backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 127 comment(s) - last by 306maxi.. on Jun 30 at 6:04 AM


  (Source: New York Times)
Big brother is watching Microsoft

Imagine someone coming into your room and watching you every day as you go about your business, looking through your stuff, waiting for you to make a mistake.  This unpleasant sounding scenario is analogous to what Microsoft is facing as Windows 7 is being reviewed by the federal government.

With Windows 7 set to likely launch holiday 2009 (based on Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer's public remarks), Microsoft handed over the code and copies of Windows 7 in its current state to Department of Justice Technical Committee (TC) members to comb for possible antitrust violations.

The TC is the result of a long legal battle between Microsoft and smaller competitors in various fields, which all allege that Microsoft tries to write its Windows code in such a way to exclude them by defaulting to Microsoft applications.  The U.S. government agreed that such anticompetitive antitrust violations were occurring and in November 2001, Microsoft finally agreed to settle with the U.S. government and face oversight.

With the final judgment a year later, Microsoft was forced to deal with inspectors during the development of Windows Vista.  The inspection, which now is going on with the new OS focused on four key middleware categories -- e-mail, instant messaging, media playback and web browsing.

The effects on Microsoft can easily be speculated.  While it might have been coincidence, when inspections started between 2004 and 2005, Microsoft made little progress on Internet Explorer, while Mozilla released Firefox and Thunderbird.  Some speculate that this was due to Microsoft trying to remove Windows code that defaults services to IE and Outlook, or trying to make such code more subtle.

Meanwhile in the messaging sector, Microsoft abandoned Windows Messenger altogether, splitting it into MSN Messenger for private users and Office Communicator for business users.  Both programs were much less attached to Windows than their predecessor.

In the aftermath of Vista, Google complained that Microsoft was violating the terms of its agreement and defaulting search traffic away from Google.  The complaint eventually led in part to an extension of the supervisory period by the TC over Microsoft.

Microsoft, which had likely been eagerly anticipating freedom from inspectors has now been forced to live with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly verdict of two more years of oversight -- about the amount of time needed to develop Windows 7.

Each month the Justice Department, the states' attorney generals, and Microsoft file a joint "status report" and the first one just came out offering insight into how Windows 7 is faring in the inspectors’ eyes.  The first report came June 17 and offered the following overview of the process:

Microsoft has recently authorized TC access to another early build of Windows 7 (the successor to Vista), which the TC will review. As the builds of Windows 7 progress, the TC will conduct middleware-related tests in an effort to assure that bugs fixed in Vista do not reappear in the next operating system, as well as to assure final judgment compliance generally.

The "bugs" referred to are compatibility issues with various software that Microsoft mostly fixed over the course of Windows Vista's development.  Microsoft contends that these were due to tricky communications flaws, not purposeful attempts to break competitors' products.

The report adds:

The TC's on-going review of Windows' treatment of middleware defaults is being expanded to include an operating system source code scan in an effort to determine whether some commonality in the code accounts for default overrides. The TC also is investigating certain default browser overrides, which Microsoft asserts arise from reasonable technical requirements that competing browsers apparently do not implement. The TC will discuss its findings with Microsoft once this inquiry is concluded.

The latter part refers to the ongoing review of the beta version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 browser.  More interestingly it reveals that unlike previous investigations, the TC has moved up to actually scanning the Windows source code.  Investigators hope to use this to spot any antitrust violations, even subtly coded ones.

Meanwhile Microsoft is forced to watch and wait while the DOJ continues its investigations.  It is entirely possible that its staff will have to make major changes to the code of Windows 7 and IE 8 to make them acceptable to the TC.  Worse yet, as eWeek's Joe Wilcox points out, "Microsoft is making a godawful amount of Internet Explorer changes and taking risks with application and Web site compatibility. Surely somebody will try to interfere with the changes for competitive gain. Will it be Apple, Google or Mozilla?"

The world of inspections is not a pretty one for Microsoft, but it’s one that for the time being it must live with.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By Spivonious on 6/22/2008 11:24:11 AM , Rating: 5
Why isn't Apple under any of these investigations? I'd argue that iTunes has the biggest market share for media players, not WMP. And what about not letting other hardware manufacturers make OSX computers? That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me.

Google includes their toolbar with almost every piece of software on the Web.

Symantec sued successfully to hurt Vista's security model just so they wouldn't have to rewrite their product.

Mozilla's Firefox has a sizeable portion of the web browser market, and even people who know nothing about computers know what Firefox is.

The era of the big, evil Microsoft has been over for almost 5 years. It's time for the DOJ to move on.




RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By jeromekwok on 6/22/08, Rating: 0
By gerf on 6/22/2008 12:18:32 PM , Rating: 1
Not clone the software, but possibly make games for it without having to pay Nintendo fees. Not necessarily for the Homebrew market, but for other games creators (including NSFW ones) to make their own games without having to ask Nintendo if they're allowed to.

Just imagine the uses for the controllers in a Girls Gone Wild spin-off game!


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By blaster5k on 6/22/2008 12:26:50 PM , Rating: 5
People have a choice though. They don't have to buy Windows. And if Microsoft raises prices more than it should or forces people to use their own ill-featured software with their OS, even more players may step in and create a more cost competitive OS with more features. That's the glory of free markets.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/22/2008 12:41:05 PM , Rating: 4
That's the theory, yes, but in reality the barriers to entry to this market are very high. Specifically, anyone hoping to replace Microsoft needs to create a platform that does pretty much everything that Microsoft's products do otherwise there is little incentive for potential customers to switch. Given this you'd have to be able to invest a heck of a lot of resource to produce a competitor and the risk of failure is probably what puts people off. Both Apple and Linux have got better products in some areas but neither has a "complete" package for various reasons. Without the complete package, companies are not going to switch from Windows in numbers. Home users, of course, can switch immediately because they don't have the same level of investment or requirements.

This situation might change in the coming years but, right now, there is no practical alternative to Microsoft for any business that has already invested in Microsoft technologies.


By blaster5k on 6/22/2008 1:58:31 PM , Rating: 3
I realize that. Many companies have spent years and piles of money developing software that's designed for Windows platforms. Developing a fully competitive solution is no easy task either. Any transition would take time and would not come without a good deal of pain, but my point is simply that it is not in Microsoft's interest to let that happen -- even if the barriers to entry are high.

