What the article says, means that Microsoft's method of outright forcing OEM's to include Windows with *every* machine sold is to 'prevent piracy' and my personal favorite, 'keep better track of OS shipments'.
I agree with you that keeping better track of OS shipments makes no sense at all, but I still maintain that requiring an OS be purchased to reduce piracy is a somewhat valid claim. If Microsoft owns 99% of the OS market, than it stands to reason that Windows will go on 99% of all PCs purchased without an OS. "But those people all run Linux!" you protest. Sounds reasonable except that Dell will ship to corporate accounts with Red Hat pre-installed. Ergo it's not beyond the realm of possibility that a lot of people are just walking around with Windows CDs and Microsoft is trying to prevent this.
It's important to note that they've changed their tune and are no longer saying "for each system sold you must buy a Windows license even if you only install Linux." At least now they've been sufficiently reprimanded by the courts into only demanding that "something" is sold with the PC. I'm not saying they're justified, I'm just disagreeing with your assuming that there is no validity to their claim.
I'm not sure I agree with you. If I was buying a PC for home use I'd be much more prone to purchase it with a blank hard drive and then install Windows from a CD to save money.
That is, if it weren't for the fact that I only run Linux at home, but you get my point...
I've got a simple answer for you: because id Software doesn't want to be in the publishing business. And unlike LithTech they don't really even want to be in the engine business, they simply take advantage of licensing opportunities when they arise. I'm sure id has known for years that they'd make a killing if they were nothing but an engine and technology company but they've consistently stated that they're a games company and engine licensing is simply icing on the cake. Not that I don't agree with your comments, I just don't think id is the company to work the way you suggest.
Damn, you stole my comment.:) VRML was the industry's first attempt to shove a 3D web format down our throats and I suspect there were more "VRML tutorials" online than there were actual live sites.
Speech recognition, the tablet PC, the PDA / cell phone combo and web portals are other examples of where the technology sector tried to tell people what they wanted without ever asking. The first two examples keep re-surfacing from obscurity time and again, every time the press is short a buzzword...
Bullshit. They are trying to stop companies from making Mor(m)on-friendly versions of their movies. If ignorant asses want to cover their ears and promise themselves that The Gimp didn't fuck ANYBODY up the ass then more power to them. But don't expect us to endorse a company doing it for profit. You can add thought bubbles to your snuff films if it makes you feel better but I still think that if you found it so fucking offensive you should never have watched it...
Yeah, I suppose it makes no sense to someone who hates to learn when they do something. Personally I learned alot from it and got some awesome DVDs to boot. If knowledge bothers you so much, go watch some Big Brother and stop using bytes on/.
Haha. Douglas Coupland wrote "Generation-X" and Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes) invented the term "Dictator for Life". Don't try to find irony in pop-culture references if you don't even understand them, it seems so very, very strained...
Are you dumb? It also takes an equal amount of time to wait outside the theatre and smooch with your girlfriend instead of walking in and watching all the dumb previews. But only a retard thinks the time is better spent watching the previews. There are many other things I'd rather do than watch FBI warnings, and removing them has made me a helluva lot more informed than you...
No. I delete the Spanish and French and other crap, as well as special features. Some people like this stuff, I just like to see the movie. Almost all movies fit on a standard 4.7GB disc once you delete the garbage.
While I wish I could agree with you, I think you live on the planet "Comencence", not "Earth". The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copyright protection to duplicate works, even for personal use. Even though I burn copies of my own DVD's I suspect I'm still breaking the law. I wish it weren't so, but until they make me Dictator for Life I suppose I can only shrug and wonder...
While I realize this is probably illegal, it drives me up the wall to have to view these things. My solution was to buy a DVD burner and use IFOEDIT to rip my favourite DVDs (which I paid for), remove all annoying crap, and then re-burn them. Most players are fine with the modified disks and it lets me view in peace without those annoying warnings that say "dude, don't even think of doing what you just described..."
