say maybe computer vendors should produce special disks that install all the necessary drivers quickly and painlessly. So you chose BSD? No problem, just insert the BSD Driver Disk for your brand new Acer 5050 Laptop. These will also come in handy if you need to format... much like a restore disk without the Windows.
If you're using an obscure os though - then chances are you know what you're doing. Don't expect a Driver Disk for everything, some of you will have to go driver hunting. But also don't expect computer vendors to sit idly by either.
In conclusion, I believe this idea isn't as bad as some of you think.
What I mean is: Assume that Windows went away, and another OS was dominant. How would it stop malware? No, requiring a root password doesn't do it. The problem is that people give this permission. Malware most often sneaks in the front door, not the back. Worms and such are what come in via unpatched exploits. Malware usually comes in one of three ways:
1) Attached to software people download. Someone wants "Free cute kitten screen saver pro 10000" and gets it. Turns out the program is really just a front for malware. Screen saver installs, along with a loader that can go out and get the rest.
2) As a program that's included with something else. You download a crack, and it comes with a file called "runme.exe" that would better be called "pleasespywarethecrapoutofme.exe".
3) As a program on a website. You visit an unscrupulous site and you get an ActiveX control or Firefox addon that wants to install. Do so, and you've got spyware.
There is no defense against this that anyone has ever shown me. No, requiring admin won't do it. That's just another hoop for people to jump through. Also, doesn't matter even if it doesn't, spyware can install and just watch on the current user very effectively. We aren't talking servers here, we are talking single user desktops. The user IS the system for all intents and purposes. Their data is what's important, not the system files.
I appreciate that moving to a minority OS that isn't targeted is a defense. However for that, you have to accept that:
1) Your defense isn't because of a design superiority.
2) If enough people follow your lead, you have to move again.
Unless you can show me what it is other OSes do that Windows doesn't that would provide an immunity against malware, I'm not buying the argument. People WILL put shit they shouldn't on their systems. The power to install software implies the power to install bad software.
Two examples:
One is somewhat recent. E-mail viruses have been having more problems as of late since many companies and ISPs are installing inline e-mail scanners. They usually do spam blocking, virus scanning, and so on. Makes it harder to get the viruses to the end users likely to run them. We have one such unit at work just for that reason. Well one virus came up with a plan: It would put itself in an encrypted zip file. That way the scanner couldn't find it. The thing is this mean the user had to get the file, save it, try to open it, read the e-mail to get the password, extract the executable and run it. Many hoops to jump through. None the less, we for 3 people nailed by it. Yes, they really will jump through the hoops, even if those hoops should serve as big warning signs.
The second is a good while back and shows even sysadmins aren't immune. A guy I know, "A" (name changed to protect the guilty) did VMS support and read the VMS lists. Someone posted a fairly stupid question asking how to fix it. A, being kind of a jerk, posted a script and said that it would fix all your problems but do NOT run it unless you've read it and fully understand it. A short while later there were a few people furious at A. Seems the script would go and wipe the system. He noted that this had fixed the problem and that he did warn them not to run it unless they understood it.
The arm of MS reaches far. So they can't bundle with hardware anymore. Ok. Now, let's look at what they will do to integrators.
How about telling integrators they "should" (you know, the convincing kind of "you should") only hand out drivers for Windows without the client applying 2nd degree torture? Or only offering install and maintainence support for Windows because "they have no guys for the other OSs"? How about a kickback (illegal, you say? Here's my cell, call someone who cares) for the hardware sellers who just happen to sell a copy of Windows? Or maybe reverting to the practice to offer more favorable conditions to hardware sellers if they agree to carry only Windows OSs? Even handing out those cute little "Windows approved" or "Vista ready" stickers to them and telling them they "should" only stick those to the hardware boxes?
