Plus, it does help that the producers of mainstream content hasn't collapsed like the 1929 stock crash, which is what you'd believe if you listened to them.
In the 80's the Atari software community was devestated by piracy. There were articles about how Atari software had the highest piracy rate in history up to that time (and maybe still). Many companies didn't go out of business, but ceased development of Atari software.
Your mistake is equating software with "information".
If I give a copy of Excel to a friend, have I shared "information", or a program? Not everything that consists of bits is "information", some things that consist of bits are merely programs, and no, not all programs "want to be free".
Excel is a implemention of a spreadsheet program, not "information".
You're obsessed with Microsoft. Microsoft is not the company that is most hurt by piracy, it's companies like AutoCad. So playing to the anti-Microsoft sentiment at slashdot in order to defend piracy dismisses the harm done to other software developers by piracy.
Microsoft should do with HP what Google did with Dell. That is, Microsoft pays HP to make all HP computers installed with Microsoft webware (including desktop related webware). It wouldn't be abusing any monopoly since it wouldn't be using Windows itself to bundle anything (that's not already being bundled). It would merely be Microsoft paying an OEM to get special treatment just like Google did.
I mention HP because HP is bypassing Dell. Currently HP uses hp.netscape.com has the homepage that its computers come configured with, but that's easily changed. So Microsoft and HP create hp.live.com as HP's home page, bundle Microsoft's Desktop Search (which is better than Google's anyway), etc. (Of course, Vista will have desktop search built-in, which may render desktop search competition moot.)
There have been posts here saying that ODF isn't less efficient than Microsoft's formats, it's just that OO.o is less efficent thatn MS Office. OO.o is indeed less efficient than MS Office, but the fact is, Microsoft's file formats are more efficient than ODF by design. I won't even deal with Microsoft's binary format or their previous XML format (which are also both faster than ODF), I'll just deal with ODF vs OpenXML (Office 2007's default format).
First, ODF chose human readability over machine efficiency. This is a mistake in my opinion, because programs are going to be manupulating these documents orders of magnitude more often than a human is going to be eyeballing the XML.
Check out this blog entry from Brian Jones' Open XML blog (Brian Jones is Microsoft's main Open XML guy): Does [tag] Size Matter? This blog entry describes the benefits of OpenXML's terse tags vs ODF's verbose tags. The blog entry includes a comparison of OpenXML's representation of the spreadsheet: 1 2 3 4 5 6 OpenXML's representation of that spreadsheet requires ~110 characters, while ODF's requires ~780. It doesn't take a genious to know which would be more quickly parsable by a machine. There are many other points made by the blog entry tha I encourage you to read.
Another of Brian Jones' blog entries is here: Design Goals Behind SpreadsheetML [OpenXML's spreadheet format] Among other things, this blog entry discusses the performance goals of OpenXML's spreadsheet format. Microsoft didn't want a huge peformance hit by going from binary to XML. For spreadsheets, they use things like shared string tables to speed things up. I encourage you to read this blog entry for more details.
OpenXML is "faster" than ODF by design, that's just the way it is.
I think most of the major OEMs are bundling Suns JVM today. But a few years ago, when Sun was trying to get the govt to force Microsoft to bundle Sun's JVM, Sun had difficulty getting OEMs to bundle it because the OEMs wanted Sun to pay them to bundle it but Sun wanted the OEMs to pay Sun for the right to bundle it.
Not to say it doesn't have PLENTY of new ways to waste CPU and memory, as well as DRM-to-the-core, but I can't really say I consider those a reason to upgrade.
What DRM does Vista have that XP doesn't, besides the ability to run protected HD-DVD and BR discs? (And why would you want Microsoft to eliminate the ability to play such discs?)