They can get away with pushing things a little bit because of that, but the more they do it, the more likely they are to hurt their bottom line in the long run. They've probably already stepped a little too far in that direction since Apple and Linux market share are climbing at a good clip (granted, they are still ridicuously small fractions of the overall market). Without government intervention, I still believe there are pressures that will keep them in line.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By caqde on 6/22/2008 2:07:41 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention the average consumer doesn't know anything about the other OS's or even that they exist. They may know about Apple's Mac, but they can't comprehend the miner differences.

Anyways one of the biggest technical barriers is the issue where the consumer would likely want full software compatibility with Windows software, or the OS is going to need a large backing by the software developers ensuring that there is a large base of games and applications similar to what they see in MS Windows. The only issue is that one of those developers happens to be Microsoft and the users would want access to Microsoft Office...


By caqde on 6/23/2008 3:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
.. I don't really understand why this was rated down so much. It is true. Maybe because most of you are tech savy you don't see this, but look around you. Your fellow non geeks are very very clingy, they don't like change, they want everything they have to work in their next system. Heck once I was asked if a Windows 3.1 program would work in VISTA! This is common to me. People like to keep things the way they are.

Once a company can find a way to grab those users away from Microsoft Windows they have won. But until then Windows will live on.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By BansheeX on 6/22/2008 8:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's the theory, yes, but in reality the barriers to entry to this market are very high. Specifically, anyone hoping to replace Microsoft needs to create a platform that does pretty much everything that Microsoft's products do otherwise there is little incentive for potential customers to switch. Given this you'd have to be able to invest a heck of a lot of resource to produce a competitor and the risk of failure is probably what puts people off. Both Apple and Linux have got better products in some areas but neither has a "complete" package for various reasons. Without the complete package, companies are not going to switch from Windows in numbers. Home users, of course, can switch immediately because they don't have the same level of investment or requirements.


Hold on a second, let me translate this into something I can understand... in order to switch to something better, something better needs to be created. Linux and Mac can't because [no reason given] and it's not their own fault because [no reason given]. Therefore, we need to penalize the succeeding product (MS) in order to artificially prop up failing ideas, one of which doesn't even cost money (Linux).

Notice the missing parts of your argument. You're about to create a disincentive for success in the market based on two flawed opinions:

a. Microsoft does not deserve its current position and you want a cheaper alternative.
b. when competitors in a fair environment are losing badly, we need government to step in and subsidize their losses with taxpayer money or money from the winning establishment.

Suppose it's a college football game and your team is losing 52 to 3 at halftime. You say "gee, this is boring, that other team has been a perennial powerhouse and gets all the good recruits as a result. I really hate them for some reason, I want something else. think the government should take some of their players and put them on our side in the second half because of how soundly they're drubbing us. It can't be fair what they're doing."

If you can't figure out why fair monopolies aren't self-sustaining or what happens to incentives after you do something like the above, then you don't understand why government intervention in a marketplace leads to worse and worse products and eventual economic collapse.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By caqde on 6/23/2008 3:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
...

Well you could write an entire book about the reasons and the barriers to competition and most people just don't want to take the time to understand the complexity of the situation. In order to make a competitor to Microsoft you need ->

A) Software on COMMON STORE (Walmart, Staples, etc) shelves that the user can buy. (I.E the Apple Store and Fry's are not common [Both sell MAC software])
B) To Have computers sold with OS via common computer retailers and OEM's. (Dell, Walmart, HP, etc..)
C) To be compatible with common PNP peripheral hardware [USB/PCI] (Modems, Printers, Scanners, etc) and is compatible with new hardware when it hits the shelves.

Linux meets none of these Mac on the other hand meets the last one for the most part. Issue A and B go hand in hand retailers and OEM's won't build computers for these OS's because of issue A and Retailers won't sell software for OS's because of issue B. Now Issue C well companies don't want to spend money on developing drivers for an OS that isn't that widespread and they want to keep their hardware under wraps so potential free driver developers for the hardware won't be able to make drivers for the hardware for some time...

Anyways this is a really complicated issue and this is just one of many many reasons Linux and Mac are not as widespread as they could be.

To make a list the issues include drivers, software, marketing, User Friendliness, backwards compatibility(with preexisting Windows Software), and etc etc etc.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By sprockkets on 6/23/2008 12:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, most software on the shelves for Microsoft was made for the win9x era, and won't work properly with security in mind. Second, most software you buy in the store is because of Windows deficiencies. Third, the licenses are harsh. Fourth, most shelf software is of poor quality.

What would you have to add in Apple's or Linux's case for software? Even Linux has GPL a/v software, if you think you need it. Heck, Linux runs scripts in the background that automatically clean out temp junk and other stuff to keep the system running optimally. And Linux and OSX will never suffer the Winrot registry slowdown, because it has none!

And, both Dell and Walmart sell Linux based computers, with perhaps Walmart just stopping it.

Both Mac and Linux use the same print system, so to say that a printer works in OSX and not in Linux is a lie. Oh, some printers are stupid and need the computer to do the work for them. Whose fault is it that they will not make a driver for Linux, Linux or the manufacturer? Why make one with such small marketshare anyhow?


By caqde on 6/23/2008 5:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
I was not talking about security software. I was referring to applications and games. Like Adobe's Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, and games like Sins of a Solar Empire to games as simple as Bejeweled.

Dell and Walmart "sell" Linux machines, but the issue is that they don't actively sell them to the consumer.

quote:
Both Mac and Linux use the same print system, so to say that a printer works in OSX and not in Linux is a lie. Oh, some printers are stupid and need the computer to do the work for them.


I used printers as an example of the type of Hardware that needs active driver support for the consumer to want to use that OS. Even if they use the same print system. The consumer needs a simple wizard based installer for the target OS before they are likely to use their printer.

Basically they need to slap the CD they got after buying their printer into the computer and be able to click on an option that says install printer driver and it should install and work. They are not going to want to do any work to get their device to work. They want to come home from work sit down on their computer and have everything work for them..


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/23/2008 4:34:15 AM , Rating: 3
Whoah, there. You've definitely mistranslated the message that I was trying to send. Let me have another go based on your interpretation:

quote:
in order to switch to something better, something better needs to be created.


No argument there. There's clearly no point switching to something that's worse than what you already have.

quote:
Linux and Mac can't because [no reason given] and it's not their own fault because [no reason given].