I'm fairly sure MS will come up with other ideas how to "convince" the customers that they want Windows as their OS and nothing else, by making it very inconvenient for both, the hardware seller and the customer, to run anything but Windows on the machine. In other words, the only thing that will change is that it becomes more expensive for the customer to have Windows on the machine. This will probably convince a few people, but I doubt that it will convince the masses.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Free market IS unregulated market, where property rights are respected. The free flow of info, no barriers to entry etc. are properties of "Perfect competion" model, not of free market. The "Perfect competition" model is just one of many models, there is basically NO REASON TO MARK THIS MODEL IDEAL. E.g. one of the properties of the "Perfect competition" model is homogenized goods. I do not believe you would call "One size fits all" market ideal. This makes your statement of regulation moving market to "perfect competiton model" as "good" non-sequitur. The regulation are bad per-se, because they restrain freedom, they make someone worse then somone else without any proper moral justification. Trying to shape real world to some model is not a moral justification. It is a reason to change the model so that it would describe real world. BTW: I am somewhat surprised that "free market think tank" can pursue policy of regulating market. That does not seem very "free market" to me.
Actually the EU already protects Wine. Reverse engineering products for the purpose of interoperability is a protected activity in the EU. But don't take my word for it, read PJ's article on reverse engineering at LWN.
Just patents. They got all their code worth reusing from BSD anyway.
I call BS.
What microsoft has that is of value is the original and de-facto standard implementation of the windows API. Yes there are reimplementation attempts but they will forever be playing catch-up and plauged by bugs.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Look, I understand that contradicting anything anti-MS is anathema on /., but frankly speaking "the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.'" is BS.
The dominance of Windows has, as much as the Linux crowd would reject it, allowed the ubiquitous penetration of computers into the lives of NONGEEKS. Yes, those of us who love gadgets would have been 'into' computers anyway, but while we make fun of MS, it's a fact that they have developed and refined the user interface to the point that grandma can run it, grandpa reads the news on the internet, and little Sally Ann can simply stick in her cd and play Dora the Explorer game.
Anyone remember what it was like BEFORE Windows? Where everyone had to dick with extended/expanded memory? Autoexec and config settings, with a dozen reboots until your settings were correct? Where it seemed that every other program seemed to approach soundcards differently?
I like Ubuntu myself, but the widespread presence of Windows on every single computer has made life EASIER for the 95% of the population that doesn't find mucking about with computers as fun as we do. It may have prevented alternatives, sure, but I'm not entirely sure that at least for the last 20-25 years, that that wasn't a good thing, on the whole. With computers being a mature tech now, I will say that I don't believe that it's necessary anymore. (On an aside, I simultaneously look askance at MS's disingenuous position on piracy - if Win95/98 hadn't been so INCREDIBLY easy to pirate that they ended up on every system whether the user could afford it or no, MS wouldn't be nearly as dominant and omnipresent as they are now.)
-Styopa
Um, dude, you're just wrong. Microsoft has been legally found to be a monopoly, Apple has not. End of story.
Even aside from that, "monopoly" doesn't mean strictly "There is absolutely no one else in the world you can buy the product from." If they have a dominant market position, and are able to abuse that dominant market position to gain dominant positions in other markets, push other companies around, etc, that is what's illegal.
According to my non-lawyery understanding, anyway.
So no, Apple is not a monopoly, however much you might want it to be, shill.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
What are you talking about??
You've been able to buy every version of OS X separately. And there's no such thing as an OS X upgrade CD; they're all full installers.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
A lot of posters here are peddling FUD talking about how difficult/error-prone/whatever unbundling would be because its "too hard" to install operating systems.
They're ignoring the fact that in several countries the OS *is* sold separately from the hardware - Japan comes to mind.
There the OS is always a separately priced item, and you can choose to buy without it. Generally, Windows is installed on the machine (particularly if you take one off the floor), but if you don't want it the store just zaps the Master Boot Record and doesn't charge you for the MS product. Additionally quite a lot of stores - particularly the more hobbiest-oriented in Akihabara carry Linux distributions and will install them for you if you want.
[I know this because I've bought a couple of computers in Japan in this manner.]
It really isn't much of a problem and wing-flapping and squawking won't make it so.
I agree that we can't trust M$ to set the standards, but the standardization process is too slow. Look how long it takes the W3C to send out an update. You might be able to argue that the operating system market is sufficiently mature, but I wouldn't want to bet the IT industry on it. That stagnation would be worse that M$.
- Nowadays software makers are smart enough and the development tools are sophisticated enough to make software available for various operating systems, e.g. virtual PCs can be used for testing.
- Levels the playing field for the competition in the operating system arena. Imagine you had to race against an incumbent, would you want only your incumbent's name to be on the ballot?