As a limited user, a virus can delete your MP3s and porn. As admin, a virus can reformat your entire hard drive, install a rootkit, etc
A virus deleting my files is just as bad as reformatting the drive, as far as I'm concerned. And since I do weekly backups, the former is actually worse. If my drive gets reformatted, I'll *know* it and restore the files. But if a virus deletes or corrupts my files, I won't know about it, and to make matters worse, those deletions/corruptions will make their way to my backup drive when I perform a backup.:(
Microsoft's management team aren't convicted criminals. Learn the difference between civil suits and criminal cases. Damn, so much slashdot groupthink is based on utter ignornance disguised as insight.
"Posting a direct link for use by someone else who hasn't read the license is a different story, though. If someone else follows the link while understanding that it's "behind" a license agreement, one could argue that that also counts as accepting the agreement, but if someone follows the direct link while having no idea that they were supposed to be shown a license before getting that link, then I don't know."
It probably doesn't matter if the abuser of the license claimed ignornance. Most patent cases are filed against people that have no idea that they might have violated the patent in question, and no idea that the patent even existed.
Um, Microsoft has killed off FrontPage. The last version might still be available for purchase, but there will be no updates, thus FrontPage will *never* support WMP pictures.
Vista has a lot more than what the article listed, but I have another observation. The slashdotters (and the media) hailed OSX 10.4 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, touting it as a major upgrade from 10.3 because it added Spotlight and widgets (those were its highest profile enhancements). Vista adds those same things (search and gadgets), and yet Vista is uncompelling. Hmmm...
For what it's worth, I found OSX 10.4 to be uncompelling which is why I'm still on 10.3.:p
The features in Office already overburden the old UI as it is. So trying to maintain that old UI for Office 2007's new features and the features that will be added in subsequent releases becomes an exercise in futility. Also, Microsoft truly believes that after a short learning curve, the new UI blows the old one away, and want to encourage (if by force) people to use it. Otherwise, peeps would be tempted to stick with the old UI even if they would've vastly preferred the new one.
The reason for all of the FUD here is that for all of the demands here that Microsoft "innovate", deep down, most slashdotters don't *want* Microsoft to innovate because that makes Microsoft all the more difficult to compete with. For example, Office 2007 makes OpenOffice.org look rather primitive, so many slashdotters feel compelled to belittle any and all of Office 2007's improvements. To put it in simple turms, Microsoft haters are scared that Office 2007 will blow the competition away.
The "Exchange 2000 requirement" listing is meant to convey the fact that Outlook 2007's Exchange-specific features require Exchange Server 2000 rather than earlier versions of Exchange. You can still use Outlook without Exchange altogether, but if you do use it with Exchange, you must use it with Exchange 2000 (or later).
The retailers shown in the above links are: MSN Music Store audible.com Napster MovieLink WallMart XM Satellite Radio f.y.e. Live365.com PureTracks PassAlong URGE
That's fewer than the number of retailers that WMP10 supports (WMP supports the above (minus URGE) plus CinemaNow, CourtTV, emusic, ESDC, MLB, msn/soundsgood.com, MusicGiants, MusicMatch, musicNow, MyStation, SongTouch, soundBuzz, GetMusic), but WMP11 is still in beta, and may very well support all of those when the RTM version is released.
"I always wondered why the DoJ settled this case. They already had a conviction. The conviction was not reversed, only the penalty was. This was in the penalty phase! Imagine a bank robber being convicted, and then the prosecution going into settlement talks over the penalty."
First, you make the mistake of comparing a civil case with a criminal case. Second, you say "only the penalty was overturned", as if the penalty phase is just some minor thing. In a civil case, the penalty phase is the most important phase of the trial, and can be as long to try and as hard to "win" as the "fact finding" phase. Note that the NFL "lost" an antitrust suit filed by the USFL. The penalty ended up being that the NFL had to pay the USFL *one* dollar (treble damages raise it to three dollars). Legally, the NFL lost the case, but in practical terms, they won becaue the won the penalty phase. "Winning" the fact-finding phase does not guarantee winning the penalty phase. As I said before, this is a civil, not a criminal matter.