This strikes me as an easy concept... Why do you want to watch Pulp Fiction if murder, drugs, rape, and swearing bother you? Cut those scenes out, add a bunny and a deer and you've got Bambi. But why didn't you just watch Bambi in the first place?
If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa, do I have the right to draw on it? Yes, I do.
You missed my point. Of course you have every right to draw a turtleneck on the Mona Lisa. But that doesn't make you any less an idiot. Ignorance and intolerance go hand in hand and they are the two most destructive forces in the world. Their instrument is religion although needless to say the article in the Salt Lake Tribune wasn't in the least motivated by religion-endorsed ignorance, now was it???
Now how many/.ers really looked at the source of this article? I didn't think so...
Puh-lease. The travesty in all this isn't that directors are fighting our ability to buy edited copies of movies, it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place. Don't watch the goddam movie if it offends you so much. While we're at it let's erase all the footage of Elvis Presley's "obscene" hip gyrations and file the tits off the Statue of Liberty. Some people just have no sense...
Does anybody not see this as the MPAA shooting itself in the foot?
These are old-school businesses that live in the monopolistic mindset. They are incapable of making short-term investment for long-term returns. What used to work has been proven and they will hold onto it until you wrestle it from their cold, dead hands.
Take as an example the recording industry which although not identical, is similar. Their strategy has always been to forbid all dissemination of their product through new channels and use the legal system to enforce old ways. But think about it this way: What if 5 years ago a record company had launched a web site that had RealAudio streaming of all your favourite songs? What if you could click on "buy this song" and get an MP3 for $1 with no restrictions whatsoever? And what if they encouraged you to buy all your favourite songs (for $1 each) and burn them to a CD so you didn't need to buy crappy songs you'll never listen to? Everyone would gladly pay $1 for a song they like, the record companies would be transporting their money in dump trucks and someone would now be CEO of Sony. Instead, record sales are slumping because companies think that consumers are the enemy and they answer only to investors. They'll get their wake-up call, a free market makes it inevitable.
Apparently Jack Valenti hasn't watched a movie on TV recently. They're 33% commercial with half the interesting scenes cut out to accommodate and all the swear words overdubbed by people who sound nothing like the original actor. Perhaps he's more worried that people will be expecting a 99-cent flurry long after the promotion is over...
"Any one of you DARN GOOFS move and I'll execute every GOSH DARN last one of you!"
You are grossly misinformed and should be embarassed to post such poorly-researched comments.
The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview.
Your recollection of history is blatently false. Windows and DOS were not bundled until many years after Desqview was dead and Windows had a monopoly of the "OS" market. The fact is that Desqview 2.0 was released in 1987 whereas Win95 (the bundling of DOS and Windows) didn't take place until 1995. Bundling the products was the only thing that made sense and was in a sense the means to discontinue DOS 6.
In fact, neither the DOJ nor the courts have ever found fault with Microsoft for "bundling" DOS and Windows, bundling didn't even become a factor until Netscape's demise. For example, the consent decree of 1994 makes no mention of bundling products and is completely devoted to licensing practises. While you're free to your own fiction, the facts, the DoJ, and the courts tend to disagree with you.
Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops
References, please! I hope you work differently in court because I certainly make no judgements without some sort of evidence.
I think you've got a decent grasp of some of Microsoft's past "foibles" but you jump to the erroneous conclusion that just because Microsoft does something dastardly that it's by definition illegal. Publicly-traded companies exist to build shareholder value at any cost. What you see as illegal is merely response to stimulus -- the cold, calculating efficiency of the predator/prey principle, but in a free market setting. For example:
DR-Dos suffered from illegal Microsoft acts.
How is that? DR-DOS suffered because they were reverse-engineering a product. This is why OS/2, Wine, and Mono couldn't / can't succeed. When someone else is setting the standard you will always be in catch-up mode and they will always be first to market.
Desqview suffered from the Window Manager being bundled with DOS even though Deskview did not sue.
