Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Video Blunder
An anonymous reader wrote in with
this gem: "Microsoft was trying to show
that a PC loaded with Windows 3.1 took longer to access the Internet than a PC loaded with Windows 98 using Internet Explorer. It turns out that the Windows 98 PC was connected to a faster modem than the Windows 3.1 PC.
" I'll refrain from (further) comment on this one. Plenty of
meat here. Update: 02/10 09:25 by J : Oops. More like "from the egg on my face dept." - it
seems I made an honest yet huge mistake: the article says "configuring". Sorry I
couldn't update when I realized this. There were some DB troubles, which seem to now
have been fixed. Sincerest apologies to all.
I cannot believe how many time Microsoft has tried to pull the wool over the DOJ's eyes. Surely people will realize what they're trying to pull.
though i'm wondering if they're actually trying to get this trial invalidated by stacking the deck against themselves so fully that they have grounds for appeal.
Does duplicity on the part of Microsoft's dog and pony shows surprise anyone?
Microsoft is REALLY crossing the line this time. This really takes the cake.
Didn't MS get caught at one of their seminars before where they were comparing (again) IE and Netscape? Someone in the audience stood up and asked why Netscape 3.0x was being compared against IE4.0. For this he was ejected, of course.
or does it seem Microsoft makes up a lot of their test results?
um. According to the article, one modem was a 33.6 and the other was a 28.8.
:>
Wow. Big difference there. Are Microsoft haters now reduced to this level of nitpicky-ness?
Let the judge make the decision, I have software to write.
I read the story on CNet and it seems to me they were showing that it took longer to set up a connection in Win 3.1 than it did in Win98, which is true. Modem speed has no affect how long it takes to initially set up the dial-in connection.
Microsoft isn't interested in a fair fight in the marketplace.
Why should they be interested in a fair fight in the courtroom?
That doesn't have anything to do with the modem speed.
Doesn't make me like M$ any better, but yeah, Windows 3.1 DID take longer to configure for dialup. Has nothing to do with modem speeds, or with integrated browsers, for that matter. Idiots.
Microsoft was trying to show that a PC loaded with Windows 3.1 took longer to access the Internet than a PC loaded with Windows 98 using Internet Explorer.
That's not what it says, although the article's author doesn't seem to understand it either. Here's the beginning of the article. Note the first word in bold-face:
Configuring a PC to connect to the Internet can take four times as long with Windows 3.1 as it does with Window 98,
The difference between the modems is virtually irrelevant here. Obviously it will take longer to configure 3.1 than 98, because MS took the evil step of integrating IP support in Windows98, thereby depriving customers of the option to download Trumpet instead and figure it out for themselves, like in the Good Old Days.
The primary thing they were trying to point out
is that bundling a browser on a pre-installed
system makes it easier to connect to the inet.
This is true, and even if the computer hardware
were reversed, it would have shown the same thing.
The real issue in my mind is that they blocked
the ability of vendors to bundle the supperior
Netscape product, which would have allowed
consumers a choice, and still made the first
connection to the inet easier. I'm a bit
surprised that Boise didn't bring this up.
MS Windows 95 - A 32-bit extension of a 16-bit shell of an 8-bit operating system for a 4-bit processor from a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
I agree. It seems a lot of /. 'ers just can't stand MS. Linux and Windows -CAN- coexist. Both are good at some things, and both really suck at others. And unfortunately one of the areas where Windows blows away Linux is in the time to create a dialup account. Win98 can do this in under 5 minutes, but Linux -always- seems to take longer.
Yeah, fasifying evidence and perjury is no biggy(esp. perjury). Hey what the hell, lets go give billy boy a big high five. Those mean governmental creeps, picking on the nicest software company in the word. The nerve of some people. sheesh
Thank god, someone who actually is prepared to say it. I think all the people who slate Microsoft are just a bunch of fashion victims. Most of you are just jealous of Microsoft's success.
"Lick a rock follow fashion, drop of a conka tree"
Kick em, while they're down. Can't any of you be constructive and do something good rather than critisize people all the time.........
If this sounds harsh it's because I'm pissed and England have just lost to France.....
wrong...
:)
From memory (as bad as it is!)....
The two modems were different - one was 56 and one 28. This wouldnt account for the difference of several minutes, which I think was the key issue.
The issue here is not the modem speed. The issue is that they are comparing two different technologies, or rather how to setup a conection on two different technologies. This is what is completely wrong. Im surprised Boies didn't pick this up himself. I may be wrong on this, so corrent me if I am.
Its like comparing 2 cars (the new Beetle vs the old Beetle) on their 0-60mph times. of course the new one will win; its using newer technology. bad analogy, but who cares
Stodge in disguise
How, in God's name AND under oath, could Microsoft compare two systems with different modem speeds for the express purposes of showing how much faster Win98 is and NOT expect someone somewhere to point this out? What possibly could have possessed Microsoft to not make the two modems IDENTICAL? If it wasn't dishonesty then it must have been stupidity. Microsoft's lack of rigor in their sworn "truthful" testing leaves one wondering how MS empolyees could actually keep a straight face when spouting these "facts".
And can someone explain why MS would want to compare Win3.1 to Win98 rather than Win95 to Win98? Someone at the DOJ should ask Microsoft on stand why this comparison is so relevant.
The whole thing is academic if windows '98 is faster than Windows 3.1. In fact, it's academic if Windows '98 is faster than Windows '95 - all that proves is that they made the operation faster. I'm surprised the judge would allow this evidence to be presented at all - it's completely irrelevant.
Now, if you want to compare Windows '98 with the browser "integrated" versus it loaded after the OS was loaded, that MIGHT be a valid test.
Is it just me, or is slashdot jacked up? I have tried on multiple machines on multiple networks over the past two days and I can only go up a single 'response level' to where I am capable of reading. The rest, when you click on the responses to responses, all you get is a list of responses for that level. Is there still a problem in the code that was mentioned earlier?