- Hardware is hardware and shouldn't be bound to a specific software, i.e. windows. Just as there are plenty of processors to choose from and many video graphics cards, so should there be plenty of choice in deciding what operating system to run right at the time of buying the computer.
Thanks for reading.Interested in Alternate, More Efficient Forms of Communication (Computer Science & Cognitive Science)
Some years ago (late 80s, early 90s timeframe I think) there was a lawsuit against Data General for their then practice of bundling their OSs with their own CPUs. It was considered a landmark case, result being that tying sales of the OS to sales of the iron was ruled illegal.
This precedent should prevail for anyone tying products, whether or not part of the tying is
done with code specifically for that purpose. (Such code was known and used at the time of the
DG suit too.)
This should apply to all companies selling OSs, including Apple. It is not a novel concept that tying products harms markets and consumers.
Possibly too similar considerations should be applicable to cell phones, where software lock-ins wind up disabling functions on the iron people buy and limit choices.
What we need is a total abolishment of software patents and for M$ to be forced to let competitors to M$ to be installed on computers. There is no point in confusing computer customers any more, most think that the OS is the computer and without the OS the computer isn't a computer, so then they pay $xx to buy the OS and $xx to have someone install it. That is a bad idea. Why? Because M$ can have greater profits, because they can charge the default amount not the OEM amount for Windows. And when software patents are destroyed, wine and other projects can legally try to run Windows binaries without fear of legal troubles. If this law gets passed this is only going to make computers more expensive and more of where an average Joe can't make it work without paying some guy to make it work when they have already installed it. Linux and other Open-Source OSes need to win by making the OS better then M$ not by cowering behind laws and rulings.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
I have to say that I find it amusing that this "think tank" arrives at the conclusion that a de facto homogeneous computing environment is slowing down technical innovation.
God knows things would go a lot slower if you had to develop your software for ten different platforms to be able to gain wide market penetration.
Why should MS change for the EU. Its the EU's fault that its stuck on MS. When there are alternatives. Perhaps the EU should look at the "The One Laptop Per Child Project". At least this next generation will not be stuck paying the MS tax.
As for you comment about too many choices, give Joe SixPack default options and recommendations. Or hell, let him go into the store and ask what he should get for his computer. If he's not smart enough to know what his computer should do, then why is he customizing a computer?
MICROSOFT UNVEILS NEW JOE-BOB(tm) SOFTWARE
by Andrew Burke (ABurke@eworld.com)
REDMOND, Wash. -- April 10, 1995 -- Microsoft today announced the
release of Joe-Bob(tm), a new software package that the company hopes
will open up a huge untapped computer market. With the motto "The
software for the rest of y'all(tm)," Joe-Bob reaches out to the same
demographic group that buys 4x4s, supports the gun lobby, and drinks
Miller Lite.
"Computers have been commonly seen as for leftists and
intellectuals," explains Microsoft spokesperson Willy Maclean, "but
we've recently seen people like Newt Gingrinch embracing new technology
-- the time is right for the rest of America to get wired!"
Instead of a desktop or office metaphor, Joe-Bob(tm) puts the user
in a garage. "Click on the Lynyrd Skynyrd tapes, and get a complete
music library in digital stereo. Click on the pinups, and get hooked up
to the Internet's hottest gifs," the promotional materials explain.
The package does not include a word processor or spreadsheet, but
does have software that keeps track of the football season, lists the
best roadhouses between Florida and Nevada, and can even order
spareribs and beer at the click of a mouse.
"This is righteous software, man," says beta-tester Billy Grugg.
"It thinks like I think." Brad Cunningham agrees: "I take it
everywhere," he says, pointing to a Pentium laptop racked under his
12-gauge in his pickup truck. Microsoft is offering desktop users a
special clip-on beer holder for their monitors.
"Look at what's popular out there," says Microsoft Chairman Bill
Gates.
"Four of the top-10 Usenet newsgroups are about sex, and splatter
video games like Doom and Mortal Kombat are bestsellers. We're just
catering to a demand, that's all."
Microsoft is reportedly distributing badges and bumper stickers
saying things like "Joe-Bob: Make Your Disk Hard," "Go Microsoft -- Go
Intel -- Go America," and "QuickTime is for Pinko Hippie Wimps."