I don't think I mentioned that Linux or Apple or anyone else (IBM, Novell, Sun Microsystems, etc.) can't develop a competing platform, but simply that doing so would be very expensive and any such project runs a high risk of failure. Microsoft has proven that it is possible to develop a "complete package" of software and services but it's taken many years to achieve this at considerable expense. It's possible that other companies are working to deliver a competitive alternative to the Microsoft ecosystem but we simply don't know about it. My point here, however, is simply that it is very expensive to develop such a competing system and therefore other companies may be deciding not to take the risk.

quote:
Therefore, we need to penalize the succeeding product (MS) in order to artificially prop up failing ideas, one of which doesn't even cost money (Linux).


I must have missed the part where I said this. All I recall saying in alternate postings is that Microsoft abused its position as the manufacturer of Windows by preventing customers from using software from alternative developers as their default to, for example, play media file or write emails.

quote:
Notice the missing parts of your argument. You're about to create a disincentive for success in the market based on two flawed opinions:

a. Microsoft does not deserve its current position and you want a cheaper alternative.


What? Where have I said that? What I said was that Microsoft is being investigated (again) due to past practices of locking-in customers to their own products by preventing them from using alternatives. Whether I think they deserve their position (which, incidentally, I do, thanks for asking) is immaterial to what has gone on. Of course, a cheaper alternative would be nice - who wouldn't want that?

quote:
b. when competitors in a fair environment are losing badly, we need government to step in and subsidize their losses with taxpayer money or money from the winning establishment.


But that's the point - the environment wasn't fair. Microsoft abused its position by locking in customers to its own products by preventing them from using alternatives. This, please note, has nothing to do with alternative platforms but rather running software on Windows that hasn't been written by Microsoft (e.g. browsing the web with Firefox rather than Internet Explorer).

You are making this into Microsoft vs. Apple, or Microsoft vs. Linux, or Microsoft vs. [insert other platform company name here], and that's not the reason why the US government investigated them the first time, or why they want to look at the Windows 7 source code. Equally, I think most people here know that I'm a Mac-user and I have absolutely no intention of getting into that particular debate here, mostly because it's not relevant to the article. My comment was simply due to the statement that if Microsoft is bad then the free market would produce competitors, which we know is incorrect. Having started my working life as an economist I am familiar with these concepts and particularly that of "perfect competition", which states that in a perfectly competitive market, no supplier is ever able to control it because there are so many other competitors with equally as good products. In such a market Microsoft wouldn't be investigated because customers could switch to an alternative supplier with no cost. In reality, as I noted in the comment, the barriers to entry to this market are very high and this is what prevents a competitor to Microsoft from appearing. And, please bare in mind that when I talk about a competitor, I am not referring to something as relatively trivial as the OS - we're talking about the OS, applications and services that a business implements that form a "complete package". Any migration to a competitor requires that the competitor provides the "complete package" and, for example, Apple doesn't have an alternative to SharePoint. Apple, or anyone else would need to do a lot more than develop a whizzy OS to be a real competitor to Microsoft now and that costs a lot of resources (time, money, people).

Sorry that was so long but I hope that clarifies the point.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By BansheeX on 6/23/2008 9:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I entirely miss the purpose of your post then since you offered no recommended course of action (I inferred what it usually comes down to even though you claim ignorance), nor do you direct your thinking inward toward your platform of choise, and were completely non-descript in your accusations.

quote:
Microsoft abused its position by locking in customers to its own products by preventing them from using alternatives.


I am confused as hell on this one. There is nothing illegal about a closed proprietary platform, nor is Microsoft forcing anybody to use their operating system. If they did do this, it can't be a successful long-term exploit and would create a window for competitors, because people like being able to use stuff like Firefox in Windows, particularly if they find the closed offerings insufficient for their needs. But there's nothing illegal about it. There's nothing illegal about iTunes only offering its own format, or Olive Garden "locking in" its customers to its own breadsticks instead of letting a competitor's to be sold in its own restaurant. They can't be sued by Fizzoli's for anti-competitive practices by disallowing other breadsticks in their restaurant even if 90% of Italian restaurants are Olive Gardens. I mean, this is entering the realm of the ridiculous.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/23/2008 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is nothing illegal about a closed proprietary platform, nor is Microsoft forcing anybody to use their operating system.


Apparently the US government disagrees with this, so either their interpretation of the law is incorrect, or yours is. Anyway, the problem is, again, that the cost of developing an alternative to the Windows ecosystem is so great (primarily because Microsoft did such a good job over many years) that no real competition exists. Sure, you'll get people saying that Macs are ready for the enterprise (I wish), or that 2008 will be the year that the Linux desktop conquers all, but in reality Microsoft has a monopoly of computing in the enterprise. Given the lack of competition it seems reasonable that Microsoft should not be allowed to force you to use their products on Windows rather than a competitors that is also running on Windows. You either have a level playing field where everyone gets equal treatment on Windows, or a closed platform where only Microsoft writes Windows application - you can't have one where Microsoft gives its own products priority and tries to make you use them rather than the competitors.

Again, this is more or less in the past. Windows XP, and I presume Vista as well, allows you to select a default browser, email client and media player, even if they aren't IE, Outlook or Windows Media Player. The Department of Justice is simply making sure that things stay good in Windows 7, and that's surely OK?


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By BansheeX on 6/23/2008 10:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway, the problem is, again, that the cost of developing an alternative to the Windows ecosystem is so great (primarily because Microsoft did such a good job over many years) that no real competition exists.


So you're basically admitting that MS created that "problem" by continuing to deliver good products instead of poop in a box. So what's the problem? Are they now so big that they are self-sustaining? In other words, can they start dishing out Windows ME's over and over without incurring losses in marketshare? I guess I fail to see how the free market is failing here.

quote:
The Department of Justice is simply making sure that things stay good in Windows 7, and that's surely OK?


No, it isn't okay, because they're diverting taxpayer resources to a non-issue. I may not LIKE having to use Apple's hardware when I buy a Mac. I may not LIKE paying what MS wants for Windows. I may not LIKE only getting Olive Garden breadsticks in Olive Garden restaurants. But it's all legal and I'm not forced into any one of them. It doesn't entitle me to trump up some charge and intervene in the market through my elected officials to prop up my losing preferences using taxpayer money. So if MS thinks that making their stuff default is going to go over well with customers and increase sales, let them. It's a business choice. It could NOT work. Just like when Sony put rootkits in their CDs. Do you think that helped them any? The free market works, let it go.