Now, on to why the DOJ settled: While the Appeals court let Jackson's "Findings of Fact" stand, but tossed out, not only his remedies, but also many of his rulings that were based on the FOF. They basically tossed out his reasoning process and econonmic basis that he used to deduce conclusions and remedies from the FOF.
They also ordered that the penalty phase be retried with a new judge (they removed Jackson with prejudice, including a scathing rebuke of his performance). They set down guidelines on which the retrial of the penalty phase would take place, guidelines that went against the philosophies used by Jackson, guidelines that narrowed the case; in short, guidelines that would've made it much more difficult on the DOJ.
So, rather than do the retrial of the penalty phase (and again, this was a civil case, so the penalty phase is just as important and can be just as hard to win, if not more so, than the fact-finding phase), the DOJ and Microsoft settled the case. Those that didn't like the settlement terms had plenty of time to voice their objections during the public review period. After that period ended, the new judge, finding no merit in the complaints, ratified the settlement terms.
As a side note, I'll add that it's sad that settlement of a civil case is confused with criminal conviction by so many slashdotters (this is not directed at the parent poster).
ODF is the issue, at least indirectly. If state entities mandate the use of a particular format, and all software supporting said format lacks accessibility features for the disabled, then the state is in effect mandating the use of software that lacks accessibility. MA might want to make sure that they aren't in violation of the Federal Disabilities Act by mandating software unfriendly to the disabled.
Also a little confused about this line: "The ODF format is limited to the features and performance of OpenOffice and StarOffice". I thought OpenDoc was created by an open consortium of companies and was based on real world needs instead of an artificial construct to match the features of a particular program.
Allow me to quote from http://xml.openoffice.org/ OpenOffice.org XML file format: The OpenOffice.org XML file format is the native file format of OpenOffice.org 1.0. It has been replaced by the OASIS OpenDocument file format in OpenOffice.org 2.0.
OASIS OpenDocument file format: The OASIS OpenDocument file format is the native file format of OpenOffice.org 2.0. It is developed by a Technical Committee (TC) at OASIS. The OpenDocument format is based on the OpenOffice.org XML file format.
Read the above slowly until it sinks in. ODF is created with OO.o in mind. It was built with OO.o, OO.o's features, and even OO.o's code structure in mind. It's derived from OO.o's previous format.
Let's cut to the chase here. ODF was created so as to provide a way for MS Office competitors to compete, not on the basis of functionaity, but on the basis of, "Use us because we've opened up our format as a standard!". That's good, because it caused Microsoft to respond by opening up Office 2007's formats as a standard too (a move that OO.o and their allies didn't foresee).
So, neither side can honestly play the "use us because of our document formats" game. Microsoft can't say, "You must use us because because we're the only ones that can understand our formats!" and OO.o (et al) can't say, "You should use us because our format is open and theirs isn't!" They both have to compete on functionality/price.
"Microsoft did not want to cede control of one iota of their Office franchise and they preferred to be able to hold the reins on just what software would be able to read a Microsoft Office document."
Is that why Office 2007's default formats will be open standards, recognized by ECMA, and later ISO? Is that why the OpenXML developer's group already provides Java sample code that manipulates that file format without any need for Office 2007 being used? Is that why a Novel dev is already working on a spreadsheet that uses that file format?
Ink is just one example, but your solution even for that falls short of working.
You say,... "This allows ink to be viewed in applications that are not ink-enabled and maintain its full ink fidelity when it returns to an ink-enabled application."
Here's the problem. Someone gives me a document with ink and associated content. I decide to use a "not ink-enabled" app to alter the document, and then pass the altered document to someone that views it with "an ink-enabled application". The document that I passed on is now "corrupt" in that the ink that was "preserved" is no longer consistent with the rest of the document's data, because the "not ink-enabled" app that I used to alter the document didn't have the ability to alter the ink accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, it does help that the producers of mainstream content hasn't collapsed like the 1929 stock crash, which is what you'd believe if you listened to them.
In the 80's the Atari software community was devestated by piracy. There were articles about how Atari software had the highest piracy rate in history up to that time (and maybe still). Many companies didn't go out of business, but ceased development of Atari software.