Apple declined to comment.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
but if MS isn't going to be allowed to bundle their OS with hardware, then I can't think of a more plausible alternative as to what will happen.
How will Apple handle this if it applies to all hdwe sales?
Their intel offerings run Linux and Windows, but if they can't bundle a preinstalled copy of OSX, it will impact them somewhat.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All belief systems break down at some point, be they economic, religious, or philosophical. "Capitalism" breaks down at the edges, i.e. when you have too little capital to compete or too much capital that no one else can.
Microsoft has reached a functional monopoly on commodity computers. This is a fact and not subject to argument at this point in time. The problem is what to do to limit it's affect on the free market?
I was uncomfortable with the EU forcing Windows to be broken up, they is determining what MS could do internally and that seemed wrong. However, the unbundling seems like a perfect solution.
Personally, I HATE having to buy windows or jump through hoops to get my money back, and that is the wrong the consumers need corrected.
Just like RAM size or hard disk size or CPU, consumers need to see a line item and associated costs. This helps the OEMs because now they can focus on their business and compete on a level playing field -- not on the whim of Microsoft's vendor agreements for Windows costs.
Any OEM daring to offer Linux or other alternative gets threatened by Microsoft's license discount process. This will take that advantage away. The OEMs won't be held hostage by Microsoft's pricing blackmail.
Consumers' will see the real price of the bug-ridden filth that is Windows and be able to make a real choice.
Microsoft will be able to built Windows they way the want without EU interference and will be free to compete on a level playing ground.
The only loss is the bundled "default" windows win. Microsoft will have to, again, work to get and keep its customers.
No one loses.
I remember the old CP/M days too. But I also remember the original PC days: Open BIOS specs, PC compatibles, and open DOS specs.
Do you still remember the days when you bought a PC compatible machine and had to buy DOS separately? You could choose between PC-DOS, MS-DOS, and DRDOS. Apps would run on any DOS you bought. That went away with Windows and the ever changing (undocumented) APIs.
Will Gnumeric do?
Officially they may only have a trademark on "Microsoft Windows" but that didn't stop them from forcing "Lindows" to change its name, strong-arming the "Windows Defender" name away from its original owner, and plenty of similar actions. They have effectively managed to get a get a trademark on the generic computer term "Windows".
If they thought the concept of "bundling" was bad for computing, they would oppose it. However... they only actually oppose it if Microsoft is doing it.
They explicitly exempt Apple from "TEH EVILZZZZ of TEH BUNDLIGNZ!!!111!!1"... and thus prove how hypocritically and intelectually bankrupt their "expert" opinion is. Honest policies and opinions are uniform.
BTW... does this also mean they oppose the bundling of Teh Lunix on the OLPC computers? Or does this also receive the "it's not Microsoft" exemption?
Today, it is possible to replace the operating system on any purchased computer. Computer manufacturers and small computer shops putting custom computers together can put any operating system on a computer they choose. Dell is shipping a very, very small number of Linux systems as proof of this.
Still it is difficult to find someone that did not purchase Windows with their computer or replaced it after they got it. Linux is free and has a consumer penetration of something like 0.001% so it cannot be about cost.
It is possible, although difficult, to get OS X working on a generic Intel box. Nobody is doing this on any significant scale.
Face it, if some goverrment decided to tell Microsoft and computer manufacturers how to run their business the result would not be much different. People would be running Windows. Why? Because there is significant benefits to having a common base of software and user experience. Neither are really possible with a mix of operating systems.
There are companies with mixed Macintosh and Windows systems, but not very many. And the interoperability between the two is pretty low - they like to keep the Macs in the graphic arts department and Windows everywhere else. The few that try to interoperate generally succeed only because their close interaction is limited. Yes, virtual PC software helps - which clearly makes this point. Mixing different systems interoperably is difficult and leads to the need to run the same software.
Windows has some problems, but most of these are caused by the user in ways that can be clearly understood. Fixing a lot of these problems is difficult because it would restrict how the computer could be used. A lot of these problems exist to a lesser extent on OS X because the system is considerably less flexible in how the user experience can be changed.