--Curious(ly ignorant)
Thank you Bill, for that insight.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that you can build an intuitive GUI on either platform?
Running a PPP connection on a win98 box (ever try finding Fisher Price software for *nix?) seemed dog slow until I ran iSpeed on it - seem to recall hearing that MS changed the MTU parameters in 98 to better support LANs, but a the cost of PPP performance.
Stop trying to be 'wise' and realise that life is VERY RARELY like that. You simply CANNOT ignore people trying to destroy you.
Please read your stories before posting articles that are completely anti-microsoft. Out of the entire test, 22 seconds used the modem. Fact-checking please!
Hrmm, what designates slashdot as a "linux page"? Sure, there are news items about linux, but there are also items not about linux, or even computing. Where did you get the idea that slashdot is a totally-linux site?
Uh, this isn't a linux page. This is a page about the Microsoft trial.
Or does SlashDot==Linux in your mind?
What the hell is up with people defending MS? Apparently they are too damn stupid to see what's going on.
Their OS's suck. I spend half my night every night without sleep because our sucky NT servers go down all the time. The servers we have that run Linux or Solaris have not needed any touching for months. I have yet to see any of our NT boxes stay up for over a week. MS products suck because they push them into production before they are really ready so they can make money.
Which brings me to my next point... MS is a bunch of money grubbing assholes. They want to own everything, including you. If you have any sympathy for them, they already own you. You might as well grab your ankles right now.
And let them get away with perjury and contempt of court? Think again. Ignoring a bully, contrary to your (wussy) belief, does not make him go away; it just teaches him that he can bully with impunity.
Of course we shouldn't spend all our time bashing MS at the neglect of our own code, but we should still jump on any reasonable demonstration of MS inferiority.
linux? Who said anything about linux? The DoJ case is about MS denying choice for those who want Netscape
I know .. I know ..
..
... come on ...
We have heard about how cool it is to work for MS, about all the GREAT benefits and GREAT pay, not to mention the GREAT stock options.
An on occasion, we even hear about the GREAT products you are working on.
And how 'pointy haired bosses' are everywhere
but
Isn't this getting a little embarrassing??
even for you?
This is Slashdot - News for Nerds, not a Linux promotional parlour. When the world's largest software based company is up in court over DOJ charges which might bring about their ruin, it becomes news worthy of attention for all nerds.
The fact that you see the analysis of Microsoft as not being news, but a poor attempt to promote Linux, says a lot more about yourself and your own personal biasses than anything else. This stuff is interesting and deserves our attention.
Okay the modems were different but what was the CPU? Come on Win3.1, why use that. Win95 is what they should have used to test if integrating IE into Win98 makes such a great differents. There are so many gotchas that could skew the results it not funny. What DOS was under 3.1, what modem drivers, was the 3.1 modem a winmodem. The poor judge, as with it as he might be, couldn't know all the possible pitfalls. The judge needs to stop these FALSE demos, it's comparing apples to tomatoes.
A good test would be to show the speed of connecting to the internet on identical hardware.
;-)
How about a 386/33 with 8MB ram.
I wonder how quickly you could connect to the internet on that machine under win98.
No, bundling the dial-up connection support (and PPP, TCP/IP, etc.) makes it easier to connect to the internet. All this was already bundled (although they have improved it since then.)
Regardless of how long it takes to get a connection running, both win3.1 and win98 are faster than getting pppd running under Linux. Every one of you losers who goes screaming every time someone says even the _slightest_ thing "odd" about Linux should grow the fsck up. You FUD-wielding chumps are no better than the Microsoft marketing machine.
Is it possible that MS are paying people /. with dodgy incoming news stories?
to flood
And that they then pay people to post idioitic
replies?
I thought the test was the time it takes to setup
a internet connection with win3.1 vs win9x. I just
set my ma up online with one of my old systems. It
took the time to read 5 diskettes (the ISP's version of netscape and a dialer) to install, and
maybe two minutes to set up the modem port addr and irq and config the dialer. Whoever was configuring that win 3.1 system was probably only
a win 98 user...
This is so fucking boring. Every time MS farts, there is news on slashdot. Simply pathetic.
...and so is the fact that there is no reason for, nor has there ever been a "2400 bps WinModem".
Presence or absence of a browser has nothing to do with ease of connecting to the internet. MS must have been counting on the fact that people don't know the difference between the Internet and the web. They must not have realized that if you think setting up a browser is the same thing as connecting to the internet, you will also think that modem speed makes a pretty big difference.
Actually, the browser has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that starting with Win95, Microsoft included support for TCP/IP connections with the OS (though with W95a it's not part of the standard install routine). The networking client was not part of any browser code. With Win 3.1, you had to find and configure a third-party program like Trumpet Winsock, which was also not a browser. This is probably why they didn't compare Win98 with Win95. Because it would take *exactly the same amount of time to setup Win95a as it does to set up Win98 to access the Internet* (not counting browser installation).
Michael Knepher
josefk@wenet.net
hmm, yeah well it seems to me that they didn't change much from win95 to win98 so the addition of IE into the OS doesn't make it any faster to set up a modem. The DoJ didn't make a big deal about this because it is pretty obvious that MS wants to find anything that'll make them look good.
HEY! Win32 is faster in win98 than win3.1 with win32s also!
HEY! There's a start bar in win98! It would be really hard to add a start bar in win3.1!
Your average Windows user panics at the concept of "Installing" software...
We're talking Office here, the one that installs itself... PANIC... configure a printer... AHHHHH!!!
Win 98 is VERY cool for your average computer user. I am happy with MS and the fact that they have brought usability within everyones grasp, as this means more folk want computer oriented solutions, and thus I have a well paying job.