By kelmon on 6/23/2008 4:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
OK, this is getting slightly boring now. The problem, in a nutshell, is that Microsoft were deliberately preventing other companies from running software on Windows once Windows had become established as the dominant OS. They were abusing their monopolistic position, and that's illegal. If Windows was supposed to be a closed platform to begin with then this probably wouldn't have been an issue, but they effectively needed other developers to make their software run on Windows in order to sell Windows and then stabbed them in the back. Nice.

quote:
In other words, can they start dishing out Windows ME's over and over without incurring losses in marketshare?


I think that's a bit far-fetched and is a statement that does this discussion a disservice. However, if Microsoft, for whatever reason, decided to destroy the Windows platform then other platforms, even if they are not as mature, would become attractive and therefore could/would result in a switch. There is presently too much value in the Windows platform to business that Microsoft would need to reduce that value before a switch is likely because the value in other platforms is not really increasing that much. Perhaps if Microsoft went into a tailspin for some reason then other platform manufacturers would take the risk of trying to compete more directly. But this is all conjecture and I have no way to know.

quote:
No, it isn't okay, because they're diverting taxpayer resources to a non-issue.


It might be a non-issue to you, but it isn't to other companies that make software that runs on Windows, and whose livelihoods depend on their software being able to compete in a competitive market, and not one where Microsoft has gone back to effectively "stacking the deck" in their favor. As I noted in an earlier comment, this is effectively the parole office ensuring that the convicted criminal is remaining honest. Whether you personally like this or not is rather immaterial.

It's worth saying, finally, in case it has not already been made clear, that Windows does not operate in a "free market". I'm sorry to say that you are very naive if you believe one exists. If there was one it's safe to say that a real competitor to Microsoft would have appeared years ago, given the billions of dollars that Microsoft makes for the Windows platform.


By exploderator on 6/24/2008 5:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can they start dishing out Windows ME's over and over without incurring losses in marketshare?

Yup: ME - 98se = junk, Vista - XP = 2junk + 10. (DX10 that is)

And although MS have incurred market share losses, because many people have been overcharged and underprovided (in their own honest opinions as customers), they are still practically trapped by the MS monopoly. All we can do is hope that Windows 7 is better, and I'm glad there's some oversight in this reguard, otherwise MS has every profit reason to harm the entire industry even more than they ever have.

Go argue with the DOJ or whoever.

The real basic point that you're missing is that MS is so big that they profit more by doing bad things than they lose, so someone has to keep an eye on them, because we can't effectively vote with our dollars any more, without losing much more than we gain.

IMHO, as a 25 year computer professional, MS has been the bully who did the inevitable, and brought the harsh reality of standard predatory business practices (and yes professionality too) into the vulnerable and innocent developing computer tech world. MS took the lead in doing computer business to make as much money as possible. They focussed on things like marketing, sales and service, instead of some compulsive geek fetish fantasy of humanitarian perfection in code. And they exploited the fact that industrial laws vs. computer tech was a fledgeling field to. It was open season for a motivated and rutheless hunter. Unfortunately, MS broke the laws that were supposed to protect us, 1000 times more than anyone will ever know (we can't even afford to prove it). The truth is, they didn't have to be so brutal, they didn't have to break the laws so many times, and they still might have won, which they clearly did. We certainly have to live with them, but many of us will never trust them or like them.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By Donkeyshins on 6/23/2008 12:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
Unix + WINE (now that it has shipped) or OS-X + CrossOver are both options for companies that are wedded to Windows. Granted, YMMV based upon individual applications' requirements. Alternately, companies could go Mac + Bootcamp and transition slowly, but then they're beholden to proprietary hardware and software, so it might not be the best option.

And, FWIW, as Apple (iPod / iTunes), Mozilla (Firefox) and Google (Google, natch) have proven, it is possible to compete straight-up with Microsoft and gobble market share.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 1:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unix + WINE (now that it has shipped) or OS-X + CrossOver are both options for companies that are wedded to Windows


For what companies ? Ones that feel like increasing their IT budget by 40% because ZERO employees know a damn thing about Linux ?

Yeah real smart move. No thanks, just stick to Windows.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/23/2008 4:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I'm as pro-Mac as the next Mac user but even I have to laugh at this. The problem is that there is nothing much to migrate too unless you are running a small company; you're still running the same applications except now they're less reliable and unsupported. I'm sure that Linux is a great OS, and I swear by OS X, but there's no real platform beyond the OS in the same way that Microsoft provides applications and services that run pretty seamlessly for a large business. What is needed is a real, alternative, platform that delivers the sort of stuff that the Windows client, software, and servers provide. Right now I don't see anything much.

With respect to the likes of Firefox, for example, the only reason that they have taken off is because they run well on Windows and add to that platform rather than boost an alternative. Even then I need to use Internet Explorer simply because it is necessary to interact with other Windows services, like SharePoint or Project Web Access. These technologies really aren't hurting Microsoft much, although I will watch with interest to see how far Google is prepared to go.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kc77 on 6/23/2008 7:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
I kinda agree... being a Linux guy it's hard to say that it is as seemless as MS would like you to believe. Like if you have a server that is a DC (Active Directory) but also has IIS, SQL Server, Exchange, and Terminal Services.... while everything is together per say it's definitely not seamless. You will definitely run into permissions problems where you wouldn't on say Linux. But one area that MS definitely dominates is offering a out of the box bundle that requires little thought where to go for a IT Admins next service, feature or support.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/24/2008 3:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Producing a "better" OS than Windows isn't that difficult but producing an overall better platform? That's a big ask given everything that the Windows platform offers to business. As much as I despise the term, this is where fanboyism stops and reality begins. No one is really stepping up to provide an alternative to Windows, and on the contrary, it seems that at least Apple has given up on the idea of being different to Windows and instead focusing on working nicely in a Windows-centric environment. Given this it looks more like other platforms may become sort of mini-platforms in the wider Windows world rather than trying to really replace Windows entirely. To a degree this makes sense - this strategy allows you to say "hey, business, you can use me in your existing environment" so that your mini-platform is more attractive to business without having to go to the expense of developing a complete replacement for the Windows platform. The downside to this is that there will be no competition to the Windows platform itself and that doesn't really help innovation.