DOS did not have a bundled window manager, what it had was a crummy, single-tasking quasi-GUI file manager. It was not a window manager in any sense of the word. By the time of Windows 95 and DOS/Win bundling, Desqview was many years dead. Desqview suffered because when people upgraded to DOS 6 they found that magically DV no longer ran and an obscure upgrade was needed. I'm not even sure this was illegal, just very underhanded. This offered enough time for Windows 3.0 to come out and the rest is history.
And, OS/2 was also subject to a number of illegal moves by Microsoft including many conduct right in the face of IBM.
How was anything they did illegal? OS/2 was an OS well ahead of its time but lacking any apps. Since IBM had only licensed Win3.x APIs they were again relegated to perpetually playing catch-up.
And, most recently the idiot Gates took the baseball bat to DELL in order to force them to drop (for now) their support of linux on the desktop.
How do you figure? When even John Carmack, one of the strongest Linux advocates in the world thinks there's no money in Linux (games) on the desktop, why-oh-why do you think Dell should support it out of pure-hearted good nature? While I share your frustration I think you need to take a strong dose of reality. We don't live in a world where being "good" wins the war.
IMHO Microsoft's greatest sins were in the early '90's when they would release a new DOS version and use the proceeds to fund their next Office upgrade which would fund their next DOS version ad infinitum. By leveraging these two products against each other they guaranteed nobody could win. Sadly no one else seems to remember this. Or what about the Office price wars when Office for Windows 2.0 was crap but it sold for a fraction the price of the competition? Microsoft could afford it by releasing new DOS versions and reaping the profits by the dumptruck-load. But Borland, Lotus, and Novell couldn't afford to match those price cuts and where are their office packages now? People always seem to focus on the wrong things. Penfield-Jackson had the penalty right, he was just a stupid ass who shot himself in the foot.
Guys, your jaded optimism is adorable but mis-placed. DR-DOS was a DOS killer. Desqview was a DOS/Win killer. OS/2 was a Windows killer. The iMac was a Wintel killer. PalmOS was a WinCE killer. And now Linux is an XP killer.
Do what Linus says. Stop trying to beat anyone and just make something you like. It'll put a big-old smile on your face and when people says "Linux on the desktop is crap compared to Windows" you can answer: "Windows?"
In shocking testimony uncovered by The Inquirer, Linus Torvalds has publicly stated that the size pressure on "struct page" is largely due to HIGHMEM! This ground-breaking statement was a crushing blow for HIGHMEM fans, but received applause from struct page supporters. More information on this ground-breaking revelation as it unfolds...
While I can't pretend to be a munitions expert (or even mildly literate on he subject) I know that a key ingredient in terrorist bombs are nuts, bolts, chain links and other projectile shrapnel. I'm not familiar with how military anti-personnel munitions are made but I assume they have, at a minimum, at least as much technological savvy as a terrorist.
PS - Kudos to the guy with the "rock chucking" comment, I guess we geeks *are* to blame. Fortunately I'm generally not very smart so I'm somewhat guilt-free?
Might people nearby be blinded by reflections? Sure, and people nearby when a bomb hits might be blinded (or worse) by shrapnel.
You seem to be sugegsting that bombs are supposed to be surgical weapons designed to disable fortifications or weapons, people are just hurt if they're in the proximity. Yet you acknowledge that bombs contain shrapnel, which are metal shards intentionally added to bombs to fill the air with flesh-rending projectiles. Also, artillery was most certainly not invented for surgical strikes, and its most active use (during the Great War) was certainly primarily against people.
My point being that the concept of humane weapons is an oxymoron, whether it be poison gas, artillery, or landmines. Too bad geeks don't rule the world, we could settle our differences using more humane means. "The former Soviet Union took possession of Uzbekistan today in a tense deathmatch culminating in an amazing respawn telefrag!"
Would this have even made it onto/. if the car didn't run Windows 98?? If you want to actually learn something then here is the official Volvo site for the car and here are a bunch of other references you can look at. None make mention of Windows 98.
Wouldn't be quite so funny if it was a kit car that comes in 5,000 pieces that runs linux, now would it?:P
Slashdot Mirror
What the article says, means that Microsoft's method of outright forcing OEM's to include Windows with *every* machine sold is to 'prevent piracy' and my personal favorite, 'keep better track of OS shipments'.