Until Linux is as easy to use as Windows, and I can sustain my quality of life as a Linux developer, SHUT UP!
No, it's possible, only not when
A) no matter what you want to do in the GUI, you still need to use the command line
B) Enlightenment R15 is a pain in the ass to install and configure
C) TWM, FVWM, FVWM 95, etc. all suck
The original poster was right - there are certain applications that I would vastly prefer running Unix to running Windows (like Web servers, etc.), but personally, for my home PC, I vastly prefer WinNT4/Win2000 to any variation of Unix (and I've used Digital Unix, Minix, AIX, Solaris (x86 and Sparc), Linux, xBSD, Irix, etc.)
Even die hard linux advocates must admit - Linux is *not* a particularly friendly OS. Even though I'm quite familiar with using it, I don't like having to recompile the kernel every few bug-release updates, or tell it which sectors on my hard drive to install on. I like sticking in the Win2000 CD, saying "create a 3GB NTFS partition," and just let the installer automatically detect my DVD decoder, video card, NIC, etc. When I want to dick around with an operating system, I'll boot to Linux, but when I want to have my computer boot, without worrying about shell scripts, etc., and use my computer, I boot NT.
Oh, and before someone jumps on the BSOD bandwagon, let me say that I've been running Win2k Beta 3 RC0 for over a week now without a single mishap. I've had far more problems with beta linux kernels, and I had to compile those.
I've had NT Server up and running for weeks, running SQL Server, Exchange, and supporting 50+ users...
You UNIX folk like things complicated and arcane. The simplicity of NT confuses you.
What Boise is doing is destroying the credibility of the MS witness. If the witness has no credibity, then NOTHING that witness says matters to the judge. This is exactly what happened with the FIRST video. Boise used the multiple errors and the witness's constant backpeddaling on his answers to destroy that witness's credibility.
What is the purpose of bringing an 'expert' to court if that 'expert' can be shown not have have the most BASIC technical competence? The he isn't much of an 'expert', is he?
If he brings in a video that he claims supports his position and it can be shown that that video is flawed in some FUNDAMENTAL manner (such as not having the correct program run, I mean having another program run after the first program was run, what I meant was it was an editing error, what I actually meant was that it was only an illustration of the results we had found to be true in a lab. Would you like me to remake the video? I can do it tonight. Why were they locked out? It wasn't my idea. Here's the new video. It doesn't have the disputed test because we couldn't get a reliable connection to the Internet from the office. Yes we know we had run the original test in a lab. Yes we know that the office is not a lab. I don't know why we thought we could duplicate a lab test in an office if it could only be done under lab conditions.)
The tests MIGHT have been accurate AND the DoJ's case MIGHT have fallen apart then. BUT the defense (with all their BILLIONS of $dollar$ and the brightest people working on it) just COULDN'T get the video right. And then they couldn't explain why it was wrong.
These are the EXACT actions that would be undertaken by someone who was IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND ATTEMPTING TO COVER UP THEIR VIOLATIONS.
That is all Boise has to prove.
He's made his case so far.
He just has to prove that each MS witness is lieing or misrepresenting facts. It doesn't matter WHICH facts they are misrepresenting, if they are misrepresenting ANY, then ALL of their claims are suspect.
You do not want your witness to be suspect before the judge.
If I remember right, the fastest port speed in Win3.1 is 19200 so even if they put a 56k modem in it they would have only been recieving info at 19200. And from the looks of the article the set up time was the concern. As a tech support guy for a ISP I would have to say that win98 is faster to set up IF everyhing is working right; tcp/ip is not corrupt (usually is), modem drivers are correct and not a win modem, ect, ect. Honestly I like getting connection problems in Win3.1 because there just are not that many things that can brake, unlike win98.
Your Beetle analogy is a little off. The 0-60 test would be valid if we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which was faster.
If we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which played CD's, and used a stock vintage bug (no CD player) and compared it to a loaded new bug, the new bug would win because the vintage didn't have a CD player.
The same test is going on here. The Internet wasn't the beast it is now when Win3.1 was released. So Win3.1 didn't have any software to connect it to it. But it could have been added. In fact, if you still run Win3.1 and need to connect to the Internet, you probably have already installed the necessary components.
And integrated CD player is important because it provides a customer benefit. To demonstrate this, we will play CD's on a vintage bug and a loaded, new bug. Notice how the vintage bug takes over an hour to play the CD? This is because the integrated player is a customer benefit.
Of course, this only applies to the FIRST CD played.
Or the FIRST time you connect to the Internet.
But that isn't what MS wants to push.
Of course, MS demonstrated with a cheap, older CD player in the vintage bug.
So Boise went for the easy kill and pointed out the blatant technological discrepancy.
Your Beetle analogy is a little off. The 0-60 test would be valid if we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which was faster.
If we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which played CD's, and used a stock vintage bug (no CD player) and compared it to a loaded new bug, the new bug would win because the vintage didn't have a CD player.
The same test is going on here. The Internet wasn't the beast it is now when Win3.1 was released. So Win3.1 didn't have any software to connect it to it. But it could have been added. In fact, if you still run Win3.1 and need to connect to the Internet, you probably have already installed the necessary components.
And integrated CD player is important because it provides a customer benefit. To demonstrate this, we will play CD's on a vintage bug and a loaded, new bug. Notice how the vintage bug takes over an hour to play the CD? This is because the integrated player is a customer benefit.
Of course, this only applies to the FIRST CD played.
Or the FIRST time you connect to the Internet.
But that isn't what MS wants to push.
Of course, MS demonstrated with a cheap, older CD player in the vintage bug.
So Boise went for the easy kill and pointed out the blatant technological discrepancy.
Your Beetle analogy is a little off. The 0-60 test would be valid if we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which was faster.
If we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which played CD's, and used a stock vintage bug (no CD player) and compared it to a loaded new bug, the new bug would win because the vintage didn't have a CD player.