Your mistake is equating software with "information".
If I give a copy of Excel to a friend, have I shared "information", or a program? Not everything that consists of bits is "information", some things that consist of bits are merely programs, and no, not all programs "want to be free".
Excel is a implemention of a spreadsheet program, not "information".
You're obsessed with Microsoft. Microsoft is not the company that is most hurt by piracy, it's companies like AutoCad. So playing to the anti-Microsoft sentiment at slashdot in order to defend piracy dismisses the harm done to other software developers by piracy.
Microsoft should do with HP what Google did with Dell.
That is, Microsoft pays HP to make all HP computers installed with Microsoft webware (including desktop related webware). It wouldn't be abusing any monopoly since it wouldn't be using Windows itself to bundle anything (that's not already being bundled). It would merely be Microsoft paying an OEM to get special treatment just like Google did.
I mention HP because HP is bypassing Dell. Currently HP uses hp.netscape.com has the homepage that its computers come configured with, but that's easily changed. So Microsoft and HP create hp.live.com as HP's home page, bundle Microsoft's Desktop Search (which is better than Google's anyway), etc. (Of course, Vista will have desktop search built-in, which may render desktop search competition moot.)
There have been posts here saying that ODF isn't less efficient than Microsoft's formats, it's just that OO.o is less efficent thatn MS Office.
OO.o is indeed less efficient than MS Office, but the fact is, Microsoft's file formats are more efficient than ODF by design.
I won't even deal with Microsoft's binary format or their previous XML format (which are also both faster than ODF), I'll just deal with ODF vs OpenXML (Office 2007's default format).
First, ODF chose human readability over machine efficiency. This is a mistake in my opinion, because programs are going to be manupulating these documents orders of magnitude more often than a human is going to be eyeballing the XML.
Check out this blog entry from Brian Jones' Open XML blog (Brian Jones is Microsoft's main Open XML guy):
Does [tag] Size Matter?
This blog entry describes the benefits of OpenXML's terse tags vs ODF's verbose tags. The blog entry includes a comparison of OpenXML's representation of the spreadsheet:
1 2 3
4 5 6
OpenXML's representation of that spreadsheet requires ~110 characters, while ODF's requires ~780.
It doesn't take a genious to know which would be more quickly parsable by a machine.
There are many other points made by the blog entry tha I encourage you to read.
Another of Brian Jones' blog entries is here: Design Goals Behind SpreadsheetML [OpenXML's spreadheet format]
Among other things, this blog entry discusses the performance goals of OpenXML's spreadsheet format. Microsoft didn't want a huge peformance hit by going from binary to XML. For spreadsheets, they use things like shared string tables to speed things up. I encourage you to read this blog entry for more details.
OpenXML is "faster" than ODF by design, that's just the way it is.
I think most of the major OEMs are bundling Suns JVM today.
But a few years ago, when Sun was trying to get the govt to force Microsoft to bundle Sun's JVM, Sun had difficulty getting OEMs to bundle it because the OEMs wanted Sun to pay them to bundle it but Sun wanted the OEMs to pay Sun for the right to bundle it.
Not to say it doesn't have PLENTY of new ways to waste CPU and memory, as well as DRM-to-the-core, but I can't really say I consider those a reason to upgrade.
What DRM does Vista have that XP doesn't, besides the ability to run protected HD-DVD and BR discs? (And why would you want Microsoft to eliminate the ability to play such discs?)
As a limited user, a virus can delete your MP3s and porn. As admin, a virus can reformat your entire hard drive, install a rootkit, etc
:(
A virus deleting my files is just as bad as reformatting the drive, as far as I'm concerned. And since I do weekly backups, the former is actually worse. If my drive gets reformatted, I'll *know* it and restore the files. But if a virus deletes or corrupts my files, I won't know about it, and to make matters worse, those deletions/corruptions will make their way to my backup drive when I perform a backup.