I agree with you that keeping better track of OS shipments makes no sense at all, but I still maintain that requiring an OS be purchased to reduce piracy is a somewhat valid claim. If Microsoft owns 99% of the OS market, than it stands to reason that Windows will go on 99% of all PCs purchased without an OS. "But those people all run Linux!" you protest. Sounds reasonable except that Dell will ship to corporate accounts with Red Hat pre-installed. Ergo it's not beyond the realm of possibility that a lot of people are just walking around with Windows CDs and Microsoft is trying to prevent this.
It's important to note that they've changed their tune and are no longer saying "for each system sold you must buy a Windows license even if you only install Linux." At least now they've been sufficiently reprimanded by the courts into only demanding that "something" is sold with the PC. I'm not saying they're justified, I'm just disagreeing with your assuming that there is no validity to their claim.
I'm not sure I agree with you. If I was buying a PC for home use I'd be much more prone to purchase it with a blank hard drive and then install Windows from a CD to save money.
That is, if it weren't for the fact that I only run Linux at home, but you get my point...
I've got a simple answer for you: because id Software doesn't want to be in the publishing business. And unlike LithTech they don't really even want to be in the engine business, they simply take advantage of licensing opportunities when they arise. I'm sure id has known for years that they'd make a killing if they were nothing but an engine and technology company but they've consistently stated that they're a games company and engine licensing is simply icing on the cake. Not that I don't agree with your comments, I just don't think id is the company to work the way you suggest.
Damn, you stole my comment. :) VRML was the industry's first attempt to shove a 3D web format down our throats and I suspect there were more "VRML tutorials" online than there were actual live sites.
Speech recognition, the tablet PC, the PDA / cell phone combo and web portals are other examples of where the technology sector tried to tell people what they wanted without ever asking. The first two examples keep re-surfacing from obscurity time and again, every time the press is short a buzzword...
Bullshit. They are trying to stop companies from making Mor(m)on-friendly versions of their movies. If ignorant asses want to cover their ears and promise themselves that The Gimp didn't fuck ANYBODY up the ass then more power to them. But don't expect us to endorse a company doing it for profit. You can add thought bubbles to your snuff films if it makes you feel better but I still think that if you found it so fucking offensive you should never have watched it...
Yeah, I suppose it makes no sense to someone who hates to learn when they do something. Personally I learned alot from it and got some awesome DVDs to boot. If knowledge bothers you so much, go watch some Big Brother and stop using bytes on /.
Haha. Douglas Coupland wrote "Generation-X" and Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes) invented the term "Dictator for Life". Don't try to find irony in pop-culture references if you don't even understand them, it seems so very, very strained...
Are you dumb? It also takes an equal amount of time to wait outside the theatre and smooch with your girlfriend instead of walking in and watching all the dumb previews. But only a retard thinks the time is better spent watching the previews. There are many other things I'd rather do than watch FBI warnings, and removing them has made me a helluva lot more informed than you...
It takes about 1/2 hour. I'm talking copying, not re-encoding.
No. I delete the Spanish and French and other crap, as well as special features. Some people like this stuff, I just like to see the movie. Almost all movies fit on a standard 4.7GB disc once you delete the garbage.
While I wish I could agree with you, I think you live on the planet "Comencence", not "Earth". The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copyright protection to duplicate works, even for personal use. Even though I burn copies of my own DVD's I suspect I'm still breaking the law. I wish it weren't so, but until they make me Dictator for Life I suppose I can only shrug and wonder...
While I realize this is probably illegal, it drives me up the wall to have to view these things. My solution was to buy a DVD burner and use IFOEDIT to rip my favourite DVDs (which I paid for), remove all annoying crap, and then re-burn them. Most players are fine with the modified disks and it lets me view in peace without those annoying warnings that say "dude, don't even think of doing what you just described..."
Don't watch it if it offends you.