By kc77 on 6/24/2008 8:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Red Hat and Novell come very close but they still need to focus on Policy Kit and a real Exchange competitor. That's really where the problem is. Since ODF will finally be supported by Office the whole document issue should be resolved. But there really isn't a true Open Source hell even a viable alternative to Exchange which integrates with Policy Kit or other Kerberos management systems. While I like linux, I actually do live in reality...LOL


By othercents on 6/23/2008 10:22:58 AM , Rating: 2
Actually businesses don't have as many choices as you want people to believe. When an infrastructure is created (IE. Windows Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, ETC..) then you need computers that are compatible. One of the biggest problems I have with other operating systems is not being able to run Outlook or our CRM solution. For a small to medium size business it is cheaper to pay the extra money per machine than it is to redesign a $60k CRM solution.

Microsoft did have very bad anti competitive practices in the past and they still have not opened their OS enough for other developers to build applications on it (per the DOJ agreement) or allow other OS manufacturers to build their OSes, so that Microsoft Applications can run on them. Right now many business are at the mercy of Microsoft.

For home users you are not. Most home users can get away with using Linux and OpenOffice or any other OS that might be available.

Other


By encryptkeeper on 6/23/2008 8:52:58 AM , Rating: 1
It's the price you pay for being as large as Microsoft is. AT&T was under the microscope for years before anything major was done about it. Microsoft wants its software and products to be the standard for all worldwide data communications. That's not verbatim, but trust me, that's what they want. In a world where they have to play by the rules of open source, they won't be able to have it both ways.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/22/2008 12:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why isn't Apple under any of these investigations?


As the article says, Microsoft was under investigation because they tried (allegedly) to prevent competitors from running their applications under Windows rather than the Microsoft versions. XP (SP2, or was it earlier?) delivered the "Set Program Access and Defaults" service as a result of the investigation and judgement to allow users to specify which application was, for example, their preferred media player. Apple, at least since I switched, has not prevented users from setting a non-Apple application as their default for a particular file type or type of application. If you'd rather use Real Player (EEK!) than iTunes then you can do so, or Thunderbird rather than Mail. That said, bringing these settings into System Preferences would be damned useful because, at present, it's controlled by the applications themselves and a centralised method of control would be welcomed.

I don't pretend to understand why Apple are not required to allow other hardware manufacturers from making "Macs", but clearly they aren't otherwise this would have gone to court years ago. Presumably they are not considered a monopoly, and aren't abusing a monopolistic position, because you can buy a computer from a different manufacturer. Still, given that no legal action has been taken against Psystar yet, perhaps there is nothing to prevent this at all and it's just a case that there is no market for Mac clones.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By darkpaw on 6/23/2008 9:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
No version of Windows ever prevented you from changing the default files types. I never used media player in the old days when they were getting sued by RealPlayer et all (WinAmp was the only way to go).

They were sued for even bundling that software with Windows at all. That's why Apple can now bundled every app under the sun with OS-X and claim it does more out of the box then Windows on their stupid commercials, because MS can't bundle anything without all their competiors shouting at the top of their lungs.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/23/2008 10:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the Department of Justice disagrees with you so feel free to take it up with them. Regardless, I don't see why anyone would see this news negatively.

With respect to the Apple component, there's 2 things to bare in mind here:

1. If you are comparing "out of the box" functionality, then you compare a Mac to a Dell, for example, rather than to Windows. The iLife software suite, for example, is not part of OS X and therefore is more akin to Dell throwing in some free software in addition to what comes with Windows. To my knowledge, nothing stops Dell or any other manufacturer from bundling whatever they like with a new PC.

2. If you don't want to use a particular application on a Mac then you just use an alternative; Safari won't stop you from setting Firefox as your default browser.


By michael2k on 6/23/2008 12:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding 1: That wasn't true in 1995, when they tried to stop Compaq from bundling Netscape and AOL or IBM from developing OS/2. Today's actions are just fallout from that.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By jimbojimbo on 6/23/2008 2:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
I've always used an alternative browser in WinXP and it's never bothered me except that one time where it asked me if IE wanted to check if it's the default browser in the future. I said no and it hasn't bothered me since. What's the big deal? Why are people saying it's not letting them change it? Could it be because people don't read the pop-ups and just click anything?


By kc77 on 6/23/2008 2:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Um no, this judgment was from Windows 95B (in particular) and Windows 98 (Second Edition fixed this) whereby you couldn't remove Internet Explorer from the system. In addition if you installed Netscape and you upgraded your system with a patch or hotfix often times Internet Explorer would take back control of your system. So you would have to go back into Netscape and reclaim it as the default browser.


By Shlong on 6/23/2008 11:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
What bugs me is the changing of default file type without prompt. I had CuteHTML as the default HTML Editor, so whenever I would go to an HTML document - I would right click and go to edit and CuteHTML opens. After I installed Microsoft Office (wasn't prompted to associate file type), all of a sudden when I right click an HTML document and go to Edit, Microsoft Word opens up. Little things like this, bug me and it happens all the time for me with Microsoft products.


By doug9xx on 6/23/2008 4:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not true.

Back with Windows/NT I preferred Netscape of IE. I wanted to uninstall IE because of disk space, but I couldn't because all of the Visual C++ tools used it to render html for help/documentation. Huh? There is no technical reason that Netscape couldn't render those pages, but it was IE or nothing.

Thus default type for those documents was unchangeable. It is the little stuff like this that pisses me off. Far more so than the grand lock-in tricks.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By theapparition on 6/23/2008 9:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
I keep hearing that MS prevented other software applications from running or as running by default.

Can someone please give me an exact example, otherwise, I think this is complete BS.

I've NEVER had a problem setting an application up as the default, going all the way back to Win95.

Never.

I've had Thunderbird, Eudora, Mozilla, etc set as default email clients.
Netscape, Opera, Firefox, etc set as default web browsers.
Realplayer, iTunes, MediaMonkey, etc set as default media players.
I could go on, but never had a single issue.

Funny thing is that most of the time, switching was virtually transparent. Open the underdog, it says "xxxxx is not your default application for yyyyy, would you like to make it the default?"

If anything, I think that the objections were not that Microsoft "prevented" access, just that they bundle the applications along with the OS, and embedd them in such as way as to make them hard to remove. If they're always there, consumers may tend to use them rather than 3rd party alternatives, especially when they see that they usually have a superiour integration. This hurts competition, so they say. I say, a better application will always shine. Problem is, what is best for you, may not be best for 99% of the populace.
Firefox 3 is better than IE 7, but would 99% of people even recognize the extra features? Nope, IE is good enough and that's why it's market share is so dominate.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By jimbojimbo on 6/23/2008 2:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
If I had points, I'd have voted you up. You're dead on on everything. I'd like to add also that some third party applications companies were probably upset that Windows would give you software included that does something that you would have to otherwise pay for that does almost the same thing.