Microsoft's management team aren't convicted criminals. Learn the difference between civil suits and criminal cases. Damn, so much slashdot groupthink is based on utter ignornance disguised as insight.
"Posting a direct link for use by someone else who hasn't read the license is a different story, though. If someone else follows the link while understanding that it's "behind" a license agreement, one could argue that that also counts as accepting the agreement, but if someone follows the direct link while having no idea that they were supposed to be shown a license before getting that link, then I don't know."
It probably doesn't matter if the abuser of the license claimed ignornance. Most patent cases are filed against people that have no idea that they might have violated the patent in question, and no idea that the patent even existed.
"I suppose you can't fault them for trying, but this particular attempt at monopolizing the market looks pretty pathetic."
Um, how is introducing a new format an "attempt at monopolizing the market"? Do you maintain that Microsoft is "evil" for introducing a format?
Um, Microsoft has killed off FrontPage. The last version might still be available for purchase, but there will be no updates, thus FrontPage will *never* support WMP pictures.
Vista has a lot more than what the article listed, but I have another observation.
:p
The slashdotters (and the media) hailed OSX 10.4 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, touting it as a major upgrade from 10.3 because it added Spotlight and widgets (those were its highest profile enhancements). Vista adds those same things (search and gadgets), and yet Vista is uncompelling. Hmmm...
For what it's worth, I found OSX 10.4 to be uncompelling which is why I'm still on 10.3.
The features in Office already overburden the old UI as it is. So trying to maintain that old UI for Office 2007's new features and the features that will be added in subsequent releases becomes an exercise in futility. Also, Microsoft truly believes that after a short learning curve, the new UI blows the old one away, and want to encourage (if by force) people to use it. Otherwise, peeps would be tempted to stick with the old UI even if they would've vastly preferred the new one.
The reason for all of the FUD here is that for all of the demands here that Microsoft "innovate", deep down, most slashdotters don't *want* Microsoft to innovate because that makes Microsoft all the more difficult to compete with. For example, Office 2007 makes OpenOffice.org look rather primitive, so many slashdotters feel compelled to belittle any and all of Office 2007's improvements. To put it in simple turms, Microsoft haters are scared that Office 2007 will blow the competition away.
The "Exchange 2000 requirement" listing is meant to convey the fact that Outlook 2007's Exchange-specific features require Exchange Server 2000 rather than earlier versions of Exchange. You can still use Outlook without Exchange altogether, but if you do use it with Exchange, you must use it with Exchange 2000 (or later).
Besides Exchange, Outlook supports POP, IMAP, and Hotmail.
My mom uses Word Art all the time to make brochures for her sorority. It's not useless just because you can't find a use for it.
"Not only does this new, Windows XP-only software promote Urge to the exclusion of other retailers,..."
WMP11 supports many retailers besides URGE, as can be seen here.
Here's a link to the PCMag review of WMP11 that contains the above page.
The retailers shown in the above links are:
MSN Music Store
audible.com
Napster
MovieLink
WallMart
XM Satellite Radio
f.y.e.
Live365.com
PureTracks
PassAlong
URGE
That's fewer than the number of retailers that WMP10 supports (WMP supports the above (minus URGE) plus CinemaNow, CourtTV, emusic, ESDC, MLB, msn/soundsgood.com, MusicGiants, MusicMatch, musicNow, MyStation, SongTouch, soundBuzz, GetMusic), but WMP11 is still in beta, and may very well support all of those when the RTM version is released.
"That seems like they are expecting an awful lot from Apple "
Well, Apple *is* advertising their security in their latest ads, so they should have no problems meeting these expectations.
First, you make the mistake of comparing a civil case with a criminal case. Second, you say "only the penalty was overturned", as if the penalty phase is just some minor thing. In a civil case, the penalty phase is the most important phase of the trial, and can be as long to try and as hard to "win" as the "fact finding" phase. Note that the NFL "lost" an antitrust suit filed by the USFL. The penalty ended up being that the NFL had to pay the USFL *one* dollar (treble damages raise it to three dollars). Legally, the NFL lost the case, but in practical terms, they won becaue the won the penalty phase. "Winning" the fact-finding phase does not guarantee winning the penalty phase. As I said before, this is a civil, not a criminal matter.
