"It seems to me like we're arguing both sides of the same point. "
I think I confused the issue by believing that modularizing Windows is the same as opening it up so OEM's could do different flavors of it.
I absolutely agree that changing browsers should be like changing your DVD drive. I just don't want TOO much control given to the OEMs is all. I think we basically agree, just different ideas of implementation hehe.
As for the competition.. I'm not sure. I really had laptops in mind when I got scared of OEMs having too much power. I think my real problem, though, is that I can't go build a laptop. If that were possible, I wouldn't be whinging now probably hehe.:)
"The States are only trying to create the same open marketplace for OSes that the OEMs have."
I admire that goal, but based on my experiences so far, I think what'll happen is the computer resellers will use it to their own ends instead of trying to make life better for us customers.
"Gateway has features you don't want to pay for? Don't buy one. You don't have that option if you want to, say, edit an Access database. "
Seeing as how Gateway machines use images to build their machines, I don't think hacking Acess will do a bit of good.
As for the "don't buy one" attitude, that doesn't work either. There aren't a whole lot of places you can buy laptops from. Each one already plays stupid games with pre-installing a bunch of crap. You can't go build a laptop the same way you can with an OSLess machine. If you want my opinion, they should strip down Windows except for essential functionality, but all software included by the reseller cannot be installed.
In other words, MS still has to do the modular Windows, but the user picks and chooses which apps to install. No more preinstalled apps. Then, split MS into the OS and the Apps business.
Hmm... I wonder if I'm making a mistake by assuming that when they say modularize it, they mean make it so that a reseller could change anything they wanted to in it, or if they simply mean that IE is removable without destroying the OS. For the record, what I had in mind is the first example. I apologize if I'm confusing people who thought I meant the second one.
"Gosh, you mean the vendors might have to actually sell their customers what the customers want to buy?"
Go buy a Gateway computer and tell me that you get exactly what you want. Then tell me that just because Windows is modularized that it'd be any better.
"... it would not be in Gateway's interest to cram more complexity into the system - it makes it slower (on the same hardware), and it makes it harder to use and support. They would be the ones pushing modularity - in part, because it will allow them to sell extra OS modules separately and earn on both ends of the scale"
It wouldn't be, but they're doing it as of a couple of years ago. My Gateway machine had tons of extra apps that I had 0 interest in playing with. It was hard to imagine that anybody would really. It was nice that it had RealPlayer and Netscape and all, but my system tray had probably 8 or 9 items on it at first boot. I think that was their secret plan to get me to pay a premium for more RAM.
"It is already different between Win95, Win98, Win2K and WinXP."
True. However, the apps are the same. Outlook, IE, Calculator, you name it, are all the same on whatever flavor of Windows you are running.
"Differences between IBM and Dell preloads are so great that you barely could find anything in common! Since the OS lacks the utilities..."
Exactly my point! If IBM and Dell preloads are that bad, why make it even more confusing by allowing them to get rid of the common apps in Windows? As for the OS lacking utilities, you are right, except we're talking about apps not maintenence. I'm an Opera user, but I can fire up IE and talk my aunt through using IE. If she has Netscape but not IE, well what am I supposed to do to help her? They could make a distro of Windows that'd pretty much guarantee future business from their customers.
At this point, I'd much prefer they use Linux instead. The Linux community will not allow a company like Gateway to pull a stunt like that.
"Why would you first assume that the computer from Dell is the identical same product as the one from Gateway?"
So I can help my aunt over the phone when she has a problem? If she's running an app I've never heard of, what good can I do her?
Tech support is pretty crappy nowadays, and unless that radically improves, she would have very little avenue of support if she can only talk to other Gateway users about her problem.
"* the kernel" -- Most Windows users don't know what that is. (sad, but true.)
"* the filesystem" -- Most Windows users don't know the difference between Fat16, Fat32, NTFS, and so on. What they see are icons.
"* the file manager" -- Virtually identical since Windows 95. Only a few minor updates have been made. The metaphor is still the same.
"* the browser" -- Again, still virtually the same. An IE 3.0 user wouldn't be that out of water if presented with 5.0. That's not so true with Netscape or Opera.