Like you I've never had to struggle to change the default app for anything. In fact Quicktime player gives me more grief on setting itself to start itself and other executeables and making itself the default anything. That's the worst freakin media player in the world.


By michael2k on 6/23/2008 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 3
You've obviously never tried to bundle software with Windows then.

Microsoft would have threatened to terminate your licenses if you had set up alternatives to IE or MSN.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By michael2k on 6/23/2008 5:06:17 PM , Rating: 3
1) They withheld Windows licenses from Compaq for bundling AOL and Netscape. Not being able to sell PCs with AOL or Netscape would pretty much count as "MS prevented other software applications from running" and this is documented in the DOJ case files
2) They would not allow IBM to license Windows until they finished auditing OS/2, meaning IBM was unable to sell PCs with Windows.

The first is an exact direct example of the behavior that got Microsoft in trouble.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By theapparition on 6/24/2008 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
2 completely separate issues.

I won't even get into the discussion about MS using strong-arm tactics.

The discussion at hand was that the MS Windows software prevented other applications from running, one that I call BS on, and one that you have no valid counterargument for.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By michael2k on 6/24/2008 12:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me? Your whole thread is irrelevant then. The only reason the DOJ has the right to oversee Microsoft is because that was the negotiated settlement. The only reason they negotiated was because they were accused and convicted of abusing their monopoly.

Which is what I was providing examples for. My point is that no matter how much you talk about other applications running, none of it is applicable to the DOJ's oversight over Microsoft.


By theapparition on 6/25/2008 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
I have no issue with the DOJ oversight.

I was only responding to the assertion that the oversight was the result of "default" programs. Which it clearly wasn't.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kc77 on 6/23/2008 7:20:42 PM , Rating: 3
I've tested software for compatibility labs...try and remove IE from Windows 95B. While we are at install Real Player too and watch before you as Media Player goes into fits after every update. Defaults weren't the only thing the suit was about. It was also about the inability for system builders to bundle their desired services. Like AOL conflicting with IE. I've seen this all over the place so for you to somehow say that the problem never existed basically means that the HP, IBM, Compaq, Dell lawsuits were frivolous.

Now do I like Real Player ??....no.... But there's no way I can say that installing a combination of IE, AOL, Netscape, and RealPlayer didn't cause a fight over defaults with Windows. It would just plain be inaccurate.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By theapparition on 6/24/2008 10:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Defaults weren't the only thing the suit was about. It was also about the inability for system builders to bundle their desired services.

That was the only part of the suit that was valid. Defaults had nothing to do with it.

The lawsuits were not frivolous, but had nothing to do with the actual software. It was MS's insistance that they couldn't change the default image, and also had to pay for copies on machines that went out the door w/o Windows installed (remember that one?).

At one time I did indeed have AOL, Netscape, Real and IE installed. Never a single conflict. Try again.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kc77 on 6/24/2008 7:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
When I speak of defaults in relation to the lawsuit I'm speaking about the default Windows image.

quote:
The lawsuits were not frivolous, but had nothing to do with the actual software.
Um, ok if it isn't about installing software, or replacing bundled Microsoft applications then what is about. Stop creating circular arguments...sheesh...

quote:
At one time I did indeed have AOL, Netscape, Real and IE installed. Never a single conflict. Try again.


There's quite a few people that would disagree with you. As for you saying that you never had a single conflict... u know what I'm just going call u lier. There's no debate with this ...the rest of it I'll concede (for whatever you are trying to prove) but Windows not messing with which application opens default files.... is just a big gigantic pile of doggie do.... hell even Vista will... and I thought of you today when Windows XP said this to me "Third party applications are currently running within Internet Explorer which may cause instability. Would you like to remove them?" Give me a break... have an opinion but don't lie..


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By theapparition on 6/25/2008 1:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to have to reply just to defend myself from you calling me a liar.

Unfortunately, that is your only counter argument to try and dis-credit me.

I never had a single issue. Period.

Did Windows IE ever let me know it wasn't set as default, Yep. So did Real. So did AOL. I was able to mangage it with no conflicts. Once something was set, it stayed and Windows didn't overwrite it.

Maybe I just know what I'm doing.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kc77 on 6/25/2008 4:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Um... that's what I'm talking about.... SHEESH... If you set a program to be your default and the next time it opened it would ask you to confirm the change you made after you already set the default would you or would not call that a conflict?


By kc77 on 6/25/2008 5:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and by the way how did you update Windows with a different browser pre-automatic update? The reason why I ask is because Windows 95B/98 requires you to update Windows through the browser... IE to be precise. Seems to me you would have to allow IE to take control in order for you to update it..no??


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By Polynikes on 6/22/2008 6:06:21 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. I don't even want to know how much of the taxpayers' money is being wasted on this crap.


By Machinegear on 6/23/2008 9:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hear, hear!

And another point; the government won't give up until Microsoft is mediocre... er, competitive.


By doug9xx on 6/22/2008 8:58:11 PM , Rating: 3
I've got nothing against Apple being investigated as I think not allowing Mac software on white box PCs is pretty fishy. But the two are unrelated. Not investigating Apple has nothing to do with keeping Microsoft's hands tied. Microsoft is the convicted Monopolist, not Apple. If/when the DOJ brings Apple to court, and wins, Apple too will deserve extra hurdles. Until then, they are not in the same league as Microsoft.

Why do so many people find this concept hard to understand?


By michael2k on 6/22/2008 9:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's because neither Apple nor Google actually abused a monopoly. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly, it's only illegal to abuse it.

For example, Microsoft threatened IBM with an audit over OS/2, with the consequence that they would not allow them to license Windows until they were finished. In essence, they were punishing IBM for trying to compete (thus anticompetitive). Then there was Compaq, which was bundling AOL and Netscape. Microsoft threatened to withhold or raise license fees (I forget, you should look it up and enlighten yourself) unless they stopped, because their Windows license agreement did not allow Compaq to modify the Windows desktop. Thus this was anticompetitive (since Microsoft had MSN and Internet Explorer as the defaults).