Now, on to why the DOJ settled:
While the Appeals court let Jackson's "Findings of Fact" stand, but tossed out, not only his remedies, but also many of his rulings that were based on the FOF. They basically tossed out his reasoning process and econonmic basis that he used to deduce conclusions and remedies from the FOF.
They also ordered that the penalty phase be retried with a new judge (they removed Jackson with prejudice, including a scathing rebuke of his performance). They set down guidelines on which the retrial of the penalty phase would take place, guidelines that went against the philosophies used by Jackson, guidelines that narrowed the case; in short, guidelines that would've made it much more difficult on the DOJ.
So, rather than do the retrial of the penalty phase (and again, this was a civil case, so the penalty phase is just as important and can be just as hard to win, if not more so, than the fact-finding phase), the DOJ and Microsoft settled the case. Those that didn't like the settlement terms had plenty of time to voice their objections during the public review period. After that period ended, the new judge, finding no merit in the complaints, ratified the settlement terms.
As a side note, I'll add that it's sad that settlement of a civil case is confused with criminal conviction by so many slashdotters (this is not directed at the parent poster).
ODF is the issue, at least indirectly.
If state entities mandate the use of a particular format, and all software supporting said format lacks accessibility features for the disabled, then the state is in effect mandating the use of software that lacks accessibility. MA might want to make sure that they aren't in violation of the Federal Disabilities Act by mandating software unfriendly to the disabled.
Allow me to quote from http://xml.openoffice.org/
OpenOffice.org XML file format: The OpenOffice.org XML file format is the native file format of OpenOffice.org 1.0. It has been replaced by the OASIS OpenDocument file format in OpenOffice.org 2.0.
OASIS OpenDocument file format: The OASIS OpenDocument file format is the native file format of OpenOffice.org 2.0. It is developed by a Technical Committee (TC) at OASIS. The OpenDocument format is based on the OpenOffice.org XML file format.
Read the above slowly until it sinks in. ODF is created with OO.o in mind. It was built with OO.o, OO.o's features, and even OO.o's code structure in mind. It's derived from OO.o's previous format.
Let's cut to the chase here. ODF was created so as to provide a way for MS Office competitors to compete, not on the basis of functionaity, but on the basis of, "Use us because we've opened up our format as a standard!". That's good, because it caused Microsoft to respond by opening up Office 2007's formats as a standard too (a move that OO.o and their allies didn't foresee).
So, neither side can honestly play the "use us because of our document formats" game.
Microsoft can't say, "You must use us because because we're the only ones that can understand our formats!" and OO.o (et al) can't say, "You should use us because our format is open and theirs isn't!"
They both have to compete on functionality/price.
"Microsoft did not want to cede control of one iota of their Office franchise and they preferred to be able to hold the reins on just what software would be able to read a Microsoft Office document."
:-)
Is that why Office 2007's default formats will be open standards, recognized by ECMA, and later ISO?
Is that why the OpenXML developer's group already provides Java sample code that manipulates that file format without any need for Office 2007 being used?
Is that why a Novel dev is already working on a spreadsheet that uses that file format?
Read the following sites for enlightenment.
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/default.aspx
http://openxmldeveloper.org/default.aspx
Ink is just one example, but your solution even for that falls short of working.
... "This allows ink to be viewed in applications that are not ink-enabled and maintain its full ink fidelity when it returns to an ink-enabled application."
You say,
Here's the problem. Someone gives me a document with ink and associated content. I decide to use a "not ink-enabled" app to alter the document, and then pass the altered document to someone that views it with "an ink-enabled application". The document that I passed on is now "corrupt" in that the ink that was "preserved" is no longer consistent with the rest of the document's data, because the "not ink-enabled" app that I used to alter the document didn't have the ability to alter the ink accordingly.