The same test is going on here. The Internet wasn't the beast it is now when Win3.1 was released. So Win3.1 didn't have any software to connect it to it. But it could have been added. In fact, if you still run Win3.1 and need to connect to the Internet, you probably have already installed the necessary components.
And integrated CD player is important because it provides a customer benefit. To demonstrate this, we will play CD's on a vintage bug and a loaded, new bug. Notice how the vintage bug takes over an hour to play the CD? This is because the integrated player is a customer benefit.
Of course, this only applies to the FIRST CD played.
Or the FIRST time you connect to the Internet.
But that isn't what MS wants to push.
Of course, MS demonstrated with a cheap, older CD player in the vintage bug.
So Boise went for the easy kill and pointed out the blatant technological discrepancy.
Your Beetle analogy is a little off. The 0-60 test would be valid if we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which was faster.
If we were comparing the cars and wanted to see which played CD's, and used a stock vintage bug (no CD player) and compared it to a loaded new bug, the new bug would win because the vintage didn't have a CD player.
The same test is going on here. The Internet wasn't the beast it is now when Win3.1 was released. So Win3.1 didn't have any software to connect it to it. But it could have been added. In fact, if you still run Win3.1 and need to connect to the Internet, you probably have already installed the necessary components.
And integrated CD player is important because it provides a customer benefit. To demonstrate this, we will play CD's on a vintage bug and a loaded, new bug. Notice how the vintage bug takes over an hour to play the CD? This is because the integrated player is a customer benefit.
Of course, this only applies to the FIRST CD played.
Or the FIRST time you connect to the Internet.
But that isn't what MS wants to push.
Of course, MS demonstrated with a cheap, older CD player in the vintage bug.
So Boise went for the easy kill and pointed out the blatant technological discrepancy.
Wow. Your eloquence and well-supported arguments have convinced me - I'm going to delete both WinNT4 and Win2000 right now, and go to a straight-Linux setup, because I sure don't want to be called a sheep.
The problem with NT servers is that no one bothers to learn how to administer them properly. Everyone assumes that it's piss-simple (which can be blamed on MS for marketing it as a zero-admin OS), and then hire administrators who are better off bagging groceries.
I'll admit - most System V-based servers have no problems (though I have seen more than one that had severe problems), but *any* well-managed NT server will operate as advertised, too. I have seen several NT4 servers that have lasted over a year without rebooting, because the administrators know how to administrate.
Most server problems aren't because the server software sucks, but because the administrator sucks. Every OS has caveats, including all Unices; but if people such as yourself would take the time to learn to administer NT, like Unix administrators learn to administer Unix, you could avoid 99.9% of these problems.
The only problems I've had with NT (in over 2 years of use) are the Sound Blaster Live! drivers, and that can hardly be blamed on Microsoft. I'm not lucky... I read the users' guides. If you are an NT administrator like you imply you are, perhaps you should, too.
And no, I don't work for MS.
Oh really? How many of the lawers on the MS defense team are going to put in their job resumes that they were on the MS defense team? Win or loose, not very many I'ld bet....
Anonymous coward posts should be banned.
Just kidding.
Note- figures are based on two years of experience in tech support
Average Win 3.1 box:
Average Win 98 Box (minimum):
Which do you think would run software (browser or config.) faster?
I'm not a coward, just anonymous.
settle down dude.
linux is cool and stable, but a pain. MS is way ahead (and EASY) and will be for some time. seems like a poor idea to insult the tool of the masses. if Windows was not on my machine too then i would not be able to play STARCRAFT and we wouldn't want that would we?
(Please don't reply with wine info. yes wine technically does work with a variety of games, but saving every few minutes for fear of crashing is not my idea of a good time)
You MS whores cry too much. Why is it that when MS messes up, the first thing that comes out of your mouth is: "you guys are just anti-MS", or "why can't you be fair/objective", "you're just biased"? You do not have to read articles exposing their blunders if you do not want, so shut up about it already. Open your eyes idiots!
er ...yeah, they _don't_ have to go to the store to buy a browser. They can ftp the thing. I ppl don't know that it's because
companies would rather sell them something in shrinkwrap and a cardboard box. Well--PHOOEY!
The modem speed is a red herring in this case. I should hope that Win98 (or Win95 for that matter) is faster to configure to use the internet than Windows 3.1. After all when 3.1 was released Microsoft hadn't discove^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinvented the internet yet. 3.1 did not ship with a TCP/IP stack, PPP client or browser. I'm not certain that the first version of Win95 did either.
What the video proves is that integrating internet connectivity and configuration is a good idea, not that integrating a browser is a good idea. It might be fair to compare configuring connectivity/Communicator/Messenger in Win98 to configuring connectivity/IE/Outlook in Win98 but I suspect the results would be less convincing which is why they didn't do it.
I can't think of a good reason not to at least have used Win95/IE in their tests than 3.1/IE except that this would have exposed the unholy thought that browser and OS work as well when separate.
Macintosh has the right idea with Remote Access/ Internet Setup Assistant (PPP/configuration tools) that are theoretically application agnostic. OS makers have a responsibility to make applications work better no matter who wrote them.
Finally, I would hope that _ANYTHING_ under 95/98 would be faster than a similar task under 3.1 given the improvements in memory management, threading, multi-tasking etc. This doesn't say too much about 95/98 but it says a great deal abould how much 3.1 sucks.
If you used a free CD from a magazine or say
Demon Internet ( shock - that cannot be! ) the
internet set up time on win 3.1 in my experience
was always quicker than on win 95. Win95 is quicker in operation than Win98 on my hardware. Last time I ran win3.1 on this hardware it screamed along.
If you pick who you compare with then you will always stand up to the comparison.