This strikes me as an easy concept... Why do you want to watch Pulp Fiction if murder, drugs, rape, and swearing bother you? Cut those scenes out, add a bunny and a deer and you've got Bambi. But why didn't you just watch Bambi in the first place?
If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa, do I have the right to draw on it? Yes, I do.
You missed my point. Of course you have every right to draw a turtleneck on the Mona Lisa. But that doesn't make you any less an idiot. Ignorance and intolerance go hand in hand and they are the two most destructive forces in the world. Their instrument is religion although needless to say the article in the Salt Lake Tribune wasn't in the least motivated by religion-endorsed ignorance, now was it???
Now how many /.ers really looked at the source of this article? I didn't think so...
Puh-lease. The travesty in all this isn't that directors are fighting our ability to buy edited copies of movies, it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place. Don't watch the goddam movie if it offends you so much. While we're at it let's erase all the footage of Elvis Presley's "obscene" hip gyrations and file the tits off the Statue of Liberty. Some people just have no sense...
Does anybody not see this as the MPAA shooting itself in the foot?
These are old-school businesses that live in the monopolistic mindset. They are incapable of making short-term investment for long-term returns. What used to work has been proven and they will hold onto it until you wrestle it from their cold, dead hands.
Take as an example the recording industry which although not identical, is similar. Their strategy has always been to forbid all dissemination of their product through new channels and use the legal system to enforce old ways. But think about it this way: What if 5 years ago a record company had launched a web site that had RealAudio streaming of all your favourite songs? What if you could click on "buy this song" and get an MP3 for $1 with no restrictions whatsoever? And what if they encouraged you to buy all your favourite songs (for $1 each) and burn them to a CD so you didn't need to buy crappy songs you'll never listen to? Everyone would gladly pay $1 for a song they like, the record companies would be transporting their money in dump trucks and someone would now be CEO of Sony. Instead, record sales are slumping because companies think that consumers are the enemy and they answer only to investors. They'll get their wake-up call, a free market makes it inevitable.
Apparently Jack Valenti hasn't watched a movie on TV recently. They're 33% commercial with half the interesting scenes cut out to accommodate and all the swear words overdubbed by people who sound nothing like the original actor. Perhaps he's more worried that people will be expecting a 99-cent flurry long after the promotion is over...
"Any one of you DARN GOOFS move and I'll execute every GOSH DARN last one of you!"
You are grossly misinformed and should be embarassed to post such poorly-researched comments.
The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview.
Your recollection of history is blatently false. Windows and DOS were not bundled until many years after Desqview was dead and Windows had a monopoly of the "OS" market. The fact is that Desqview 2.0 was released in 1987 whereas Win95 (the bundling of DOS and Windows) didn't take place until 1995. Bundling the products was the only thing that made sense and was in a sense the means to discontinue DOS 6.
In fact, neither the DOJ nor the courts have ever found fault with Microsoft for "bundling" DOS and Windows, bundling didn't even become a factor until Netscape's demise. For example, the consent decree of 1994 makes no mention of bundling products and is completely devoted to licensing practises. While you're free to your own fiction, the facts, the DoJ, and the courts tend to disagree with you.
Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops
References, please! I hope you work differently in court because I certainly make no judgements without some sort of evidence.
I think you've got a decent grasp of some of Microsoft's past "foibles" but you jump to the erroneous conclusion that just because Microsoft does something dastardly that it's by definition illegal. Publicly-traded companies exist to build shareholder value at any cost. What you see as illegal is merely response to stimulus -- the cold, calculating efficiency of the predator/prey principle, but in a free market setting. For example:
DR-Dos suffered from illegal Microsoft acts.
How is that? DR-DOS suffered because they were reverse-engineering a product. This is why OS/2, Wine, and Mono couldn't / can't succeed. When someone else is setting the standard you will always be in catch-up mode and they will always be first to market.
Desqview suffered from the Window Manager being bundled with DOS even though Deskview did not sue.