If Apple threatened to pull iPods from Walmart because Walmart sold Zunes or music (competing with the iPod and iTunes respectively), that would be anticompetitive.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By AstroCreep on 6/22/2008 10:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm not going to say that Microsoft should not be watched to make sure that regulations be met, but I will agree that they are not the only ones and if they are to be scrutinized, but the companies you mentioned (and many more) should be made to follow the same guidelines.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By michael2k on 6/22/2008 11:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
Why should they follow the same guidelines? The guidelines exist only for monopolists convicted of abusing a monopoly. Neither Apple nor Google have been found to have a monopoly (though they may be close), and neither Apple nor Google have been found to have abused their monopolies in anticompetitive ways.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By theapparition on 6/23/2008 9:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
Really?

Apple is pretty much the monopoly on online purchased music. The format? DRM AAC.

Show me one other device that will play DRM AAC. Several companies have offered it, only to be threatend into lawsuit oblivion. Real started offering DRM AAC, undercutting iTunes, and look what happened.

What store can you legally purchase online music from that will work on your iPod other than iTunes (Assuming DRM'd music, not unprotected). At worst that monopolistic, as best it's illegal tying.

If that's not abuse of a monopolistic position, than I don't know what is.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By michael2k on 6/23/2008 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
Several points: When has Apple abused their monopoly in online music? Have they withheld iPods from Walmart or Amazon for selling competing music? That would be anticompetitive.

And you ask where can you buy music online for the iPod? Magnatunes and Amazon both sell unprotected music, and as long as iPods play ripped CDs then there is nothing "illegal" going on here.

Abuse of monopoly? If they raised the prices of iPods to Walmart or withheld iPods from Amazon. That is "anticompetitive". They aren't stopping either Walmart nor Amazon from selling music for the iPod, so no anti-competitive behavior. Suing Real is "competitive" because they never licensed FairPlay and there is no mandatory licensing.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By theapparition on 6/23/2008 11:42:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Suing Real is "competitive" because they never licensed FairPlay and there is no mandatory licensing.

Hence the problem. Illegal tying at best.

If a consumer has $1000 worth of songs, downloaded from iTunes, what other player can those people install those songs to? None, iPod only. Even if there are better options in the market, the consumer is pretty much forced into staying with the product that they've invested into.

Apple refuses to license FairPlay, which hurts competition. Plain and simple.

While I won't condone MS's strong arm tactics reguarding monopolistic abuse (as you stated, refused to allow images with competing products, etc), the claims that the actual Windows software somehow hurts the competition is just as analagous to how Apple hurts competition with locked in DRM.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By michael2k on 6/23/2008 1:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
That is not true at all. From the very beginning iTunes has allowed you to burn the music to CD, so there was always a transfer mechanism built in.

So, like being "forced to buy CD players", the user has the option to transfer their music from one medium to another.

Apple finally refuses to license FairPlay while promoting DRM free music, which HELPS competition, plain and simple.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By jimbojimbo on 6/23/2008 2:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
But they make it a pain in the ass to get your entire catalog to another MP3 player. Would you burn several thousand songs to CD to get them on a different MP3 player?


By michael2k on 6/23/2008 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that the average iPod only has 27 tracks from the iTunes store, the average user does not have to burn thousands of songs to CD. That means most people would only have to burn a single CD, some people would have to burn a handful, and only a handful of people would need to burn a whole spindle of CDs.

Apple created a solution from the get-go; for most people it works fine. For some people it will be a pain. How is that anti-competitive?


By kelmon on 6/23/2008 4:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
I kinda agree with you, and the EU Competition Minister is due to rule on the iTunes/iPod relationship at some time, so that'll deliver a verdict. However, it does rather dodge the issue that it's the record companies to blame for all this, rather than Apple. Why do we want to see DRM licensed when Apple wants to sell DRM-free media that 3 of the big 4 companies won't let them, but will let Napster and Amazon? Remember, the only reason why FairPlay exists is because the record companies wanted it.


By Haltech on 6/23/2008 3:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
Rule of Thumb: The government dosnt care if your anti-competitive until your a monopoly!


Why cant these pple leave Microsoft alone
By mankopi on 6/22/2008 12:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
a simple question - why wont they leave Microsoft alone? How come Apple, google and the rest get away with anti-competive behaviors but Microsoft keeps getting penalized for the same thing? Why isnt this kind of investigation extended to Apple's itunes?




By kelmon on 6/22/2008 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think the only aspect of that which is valid is the lock-in between the iPod and iTunes Store (specifically, that iTunes Store media can only be played on an iPod). I don't know why the US courts have not investigated this (or if they, why nothing wrong was found) because the EU is looking at this. It'll probably end up with finger pointing to the record companies, who no doubt will be looking very sheepish since they effectively created the monster that they now want to destroy (or, at least, remove their influence). Ultimately, the record companies required Apple to implement DRM, Microsoft won't license their DRM to Apple, so Apple had no choice but to make their own scheme. Whether they should have to license FairPlay system is what needs to be decided. Despite the fact that I'm a Mac and iPod user, I do believe that it should be licensed, or (better) abandoned altogether. However, what the EU competition minister will return with as an answer is anyone's guess...

Finally, let's just note that, in the past, Microsoft were very bad, and that's why they continue to be investigated. A bit like a check-up by their parole officer. At the end of the day, you'll benefit from this so I don't understand why you don't sound supportive, unless you like lock-in.


RE: Why cant these pple leave Microsoft alone
By Belard on 6/22/2008 3:32:16 PM , Rating: 1
To use Windows, you don't need an iPod. IPod hardware is tied to its software iTunes which Apple developed. Many MP3 players have their own custom software for their hardware. Guess what ZUNE uses? Now, Apple even has iTunes available for free download as its own stand alone program.

Problem I have, to get Quicktime, you are bundled to get iTunes. I don't use iTunes, its too bulky for me - so I prefer WinAMP and other programs to play Quicktime.

I'f you've been in the computing world long enough, Microsoft has gotten away with a LOT of things. They have done a lot of double dealing, theft and destruction.

Here is what COULD happen to a degree if MS is allowed to run their course.

In the OLD days of computers, what you got when you bought your PC (DOS. Mac, Apple, Amiga) was an Operating system, a text editor and tools to make the computer work (Format floppies, find files and draw on a crappy paint program - check out MSPaint, still the same lame program since Window 3.1, but that is fine)

What's included with a typical PC today (or required): OS, Firewall, Defender/AntiVirus, Media player, Email and of course a webbrowser. Then with most business requiring MS-Office (for some sort of compatiblity, considering that OFfice2007 is NOT compatible with office2003 100% anyway) the end user must usually get Office as well, AT LEAST MS does have the $100 Home/Student edition! Office used to be a $250~400 package, the $100 home edition should reduce piracy quite a bit.