As a matter of fact, it is. I never really enjoyed spending $45 for Netscape Navigator 2.x, 3.x, etc., but since no browser was included with Windows, I had to.
Thanks to the inclusion of IE, I don't have to spend extra money on a product, but if I'm really dissatisfied with IE, I can easily download Netscape, because I actually have a program capable of doing downloads. Sure, I could have used FTP, but since I'm the average consumer, I have no idea how.
Of course, the real problem I have with the DOJ is that IE has been bundled with Windows for over 3 years, but as long as Netscape had a better product they didn't care. Now that MS has finally got a marketshare (and it's still a fair minority, mind you), the DOJ decides to take action.
Thank-you, Janet Reno! Now rather than having the ability to even download a competitors' browser if I dislike IE, I have to pay $45. I really love spending extra money... would you like to raise taxes, too? Or how about charge me for the inclusion of a steering wheel in my new car?
I often wonder how many of these Microsoft Haters actually do have experience with misfunctioning MS software, and how many of them are just on the bash MS bandwagon? I admin a number of unix servers, and an NT server, and I have to say that my NT installation always performs very well. It's been my experience that on decent hardware and with a decent setup, NT will behave. My NT box stays up for weeks at a time, and only goes down for reboots after software installation. Don't get me wrong, I have my problems with Microsoft stuff too, some of their applications are really broken. I think the problem though is that Microsoft has such a large user base and is trying to please all of the people all of the time, and in the process pleasing none of the people any of the time...
First let me state that yes in many many ways MS can be considered to be the most morally bankrupt of large non-polluting corporations. I can not tell you the amount of hair I have pulled out while tracking down one of their iconsistent-behavior type bugs ( aka features ).
However that being said lets not deny the fact that a large number of us manage to make alot of money due to their failures
M$ sucks, I have to agree with you on that one. But they do have a good product for those windooz junkies who don't know any better.
We can't just say that M$ sucks (even though it does) We have to show other people why Linux and other *nixs are way better than M$. The one that most windooz junkies would be most interested in hearing are that *nixs are free.
The windooz junkies think that windooz is easier. That may be true in the setup process but when their computer crashes all the time they will be wishing that they would have gone with a *nix instead of M$ Virus 9.x
has that been tested? i won't be surprised if 3.1 is actually faster than win95
Did I miss something in the trial...why do we care that Windows98 is faster than Win3.1? Shouldn't they have tested Win98 and win95?
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
OR hit "Flat Mode", that usually works for me.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It seems to me that Microsoft is trying to decieve the DOJ in court (under oath?). Certainly these are grounds for a contempt of court charge, yet all I hear is:
"One bright eyed DOJ employee noticed the Microsoft Word and Excel icons appeared on the taskbar for the second half of the demo. The DOJ asked Microsoft to remake the video." (Presumeably so they don't forget to hide the taskbar this time).
Plus this I can connect faster to the internet with 98...and a faster modem stuff.
Clinton could have been impeached for stuff like this (well, maybe, but we certainly would have heard about it about a million times).
I read the internet for the articles.
It depends. If you're dialing into a 33.6k modem with a 33.6k modem, both will try to sync up at 33.6 first. If you have a 28.8 modem dialing into a 33.6, the 33.6 will try to sync at 33.6, then 31, then keep going down the line until it hits 28.8, at which point they sync up.
Posted by Alonzo The Great:
:)
'doze 9.11 uh windoze 3.11 Yeah, I know I'm lame. If you got a better OS and want to tell me how great it is e-mail Alan Grimes at the link above...
... and I'll say it again.
Microsoft Internet Explorer is an Application.
A TCP/IP Stack is not...
Microsoft has the source code to Windows.
Microsoft can REMOVE Internet Explorer by rewriting Windows.
End of story.
Someone needs to inform the DOJ of these simple facts.
You could easily reverse the results by using a 9600bps modem for Windows 98 for which only Win3.1 drivers exist, and a 14.4 with drivers for both for the Windows 3.1 box.
The problem is not the slight difference in speed. It's that the modems are different, so the result is not truly objective.
John_Chalisque
Yes, the first version of Windows 95 did have PPP dialup features. (It was the first Windows release to ship with it - unless NT did. Shrug.)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Actually people want to play games on machines like the PlayStation rather than Windows. Otherwise why are there so much interest in emualating these machines on the PC. BTW I haven't bought a game for the PC since I bought my Playstation a couple of years ago. The system requirements for PC games these days are becoming just too absurd, and the games on the PlayStation are far more interesting, especially if you are an Anime/Manga fan.
Someone please show Mr. Barkto the door. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
A similar test could be performed in the opposite direction--pit a machine with decent buffered UARTs and Windows 3.1 with an external 56k modem against a Win98 box with a WinModem. Note how slowly the machine runs while "downloading the Internet" or whatever these morons call it. Make it illegal to sell WinModems.
--
--
I noticed
It's getting about time to leave everywhere
They COULDN'T be that silly.. These tests must be conducted by utter morons.. Shouldn't these tests be done by neutral, third party vendors? I mean, who's the say they didn't just speed up the friggen tape to make it appear faster?
"Joe, move the mouse REAL slowly.. We need to speed up this tape, and don't want it to look phony.."
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yes, there is a big difference when one is judging speed.. As a matter of fact, unless they both had dedicated access to the SAME T1 line, the results can be SIMPLY screwed by someone simply ftping a large file across the LAN..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Lemme get this strait.. They mislead the court on 3 different occasions:
1) Using survey results that where 'ordered' to turn out the way they did..
2) Using systems that are NOT CONFIGURED as they stated to demo something..
3) They demo something on different speed modems, and suprisingly, the slower modem lost..
Does this mean that I can 'forget' to mention 30,000 of income when doing my taxes and use the 'gimme a break' as a reason?