"* Office file formats (.DOC compatibility? Ha!)" -- The.DOC format has been the same since Office 97. Yes, 95 -- was a BITCH, but after that MS got their act together.
Windows hasn't changed much, from the average user's perspective, since Windows 95. A Windows 95 user could easily pick up 2000 and use it. XP is a little more radical, but the assymilation period would be short.
"Users will be able to pick systems that run componants they like, with features they want, with support from the PC retailer"
They have that option today. It's called the Internet. Out of the box, Windows provides essential basic functionality including the ability to get on the net and go get what you really want. It's the retailers that do shit like force you to buy Office etc.
I agree that MS's strategy of "make it impossible to uninstall IE or Outlook" is slimey and I want that fixed. And I definitely want MS punished for their evil practices, but this change does scare me. (Lucky for the world I'm probably wrong about what'd happen, heh.)
"Isn't that kind of like being worried that if you buy a Ford Ranger you wouldn't get exactly the same thing as if you bought a Z3 sports car?"
Umm... no. If you wanted to make your metaphor match what I was thinking, it'd be more like this:
"I would be worried that a Ford Ranger would use a joystick instead of a steering wheel. Would it use gasoline or hydrogen? Will it come with a spare tire, or do I have to go to another store to buy one? Will the turn signals blink, or will they look like a spinning tie?"... and so on.
Dell and Gateway both sell systems today that come with a lot of garbage. I bought a Gateway machine a couple of years ago, and it came with Netscape and... a bunch of unmemorable crap that I didn't want clogging the registry.
I was never presented with a choice of what would and wouldn't come with the machine. Instead, Gateway had already decided that. That is exactly what will happen if Windows goes modular. Only it can be a lot worse.
At the very least, I had Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. I could start with those and go get what I want from the net from there. I could tell other people how to use IE and Outlook Express to go find what they really want run instead. But if I'm talking to somebody else and they have Netscape but NOT IE, how can I help them?
Now if Gateway were to do like your suggesting, and allow me to pick and choose, then I'd totally agree with you. That would be great. I think what'll happen though is they'll resell what gives them the best deal.
But you know what might work? What if there was the 'I am a first time Windows user' option where the distributers had a very definitive list of what to start with, and then the user can go from there. At least everybody starts on an equal footing and then it's not so chaotic.
"But as of now, you get "all or nothing" package from which you can not even [easily] remove certain software even if you *know* that it is harmful to your enterprise (OE, IE, MSN etc.) "
Fair point. It seems to me that the solution, then, is that Office works like Write or Notepad. You can choose not to install those, and there's no impact to your system. But if you uninstall Outlook Express, then Outlook 2000 won't work.
Yes, I'd definitely love if MS was prevented from modifying the system with Office.
The problem I can forsee is that this openness could be abused by computer manufacturers such as Gateway. I could see them making their distro of Windows be so convulted that computer illiterates will stick with only that distro. In other words, in the long run, I can see one monopoly being traded for another.
Maybe I'm overimaginitive. It's just that every time I see the 'modular Windows' headline, I picture my aunt calling me and asking me how to fix something on her computer, and I'd have no idea how to because Windows is different.
"If not, then why on earth would you allow someone to just wantonly use a computer however they see fit?"
In an office that'd work, but at a school it doesn't fly. Computers are there for education. The more restrictions you place, the less likely a kid will learn from them. Even if they are doing things like downloading songs, they're still learning quite a bit.
I liked the bandwidth throttling idea. At least the students can still explore the net.
I have serious concerns about what would happen if a modular version of Windows was released, allowing computer makers to customize what comes with it. Wouldn't that be chaotic? If I buy a computer at Dell I might get Opera and Office etc, but if I bought a computer at Gateway I might get Netscape and Star Office. This is a bit of a problem because of the incompatibilities that are bound to arise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say everybody should run Windows and be happy with it. I'm legitimately trying to ask if my concern is valid, or has this type of thing been done before? What are the good things that would happen?
The difference there is that you can at least buy a censored version of the music. (at least that was true the last time I bought music, back before I was called a thief by the RIAA.)