I don't see the point to a government mandate such as this. It wouldn't really change anything. Nor would it help anyone economically. It would not make Linux a consumer operating system.
Good point, That's another thing, it has to apply to ALL Manufacturers, not just MS. otherwise it strictly a punitive measure against Microsoft. If apple were allowed to continue bundling MAC OSX with their iMacs, and windows couldn't be bundled with a new Dell...
Here's how it would play out..
Bob goes to best buy to buy a computer, he see's one cheap for $399, brings it home, hooks it up, turns it on, "non-system disk or disk error", he calls tech support, Tech support asks him which OS he purchased with the system, He says "What's this Oh-ess? " and ultimately gets mad at the phone lackey, who then gets his manager and Bob ultimately returns the computer to best buy. he then notices the mac, and asks does that come with an Oh-ess, why yes it does. Apple then gains a new customer because most people expect a computer to come with an OS, and now magically Apple's the only manufacturer selling computers with an OS. I could see this boosting Apple's market share over the period of a few years to a majority, and in about 5-10 years, near monopoly status. MS would be falling, but Apple would now be the new market leader.
Now unbundling all OSes will annoy customers quite a bit. I used to work tech support for a Hatable Pc manufacturer, and the majority of our customers thought that the OS that came with the computer should work right out of the box, in fact quite a few of them were upset with the inital setup of having to type their name and wait a few minutes for the final installation.
So I don't know how well forcing them to install an OS when the first bring their new computer home is going to go over.
Requiring unbundling is the next best thing. And no, I don't think that having users install their own OS is the only alternative. In short order, 3rd party services would become available to do it, for a competitive price. Also some computers would be sold without disks, and consumers would but a disk with the OS they wanted on it.
It sure is refreshing to finally have a think tank come right out and state that the MS monopoly has stifled technical innovation!
Why would it affect them? They are a hardware company, their main profits is in the hardware. Otherwise they would have opened up MacOS X for other HW manufacturers a long time ago. So they could sell their computers without MacOS X without any loss of profits and sell MacOS X separately. Nothing says that they would have to make MacOS X runnable on non-Apple computers, just that customers could buy a Mac but choosing to run Ubuntu instead of MacOS X.
You really messed up on this one! How many OSes are available on the Mac platform? Three major OSes: Mac OS, Linux and Windows! Both natively and virtual. How about that?
...could be the year of nothing on the desktop
schools need to be forced to use 2+ different os types. kids have fun and an easy time learning. it's not about banning microsoft, it's about reducing their grip they have in particulary every educational area. also, kids need to be thought neutrally, regardless the os they use. in the beginning they should be forced not to use the same pc (os) each time, but to switch (maybe first two years) and after that, they can decide themselves what they like best. in the end you got educated users, that can decide and think for themselves, whithout the need of DRACONIC (and i don't like microsoft at all) fines, just because they do what everyone else does more successfully.
technological change and acceptance starts in schools and maybe even in kindergartens and before that. not in 6 to 7 figure ceo seats.
I dunno guys. Pre-vista it is all good and great, delayed for quality.
Post vista it is all patch bugs unplugged holes, memory hog still single core stuff.
It is amazing that many "MS pros", "MS dev" keep saying how good and great vista was pre-launch.
Post lauch, MNC, including key computer manufacuters not deploying vista, stayed side line, still waiting for the delayed service pack, while early adopters suffers.
It really show how many "MS Pro" are clueless of what they talked about. And also how poor was the development, and it cost too much. That goes to show that M$ is not a very good software engineering company too. How can the "best of breed" offers tip top software development product while itself could not deliver tip top OS?
While sales "flew off the roof", will ppl who bought Window who really needs a working computer never really use it. Asked instead for XP, for a downgrade that really means an update, or move to linux.
Is window(s) really worth that much? Is it?
Tell you what, take Windows(s) off the OEM program and we will see how much it really worth.
That is a challenge, as well as many others, I do not think M$ is up to.
*sigh* folks you forget we're talking about the impact on the sheep of our society. Anyone competent enough to distinguish a difference between OS's either builds their own or is a Mac user. Sheep don't want choices - this has been established many many times. Sheep would rather go with something that is simple and clear cut. /.'rs need to remember that they represent about 5% of the market tops and that ultimately this is a business issue - not a geek issue.