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
They weren't comparing thouroughput, they were comparing the time it took to configure the system. Which doesn't have *anything* to do with modem speed. (well, I guess configuring a 1980s 1200 baud modem might be difficult these days, but...)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
you know, that 28.8 "purely academic" difference could be alot difference if the modem was the old style VFC protocol, the pre-V.34 standard protocol. I had one of these modems, and it was completely unreliable. It never connected at 28.8. On the average it connected at 19.2 and it was not rare to get 14.4. Not to mention, that when these things got errors, the modem would lock up for a few seconds, until it could renegotiate the connection with the other end. Basically this "academic" difference, could have resulted in the difference shown by the video. In fact, even if there was nothing fishy about the modems themselves, they could have used telephone lines that differed significantly in quality. While the modems may have been nearly the same, the actual connection speeds could be far different, thus accounting for the big difference.
--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
If you hate the bashing comments on MS stories on slashdot, ignore them.
--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Yep. I was thinking the same. Why are they comparing Win98 against Win3.1 instead of Win95? It does not make any sense, unless Win98 and Win95 perform the same with and without IE. And that is obviously the reason they used Win3.1.
I recall from the article that "most of the time was spent" loading the browser application from the disc. What a stupid comparison!
Slashdot itself has done nothing to make itself look bad here. Slashdot is a news site reporting the news. Moreover, it's not bashing MS's product, it's insulting their perceptions of our intelligence. If some comment-posters feel obliged to make their usual childish remarks, it's their own problem. Slashdot has done nothing here to stain its journalistic integrity (unless the summary is incorrect).
I think there are always grounds for appeal, but mistakes made in your own defense are not one of them. Also, is not an appeal actually a review of the trial proceeding, its fairness and the legal logic used for the various rulings?
Perhaps a lawyer can comment on what recourse defendants have to deal with their own inept presentation of their case.
explain to me how microsoft is allowed to do these tests. Think about this, if you were just arrested for murder, would they allow you to go to the crime scene to collect the evidence? i think not! Why are they allowing microsoft to create and perform the tests? is the DOJ so computer retarded that they can't hire a impartial third party to perform the test? much less do the tests themselves? For some reason i have a feeling that no matter what MS do, they will win this case. The DOJ has done nothing to prove their case, while MS is doing everything (and screwing it up big time) to win.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
ohmygod... the wacky graph from the (every month repeating itself) microsoft ad in wired with webserver "benchmarks" comes into mind. crafty folks they are,- in _that_ business, i mean.
Modem Configurations for Internet Speed Comparison
Yeah, the differences are academic.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
The win3.1 machine was probably at 1200 baud and the 98 machine with a pocket rocket DSL modem... Way to fool em Bill!!
One of Microsoft's suits said that the difference in modem speeds is a red herring. Well, this whole demo was one big red herring. MS proved what, exactly? That it is faster to set up a "trial account" with an ISP or online provider if you already have a browser installed. Big whoop.
There was no need for Microsoft to "integrate" MSIE into 32-bit Windows to provide this benefit. All they'd have to do for the same results is to preinstall a web browser. Or better yet, encourage OEMs to preinstall a choice of web browsers.
I'd like to see a fair test instead of this sham. Same OS (or at least both Win9x), same processor, same browser preinstalled, same modem on both machines. Then set up a dialup account. I'm sure the time required would not be vastly different for the two computers then.
I still have Windows 3.11, and I can tell you that setting up Netscape or (ugh) AOL is dead easy. MSIE is a pain in the neck to configure, though, because they think they know better than you, and try to hide everything.
Why must everyone post this tired, tired, old quote whenever a reference to Windows 95 comes up? It was mildly entertaining the first time. Barely so the next few times. It has no entertainment value now. Let it die.
There seems to be some misconception about why the DoJ would raised the issue of different modem speeds. If one has been following Boiles cross-examination of the MS witnesses, one realizes that the DoJ is systematically trying to destroy their credibility. Furthermore, the DoJ is also trying to show that MS has exhibited a pattern of evasiveness and deceit in their testimonies (written and oral). The flawed tapes and the hidden modem differences all move towards this goal. Remember, this is all cummulative in it's effect.
In contrast, MS's cross-examination of DoJ witnesses seemed to be primarily concentrated on disputing (or correcting) individual little points of contention. Furthermore, while the DoJ witnesses were from a wide-range of organizations, MS's witnesses are almost exclusively MS employees. If one destroys the credibility of the MS witnesses, you destroy the credibility of MS. This will then make life tough for MS if this gets to an Appeals Court.
The DoJ can still call two more witnesses. If too many bogus technical claims are made, I would suggest that the DoJ do their own technical demonstrations (video presentation of course). And yes, sorry MS, you are not allowed to be there when the DoJ sets up or films their demo.
I read somewhere that the only truly intuitive interface was the nipple. Everything else had to be learned. :-)
Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
I have to agree with this thread, why can a company like this be so blatently misleading and then just say 'Oops...I didn't really mean to say that.' If any one of us tried this, we would be forking over a bunch of money for a contempt charge, or spending an evening in the care of the state.
On a related note, visit today's stories at http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/microsoft/tr ial/ where it was reported that M$ VP Myhrvold admitted under corss-examination that the reasons behind Microsoft's restrictive agreements with ISPs to push IE was the fear that Netscape would win in side-by-side comparisons. This is in *direct* contradiction of his written testimony, where he states that IE's share increase was due to "superior product".
I hesitate to say perjury... nah, no I don't.
-- Cerebus
Yep. You would be jailed. But that is because you are not a multi-million dollar monopoly with tons of lawyers at your disposal.
This sig is false.
This is a linux page, don't point out MS flaws
What? Where does it say "Slashdot: Linux news for nerds?"
We are not pointing out the "flaws" of MS, but their lies. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you can't stand it, leave.
This sig is false.
Ha, the laugh of the day from our dear friend Bill. :) It's kind of sad the level of inteligence that M$ thinks we have.