You don't get that option with video games.
And don't call people a moron if you're going to hide behind AC, chickenshit. You didn't even point me where I could read this law.
"this law does not let the government decide anything, the parent remains in control and has even a greater ability to exercise that control. "
I'd agree with you if the law said 'minors under the age of 14'. But it says 'under the age of 17'. There is a HUGE difference there. At this point, rights are being taken away. If my 16 year old is mature enough to own his own car, have a job, and do good work in school, why do I have to tell him he needs me to go with him when he buys a game? If my 16 year old has a kid, he/she still can't go get this game unless I'm there.
The gov't is stepping on my toes at that point. Reduce the age to 14, and I won't complain.
Oh man.. don't get me started on Lieberman. He tried a similar form of legislation like this over Mortal Kombat and Night Trap for the Sega CD. I can only imagine his reaction if he saw GTA 3, heh.
The sad thing is, I really think his whole campaign on that topic was an attempt to get votes rather than a genuine desire to restrict the boundaries of video games. But that's just speculation on my part.
"There is zero proof that smoking causes lung cancer -- only speculation."
Anybody else remember seeing a black lung? Yuck.
There's definitely enough proof that the surgeon general has issued a warning on all cirgarette packs. There's a warning in your Nintendo 64 manual about the system potentially causing epileptic seizures. There is not a warning on video games saying they cause anti social behaviour. Why? Because they can't even generate evidence of that.
'That's not what you said at all. You said you want your kids to make their own decisions, because the "weight" of doing it yourself was too onerous. '
No, what I said was I want to choose if the game is right or not, not the Gov't. I don't want the Gov't telling my kids they can't do something, that's my job. If I say 'you are old enough, play what you want', the responsibility is still mine to go buy the game. Well if my kid earned the right to drive my car, what's he going to do, drive me to the mall so I can buy HIS game?
Call me lazy if you like, but I plan on raising my kids so that they can make their choices in life.
"It's saying that kids should have supervision in some areas."
A 17 year old does not require any more supervision. I don't care what anybody says, I don't know anybody at the age of 17 who felt they were under total control by their parents. If this proposal had said 'under the age of 14', I wouldn't be complaining. But older than that, and you're intruding on this child's ability to develop into an adult.
This particular legislation may seem benign, but I'm more concerned about the larger picture. I think everybody's thinking about the 10 year olds while I'm thinking about the 15 year old. That picture's not pretty.
"So quit playing on your computer, get off your ass and go buy it for them. Or would that be too much to ask of you?"
How come you're writing this and not writing a note to your parents letting them know you care about them? How come you're not cleaning your room or reading a book? How come you're not out with your girlfriend instead of wasting time reading my ramblings?
How come... oh wait, I have no business asking those questions! You're an indvidual and you have the right to do what you want! I have that right too, and you have no business telling me how I should interpret something. I don't want the gov't restricting sale of violent games to minors. If you don't like my reasoning, good, it means you at least read my post.
I, for one, don't feel like telling you 'so what' if your rights get taken away. I'd rather figure out how to get your rights back.
If my child is 15 years old, has a job, and is responsible enough to go buy it by him/herself, he/she should be able to do it without his 'oh so cool Dad' having to hold his hand through it.
Sorry, but chronological age does not a mature person make.
"Wrong. You can easily "OK" it by buying the game for them. "
Um right. Like my 15 year old kid is going to want me to tag along with him so he can go buy a game with the money he earned from his JOB. Pardon me for wanting him to be able to enjoy the privledges he's earned.
BTW, you shouldn't call people a moron unless you really know what their intentions are.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that the interface is virtually the same. What lies underneath is, for a good chunk of the Windows users out there, irrelevant.
:)
I appreciate you stating his point more tactfully than he did. Just wanted to let you know that.
"It seems to me like we're arguing both sides of the same point. "
:)
I think I confused the issue by believing that modularizing Windows is the same as opening it up so OEM's could do different flavors of it.
I absolutely agree that changing browsers should be like changing your DVD drive. I just don't want TOO much control given to the OEMs is all. I think we basically agree, just different ideas of implementation hehe.