DOS did not have a bundled window manager, what it had was a crummy, single-tasking quasi-GUI file manager. It was not a window manager in any sense of the word. By the time of Windows 95 and DOS/Win bundling, Desqview was many years dead. Desqview suffered because when people upgraded to DOS 6 they found that magically DV no longer ran and an obscure upgrade was needed. I'm not even sure this was illegal, just very underhanded. This offered enough time for Windows 3.0 to come out and the rest is history.
And, OS/2 was also subject to a number of illegal moves by Microsoft including many conduct right in the face of IBM.
How was anything they did illegal? OS/2 was an OS well ahead of its time but lacking any apps. Since IBM had only licensed Win3.x APIs they were again relegated to perpetually playing catch-up.
And, most recently the idiot Gates took the baseball bat to DELL in order to force them to drop (for now) their support of linux on the desktop.
How do you figure? When even John Carmack, one of the strongest Linux advocates in the world thinks there's no money in Linux (games) on the desktop, why-oh-why do you think Dell should support it out of pure-hearted good nature? While I share your frustration I think you need to take a strong dose of reality. We don't live in a world where being "good" wins the war.
IMHO Microsoft's greatest sins were in the early '90's when they would release a new DOS version and use the proceeds to fund their next Office upgrade which would fund their next DOS version ad infinitum. By leveraging these two products against each other they guaranteed nobody could win. Sadly no one else seems to remember this. Or what about the Office price wars when Office for Windows 2.0 was crap but it sold for a fraction the price of the competition? Microsoft could afford it by releasing new DOS versions and reaping the profits by the dumptruck-load. But Borland, Lotus, and Novell couldn't afford to match those price cuts and where are their office packages now? People always seem to focus on the wrong things. Penfield-Jackson had the penalty right, he was just a stupid ass who shot himself in the foot.
Guys, your jaded optimism is adorable but mis-placed. DR-DOS was a DOS killer. Desqview was a DOS/Win killer. OS/2 was a Windows killer. The iMac was a Wintel killer. PalmOS was a WinCE killer. And now Linux is an XP killer.
Do what Linus says. Stop trying to beat anyone and just make something you like. It'll put a big-old smile on your face and when people says "Linux on the desktop is crap compared to Windows" you can answer: "Windows?"
In shocking testimony uncovered by The Inquirer, Linus Torvalds has publicly stated that the size pressure on "struct page" is largely due to HIGHMEM! This ground-breaking statement was a crushing blow for HIGHMEM fans, but received applause from struct page supporters. More information on this ground-breaking revelation as it unfolds...
While I can't pretend to be a munitions expert (or even mildly literate on he subject) I know that a key ingredient in terrorist bombs are nuts, bolts, chain links and other projectile shrapnel. I'm not familiar with how military anti-personnel munitions are made but I assume they have, at a minimum, at least as much technological savvy as a terrorist.
PS - Kudos to the guy with the "rock chucking" comment, I guess we geeks *are* to blame. Fortunately I'm generally not very smart so I'm somewhat guilt-free?
Might people nearby be blinded by reflections? Sure, and people nearby when a bomb hits might be blinded (or worse) by shrapnel.
You seem to be sugegsting that bombs are supposed to be surgical weapons designed to disable fortifications or weapons, people are just hurt if they're in the proximity. Yet you acknowledge that bombs contain shrapnel, which are metal shards intentionally added to bombs to fill the air with flesh-rending projectiles. Also, artillery was most certainly not invented for surgical strikes, and its most active use (during the Great War) was certainly primarily against people.
My point being that the concept of humane weapons is an oxymoron, whether it be poison gas, artillery, or landmines. Too bad geeks don't rule the world, we could settle our differences using more humane means. "The former Soviet Union took possession of Uzbekistan today in a tense deathmatch culminating in an amazing respawn telefrag!"
Your logic is flawed, open-source cars would be impervious to keying and would never crash. :)
Would this have even made it onto /. if the car didn't run Windows 98?? If you want to actually learn something then here is the official Volvo site for the car and here are a bunch of other references you can look at. None make mention of Windows 98.
Wouldn't be quite so funny if it was a kit car that comes in 5,000 pieces that runs linux, now would it? :P