Linux: Long live the source code.
As others have pointed out, this was a usability test to find out how long it took to set up a pre-IE versus a post-IE system, not a test of the relative speeds of the two OSes.
If my memory serves, Trumpet Winsock was a horrible, horrible product that took ages to get working properly. I also recall that Windows 3.1 also had no support for modem speeds above 19.2k, and that was pretty darn shaky as it was.
But I don't have a clue what this has to do with Internet Explorer integration. 99% of the work done to set up Windows 3.1 networking was spent getting Trumpet to work; the browser always worked as soon as you could ping a remote host using a domain name.
When Windows95 was introduced, there was an option called the "Plus Pack" which included IE. If you want to see the real benefit in user convenience of having IE "integrated", you would have to compare installing W98 with installing W95 and the Plus Pack (or Netscape on CD ROM). I would argue this difference is negligible.
As far as I know, nobody even attempts to dispute that it was a Good Thing for the consumer to have TCP/IP integrated into Windows 95, even though it surely damaged the competitive positions of a number of companies marketing Windows 3.x TCP/IP, including Trumpet.
D
I've used KDE, and I don't see how anyone could describe it as harder to use then Windows - it's a virtual Windows clone!
:-)
Now, if you were to say that the applications aren't there, I'd be forced to agree with you - but that doesn't seem to be your argument.
Incidentally, I now use Enlightenment because I can't resist the cool look. One day, one day, I promise myself, I'll do a Theme of my very own, or at least figure out how to get one of the non-default ones to work.
But I would cheerfully recommend KDE to anyone who wants a Windows-like experience.
I guess you could say I'm one of the few agnostics in the KDE vs Gnome wars.
D
It's pretty much obvious to anyone who's actually trying to follow along that Microsoft will lose. So, I'm not surprised.
EJECTED? I find that a little hard to believe, most seminars I would suspect (even mickeysoft) are fairly friendly. They want you to buy their product and continue to use it, and those seminars usually ain't free.
I guess personally it would be bigger news to me that Microsoft is "ejecting" people from its conferences than Microsoft making uneven comparisons.
(Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers won't they lock me up and throw away the key?)
This is nothing more than a case of people loving to bash MS. Hey give them a break.
i've been having the same problem. Just keep hitting reload, sometimes it doesn't work.
-matt
Isn't that roughly like saying linux 2.2.x is faster than 1.2.x or MacOS 8.5 is faster than System 7. Or that is faster than . I would hope it's faster, win3.1 is about 5 or 6 years old, isn't it? Since the issue is integrating ie4 wouldn't a more comperable test be win95 vs win95 w/ ie4?
-matt
They put a winmodem in the 3.1 machine? First of all, I worked Tech support for a large ISP and winmodems, IDEPENDENT of the OS, took much longer to get the freeggin POS's to work in the first place. Also, I was under the impression that Win 3.1, if it doesn't have some sort of error correction or flow control, first time you try to tax the harddrive or CPU justa little bit, disconnection is the result. Winmodems are simple really crappy DA converters with no hardware flow control whatsoever, which is why if you run win (of anything) and you playing an mp3, you disconnect. Basically what I'm trying to say is what kind of a moron would use a winmodem in a test in the first place much less on a win3.1 box. Oh yeah, I forgot, he was told to make 3.1 look like it sux... sorry..
I'll give M$ a break when M$ gives me a break. I am sick and tired of the "This is what you really want to do" garbage. I'll tell my computer what I want to do, not vice versa.
Caffeine underflow (brain dumped)
Microsoft's major contention in this trial is that Windows98/MSIE are inseperable, and part of their defense is that this linkage of browser to operating system provides a superior experience than the "old way." Microsoft has, time and again, fudged the numbers in their favor, even if only slightly. Every little bit counts.
Give Microsoft a break? When Microsoft starts comparing apples to apples, we'll give them a break. Even if it was a difference between a 33.6k and a 28.8kbps modem, that's significant enough to make it an unfair (and inaccurate) comparison. Apples to apples means: same components, same conditions, only the operating system version should be changed.
How do we know that Microsoft didn't fudge things further? They could have the Win3.1 box connecting to a UNIX machine, and firing off a chat script to start PPP manually; while the Win98 box connects to a WinNT RAS server. What were the conditions of the test? Without knowing that, it's just a case of more Microsoft FUD.
If it was you being charged with a crime, and you fudged the evidence this way in your favor, you'd be sitting in jail on a contempt of court charge. Why isn't Microsoft?
Give me a break.
actually, ppp is easier to setup when using ANY gui....
whether windows or kde or afterstep!
having said that, i noted the difference between stup on afterstep (approx 2 mins less than a win setup)
and kde (5-10 mins less)
(and none of this *(^&*^&P rebooting every step of the process, either..i didnt include the reboots in the time thing, btw!)
now, i have set up so many windows dial ups for friends who just cant do it...but they all got the kde setup i showed em..
people dont want windows, they want an easy to use system, with a great gui...
sounds like linux to me..the o/s with a CHOICE (windows != choice) of guis....
Between the idea & the reality, between the motion & the act falls the shadow
Yes, but with Win3.1 (same modem, different machine) I had a lot better luck at connecting consistently, because the interface and scripting was better. On the average it takes me longer to dial in with Win98 than it did with 3.1, and requires more mousing and user input (rather than one click and it dials).
I'd rather spend 3 more minutes setting it up the first time than 1 minute extra PER DAY to connect!
Also, were the machines comparable? Win3.1 doesn't recognize memory over 64megs, which, especially if we're talking about IE, could be a factor.
I agree, however, that the modem difference is small, but probably one of a plurality of factors that dragged the Win3.1 performance down.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Er...where does it say that this is a "Linux page?"
Still, I do agree that "Your operating system sucks" is a poor way to sell Linux.