As for the competition.. I'm not sure. I really had laptops in mind when I got scared of OEMs having too much power. I think my real problem, though, is that I can't go build a laptop. If that were possible, I wouldn't be whinging now probably hehe.
Where do you people get your information? What made you think WinDOS was "consistent" to begin with?
What, you mean besides the fact that a Windows 95 user would have little to no problem using Windows 2000?
"The States are only trying to create the same open marketplace for OSes that the OEMs have."
I admire that goal, but based on my experiences so far, I think what'll happen is the computer resellers will use it to their own ends instead of trying to make life better for us customers.
"Gateway has features you don't want to pay for? Don't buy one. You don't have that option if you want to, say, edit an Access database. "
Seeing as how Gateway machines use images to build their machines, I don't think hacking Acess will do a bit of good.
As for the "don't buy one" attitude, that doesn't work either. There aren't a whole lot of places you can buy laptops from. Each one already plays stupid games with pre-installing a bunch of crap. You can't go build a laptop the same way you can with an OSLess machine. If you want my opinion, they should strip down Windows except for essential functionality, but all software included by the reseller cannot be installed.
In other words, MS still has to do the modular Windows, but the user picks and chooses which apps to install. No more preinstalled apps. Then, split MS into the OS and the Apps business.
Hmm... I wonder if I'm making a mistake by assuming that when they say modularize it, they mean make it so that a reseller could change anything they wanted to in it, or if they simply mean that IE is removable without destroying the OS. For the record, what I had in mind is the first example. I apologize if I'm confusing people who thought I meant the second one.
"Gosh, you mean the vendors might have to actually sell their customers what the customers want to buy?"
Go buy a Gateway computer and tell me that you get exactly what you want. Then tell me that just because Windows is modularized that it'd be any better.
"... it would not be in Gateway's interest to cram more complexity into the system - it makes it slower (on the same hardware), and it makes it harder to use and support. They would be the ones pushing modularity - in part, because it will allow them to sell extra OS modules separately and earn on both ends of the scale"
It wouldn't be, but they're doing it as of a couple of years ago. My Gateway machine had tons of extra apps that I had 0 interest in playing with. It was hard to imagine that anybody would really. It was nice that it had RealPlayer and Netscape and all, but my system tray had probably 8 or 9 items on it at first boot. I think that was their secret plan to get me to pay a premium for more RAM.
"It is already different between Win95, Win98, Win2K and WinXP."
True. However, the apps are the same. Outlook, IE, Calculator, you name it, are all the same on whatever flavor of Windows you are running.
"Differences between IBM and Dell preloads are so great that you barely could find anything in common! Since the OS lacks the utilities..."
Exactly my point! If IBM and Dell preloads are that bad, why make it even more confusing by allowing them to get rid of the common apps in Windows? As for the OS lacking utilities, you are right, except we're talking about apps not maintenence. I'm an Opera user, but I can fire up IE and talk my aunt through using IE. If she has Netscape but not IE, well what am I supposed to do to help her? They could make a distro of Windows that'd pretty much guarantee future business from their customers.
At this point, I'd much prefer they use Linux instead. The Linux community will not allow a company like Gateway to pull a stunt like that.
"Why would you first assume that the computer from Dell is the identical same product as the one from Gateway?"
So I can help my aunt over the phone when she has a problem? If she's running an app I've never heard of, what good can I do her?
Tech support is pretty crappy nowadays, and unless that radically improves, she would have very little avenue of support if she can only talk to other Gateway users about her problem.
"* the kernel" -- Most Windows users don't know what that is. (sad, but true.)
.DOC format has been the same since Office 97. Yes, 95 -- was a BITCH, but after that MS got their act together.
"* the filesystem" -- Most Windows users don't know the difference between Fat16, Fat32, NTFS, and so on. What they see are icons.
"* the file manager" -- Virtually identical since Windows 95. Only a few minor updates have been made. The metaphor is still the same.
"* the browser" -- Again, still virtually the same. An IE 3.0 user wouldn't be that out of water if presented with 5.0. That's not so true with Netscape or Opera.