All unfair meta-mods are now being meta-meta-modded as retarded.
How about their collective, flaccid pud...
What can their legal team be thinking at this point? "How can I get out of this with a tattered remnant of a career?"
Ask your doctor if getting up off your ass is right for you! -- Bill Maher
According to the report from the Seattle Times, the Win98 system was using a 56k modem while the Win3.1 system had a 33.6k one. The Win98 system could be 25% slower than the Win3.1 system and still appear faster.
http://www.seat tletimes.com/news/technology/html98/micr_021099.hI'll tell you why MS wants to compare Win3.1 to Win98, rather than Win95 to Win98. Because comparing Win3.1 to Win98 is completely bogus, and has nothing to do with the advantages of "integrating" IE with Windows, while comparing Win95 w/out IE to Win98 is more valid.
Even that would be stupid. The Connection Wizard is a completely separate function from the browser. This test is yet another attempt by MS to deliberately use smoke and mirrors to hide the real issues. I'm not sure why the DOJ didn't address this point directly. This "demo" is completely irrelevant to the issue of browser integration, because they are demonstrating a function that is separate from the browser.
-------------
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
They were originally showing BOTH actual connection speed AND how long it took to actually get connected. However, once the discrepancy in the modems came up, they changed their tune and said the demo was really more about how much easier it was to get setup only. ZDNet has more detail on this.
In other words, once the flaw was found, they changed their mind on what it was about. They did the same thing with the video from last week: once the government found major problems with the video, and they couldn't reproduce the original results two days later, they changed the label from "Demo of actual problems" to "Hypothetical simulation of theorized problems".
------------
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Then the blunder happened. It was a big deal in court; the MS witness mumbled that he wasn't sure that they were the same speed, though that was half of what they were trying to show. At that point, I kid you not, this is what one of their lawyers said immediately afterwards: "The difference in speed between the two modems is academic." (ZDNet article here.).
After all that, MS found out the difference in speed, but it didn't matter; they changed their tune to say that the demo was about the setup time, not the actual connection speed. Just like their video blunder last week, they changed what their demo was about after mistakes were found. That's why if you read articles on it now, you'll hear MS say that the demo was really about setup time; but that's only because you are reading the article well after the blunder. If you had seen articles on it immediately afterward, you would have seen that MS meant to show problems with actual connect speed too.
--------------
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
It ended up being a minor difference. But as someone already mentioned, the point is that MS was trying to demonstrate difference in connect speed due to SOFTWARE, not due to HARDWARE. The fact that they didn't show similar hardware puts into question the whole demo. I mean, if they couldn't be trusted to make the modems the same, how do we know the rest of the hardware was the same? Say CPU, memory, hard disk, etc.? It is simply an extremely deceptive thing to do, even if the end result is a minor difference. Take this in conjunction with last week's complete screwup (read: falsification of evidence), it's a very serious thing indeed. The entire credibility of the demo is in question.
Of course, how MS wrote it off BEFORE THEY FOUND OUT THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IN SPEED is like this: "The difference in speed between the two modems is academic." Again, this statement is BEFORE they knew the actual speed difference; when the lawyer made that point, MS didn't know what the difference was.
------------
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
The modems do seem trivial, but they also use Win 3.1 instead of Win95 sans browser. I bet even Win 95 is faster than the bloated Win 98, which would just ruin the demonstration.
It is also interesting that they didn't demonstrate connecting to the Internet on a machine on which the OEM had chosen to pre-install Netscape.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, glad you have a sense of humour.
Oh, you weren't joking. Okay. Then you're an idiot.
"Lick a rock follow fashion, drop of a conka tree"
What?
Kick em, while they're down. Who's down again?
Can't any of you be constructive and do something good rather than critisize people all the time.........
Well, in theory I can speak only for myself, but I believe that many, if not most, of /.'ers, are hackers - 'real' hackers. Now we have a tendency to be rather constructive people - as ESR said it, we'd rather build than destroy.
Some of the countless reasons why we hate Micro$oft are: * it practices evil marketing techniques; * it's not Open Source; * their code is ridiculously losing; * their employees are known to be fornicating marketroids; * their software is impossible to properly interface; * they've managed to make the overwhelming majority of computer users work on their ripped-off system, even though it's Not Good, it crashes often and it usually becomes the expert's job to fix the frustrated lusers' computers - until it crashes again.
If this sounds harsh it's because I'm pissed and England have just lost to France.....
Well, I'm too tired to make my point completely, but nonetheless I think you can have an idea. Peace, --
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Boise has had a good trial, but he missed the bus here. The difference in modem speeds had nothing to do with how long it takes to connect to the internet. He should have pressed the witness on what programs were being used to configure the connection. I wouldn't be surprised if the PPP-configuration software would still work after the browser-remover program thing had been run.
Get a f**king clue! Unless web pages are used
for the config screens, then bundling a browser
makes no difference.
Remember:
internet != web
Why not?
They're big, they're powerful, they control the welfare of puny clueless ignorant users..
Why shouldn't they be as much a target in our society as our political system, our entertainment complex, or our governmental body?
They really haven't done anything for me to be appreciative of, so I don't praise them.
They tried to comandeer html and internet standards, they've tried to control the desktop graphics routine(OpenGL is still very much alive and well, thank you!), they try to sell shoddy software, bloated office packages...
Why should we give them a break? They can afford the heckling!
Twinkie
People don't want servers. People wants to play the latest and coolest computer games. Conclusion: People wants Windows!
People don't want to work. People want to feel good. Conclusion: People want to smoke crack!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I always noticed that when someone wants to make there 'product' look good, they just insult the other. This is a linux page, don't point out MS flaws, instead point out Linux's high points. Saying one thing is crappier than your supported angle doesn't make anything better. Leave MS alone, if you hate them so much, ignore them.