"* Office file formats (.DOC compatibility? Ha!)" -- The
Windows hasn't changed much, from the average user's perspective, since Windows 95. A Windows 95 user could easily pick up 2000 and use it. XP is a little more radical, but the assymilation period would be short.
"Users will be able to pick systems that run componants they like, with features they want, with support from the PC retailer"
They have that option today. It's called the Internet. Out of the box, Windows provides essential basic functionality including the ability to get on the net and go get what you really want. It's the retailers that do shit like force you to buy Office etc.
I agree that MS's strategy of "make it impossible to uninstall IE or Outlook" is slimey and I want that fixed. And I definitely want MS punished for their evil practices, but this change does scare me. (Lucky for the world I'm probably wrong about what'd happen, heh.)
"Isn't that kind of like being worried that if you buy a Ford Ranger you wouldn't get exactly the same thing as if you bought a Z3 sports car?"
... and so on.
... a bunch of unmemorable crap that I didn't want clogging the registry.
Umm... no. If you wanted to make your metaphor match what I was thinking, it'd be more like this:
"I would be worried that a Ford Ranger would use a joystick instead of a steering wheel. Would it use gasoline or hydrogen? Will it come with a spare tire, or do I have to go to another store to buy one? Will the turn signals blink, or will they look like a spinning tie?"
Dell and Gateway both sell systems today that come with a lot of garbage. I bought a Gateway machine a couple of years ago, and it came with Netscape and
I was never presented with a choice of what would and wouldn't come with the machine. Instead, Gateway had already decided that. That is exactly what will happen if Windows goes modular. Only it can be a lot worse.
At the very least, I had Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. I could start with those and go get what I want from the net from there. I could tell other people how to use IE and Outlook Express to go find what they really want run instead. But if I'm talking to somebody else and they have Netscape but NOT IE, how can I help them?
Now if Gateway were to do like your suggesting, and allow me to pick and choose, then I'd totally agree with you. That would be great. I think what'll happen though is they'll resell what gives them the best deal.
But you know what might work? What if there was the 'I am a first time Windows user' option where the distributers had a very definitive list of what to start with, and then the user can go from there. At least everybody starts on an equal footing and then it's not so chaotic.
"But as of now, you get "all or nothing" package from which you can not even [easily] remove certain software even if you *know* that it is harmful to your enterprise (OE, IE, MSN etc.) "
Fair point. It seems to me that the solution, then, is that Office works like Write or Notepad. You can choose not to install those, and there's no impact to your system. But if you uninstall Outlook Express, then Outlook 2000 won't work.
Yes, I'd definitely love if MS was prevented from modifying the system with Office.
The problem I can forsee is that this openness could be abused by computer manufacturers such as Gateway. I could see them making their distro of Windows be so convulted that computer illiterates will stick with only that distro. In other words, in the long run, I can see one monopoly being traded for another.
Maybe I'm overimaginitive. It's just that every time I see the 'modular Windows' headline, I picture my aunt calling me and asking me how to fix something on her computer, and I'd have no idea how to because Windows is different.
"If not, then why on earth would you allow someone to just wantonly use a computer however they see fit?"
In an office that'd work, but at a school it doesn't fly. Computers are there for education. The more restrictions you place, the less likely a kid will learn from them. Even if they are doing things like downloading songs, they're still learning quite a bit.
I liked the bandwidth throttling idea. At least the students can still explore the net.
I have serious concerns about what would happen if a modular version of Windows was released, allowing computer makers to customize what comes with it. Wouldn't that be chaotic? If I buy a computer at Dell I might get Opera and Office etc, but if I bought a computer at Gateway I might get Netscape and Star Office. This is a bit of a problem because of the incompatibilities that are bound to arise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say everybody should run Windows and be happy with it. I'm legitimately trying to ask if my concern is valid, or has this type of thing been done before? What are the good things that would happen?
(us Windows users are scared of change...)
I think what the competition really wants is for Windows to become so inconsistent that customers will come scrambling to them for solutions.
I, for one, wouldn't have any idea how to help my aunt use her Gateway Computer if they decided to include some things but not others.
"there is a similar law against rock and roll."
The difference there is that you can at least buy a censored version of the music. (at least that was true the last time I bought music, back before I was called a thief by the RIAA.)
You don't get that option with video games.
And don't call people a moron if you're going to hide behind AC, chickenshit. You didn't even point me where I could read this law.
Yeah I've heard of POV Ray. I'd rather pay the money and use Lightwave.
"this law does not let the government decide anything, the parent remains in control and has even a greater ability to exercise that control. "
I'd agree with you if the law said 'minors under the age of 14'. But it says 'under the age of 17'. There is a HUGE difference there. At this point, rights are being taken away. If my 16 year old is mature enough to own his own car, have a job, and do good work in school, why do I have to tell him he needs me to go with him when he buys a game? If my 16 year old has a kid, he/she still can't go get this game unless I'm there.
The gov't is stepping on my toes at that point. Reduce the age to 14, and I won't complain.
Isn't that kind of like when Homer Simpsons closed his eyes so he wouldnt see the light turned red? "It's only illegal if I see it!"
A 16 year old lost his right to go buy a video game. Now he/she needs to drag his parent along with him. I had friends that were PARENTS at 16.
Oh man.. don't get me started on Lieberman. He tried a similar form of legislation like this over Mortal Kombat and Night Trap for the Sega CD. I can only imagine his reaction if he saw GTA 3, heh.
The sad thing is, I really think his whole campaign on that topic was an attempt to get votes rather than a genuine desire to restrict the boundaries of video games. But that's just speculation on my part.
"There is zero proof that smoking causes lung cancer -- only speculation."
Anybody else remember seeing a black lung? Yuck.
There's definitely enough proof that the surgeon general has issued a warning on all cirgarette packs. There's a warning in your Nintendo 64 manual about the system potentially causing epileptic seizures. There is not a warning on video games saying they cause anti social behaviour. Why? Because they can't even generate evidence of that.
So yes, there is a huge difference.
'That's not what you said at all. You said you want your kids to make their own decisions, because the "weight" of doing it yourself was too onerous. '
No, what I said was I want to choose if the game is right or not, not the Gov't. I don't want the Gov't telling my kids they can't do something, that's my job. If I say 'you are old enough, play what you want', the responsibility is still mine to go buy the game. Well if my kid earned the right to drive my car, what's he going to do, drive me to the mall so I can buy HIS game?
Call me lazy if you like, but I plan on raising my kids so that they can make their choices in life.
That was an interesting post. :)
I do want to take a poke at one point though:
"It's saying that kids should have supervision in some areas."
A 17 year old does not require any more supervision. I don't care what anybody says, I don't know anybody at the age of 17 who felt they were under total control by their parents. If this proposal had said 'under the age of 14', I wouldn't be complaining. But older than that, and you're intruding on this child's ability to develop into an adult.
This particular legislation may seem benign, but I'm more concerned about the larger picture. I think everybody's thinking about the 10 year olds while I'm thinking about the 15 year old. That picture's not pretty.
"So quit playing on your computer, get off your ass and go buy it for them. Or would that be too much to ask of you?"
How come you're writing this and not writing a note to your parents letting them know you care about them? How come you're not cleaning your room or reading a book? How come you're not out with your girlfriend instead of wasting time reading my ramblings?
How come... oh wait, I have no business asking those questions! You're an indvidual and you have the right to do what you want! I have that right too, and you have no business telling me how I should interpret something. I don't want the gov't restricting sale of violent games to minors. If you don't like my reasoning, good, it means you at least read my post.
I, for one, don't feel like telling you 'so what' if your rights get taken away. I'd rather figure out how to get your rights back.
If my child is 15 years old, has a job, and is responsible enough to go buy it by him/herself, he/she should be able to do it without his 'oh so cool Dad' having to hold his hand through it.
Sorry, but chronological age does not a mature person make.
"Wrong. You can easily "OK" it by buying the game for them. "
Um right. Like my 15 year old kid is going to want me to tag along with him so he can go buy a game with the money he earned from his JOB. Pardon me for wanting him to be able to enjoy the privledges he's earned.
BTW, you shouldn't call people a moron unless you really know what their intentions are.