So, there you are. With a complete system - all your software is Microsoft. And its wrong. When I want to do MS updates, IT MUST BE with IE?! That's bull, it should work with Opera, Firefox - whatever. The Automatic updates don't use a brower... why should the required one be specific? So you have an OS with a very weak firewall, non-standard web browser, bloated media player (Media Player Classic rocks) with an OS you paid $200~400 retail for one computer.

When you install a Linux OS (I don't have Linux on my computers - yet) you can chose your GUI, Browser, Email, firewall and other programs. Of course Open Office is most likely default since its FREE, Powerful, cross-platform compatible (Mac, Windows, Linux, others).

With all that, I'll give MS thumbs up for finally making something like Office2007. OpenOffice is quite close to older MS-Office packages. But for the most part, as much as I dislike Outlook - not much of anyone else GOT THE CONCEPT! Email-contact-Calander all in one, Thunderbird+sunbird is not even close.

MS should get the praises it deserves.

But they also need to be bitch-slapped down for stealing software, anti-competitive practices and they really NEED to be punched in the balls for PRIVACY issues. When they have control of your email, your productivity files, your browsing and media history - then your privacy is violated. But you AGREE to that when you CLICK YES to the EULA... so WE'RE SCREWED.

Did you know, when you agree to the Windows EULA, that you agree to whaever changes MS makes to its EULA contract in the future. You agreed that MS has full rights to ADD, EDIT or remove ANY DATA or CODE from YOUR COMPUTER!

That is why MS is in trouble with the law. And why many people don't like MS. Windows is bloated, its a very messy OS under its shiny surface. Its not at all elegant... but its what most of us use to be compatible.

Funny thou, with the PS3 and XBOX selling so well, the need for the HomePC to be "Windows" becomes less important. Think about it, the XBOX which is a money loss for Microsoft is actually HURTING the PC market LOL!!!


RE: Why cant these pple leave Microsoft alone
By Pottervilla on 6/22/2008 5:46:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To use Windows, you don't need an iPod.
That was never his point.

quote:
In the OLD days of computers,
Do you really want to return to those days?

quote:
Problem I have, to get Quicktime, you are bundled to get iTunes.
Apple does offer quick time separately. They annoy you about once a week to download i-tunes, but that's what program black-lists are for.

quote:
What's included with a typical PC today (or required): ...Defender/AntiVirus
If you trust defender to protect you data, you are in more trouble that I thought.

BTW, I use Office 07, and love it; I've never had any compatibility problems, and Microsoft generously developed a compatibility pack for 03 (so you don't need to remember to save as a .doc). I tried Open Office once, but it was lacking in some very necessary features: namely grammar check.

quote:
When I want to do MS updates, IT MUST BE with IE?!
Mozilla didn't add the necessary components for windows update to work in their browser (it requires the ability to take control of some sensitive files, and is not smart security-wise). As for Opera, etc., do know anyone who uses them on a windows platform on as their default browser? You don't need to update windows through a browser; remember those nasty 'windows has updated: restarting in 10...9...8...' pop-ups?

quote:
When you install a Linux OS (I don't have Linux on my computers - yet)
Been there, done that. Linux couldn't connect to my wireless internet, and before I got my next Newegg.com order in (for a cat6 cable), it completely died. No error message, nothing. When windows dies, it gives you a BSOD that at least has what failed.

quote:
Of course Open Office is most likely default since its FREE, Powerful, cross-platform compatible (Mac, Windows, Linux, others).
I've never known any software that didn't want to be the default. Linux and OO share developers--and besides, they're friends.

quote:
With all that, I'll give MS thumbs up for finally making something like Office2007. OpenOffice is quite close to older MS-Office packages. But for the most part, as much as I dislike Outlook - not much of anyone else GOT THE CONCEPT! Email-contact-Calander all in one, Thunderbird+sunbird is not even close.
I appreciate you giving Microsoft some credit. Office 07 really fixed a lot of interface problems that previous versions had.

quote:
Did you know, when you agree to the Windows EULA, that you agree to whaever changes MS makes to its EULA contract in the future.
That's purely for anti-lawsuit purposes--if people weren't so sue happy, Microsoft wouldn't have been driven to such measures.

quote:
but its what most of us use to be compatible.
Quite a feat, is it not? Maintaining compatibility to literally hundreds of thousands of programs?

I realize your need (and right) to rant, but Microsoft does a lot to be the operating system of choice for you apparently (since I don't think you would install Linux on a mac), for me, and for the world.

Sorry for the length.


By Belard on 6/22/2008 11:03:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
quote: In the OLD days of computers, Do you really want to return to those days?


Somewhat, yes. I loved how the Amigas worked, and what is amazing in a strange way is that a 15~20 year old Amiga CAN use a modern web-browser and work (of course with either 16colors or 256 depending on the model or 24bit with an and-on card) - but of course, its a long dead platform. I find it amazing the amount of people who work hard to continue keeping them running. Mine still works, I think - its been years since I've turned it on. ;) But as a OS, it was a beauty to use. It was fast, easy to use and multi-tasked. It wasn't until Windows95 that PC had multi-tasking abilitys and Win95 SUCKS balls... only thing worse was WindowsMe. AmigaOS didn't do anything you weren't aware of, unlike MS-Windows.

quote:
If you trust defender to protect you data, you are in more trouble that I thought. BTW, I use Office 07, and love it. I tried Open Office once, but it was lacking in some very necessary features: namely grammar check.


Of course, about "Defender" - the point was included weak-ware which has good & bad points. Sure they get these and a wimpy fire-wall, but the end user really NEEDS something better. I've used O2007 a bit, it works pretty good. But I'm still using office2000 because (A) its Paid for (B) it does Everything I need (C) Office2003 is a bit prettier, but adds little - especially since I don't use Outlook (D) I could get the HOME version of Office2007 for $100, but - I have other things to spend money on first. But I'm considering it since *I* don't use Outlook.

quote:
As for Opera, etc., do know anyone who uses them on a windows platform on as their default browser? You don't need to update windows through a browser;


I have replaced IE as my browser since 9.0 has been released and its free. No Ads. I have 20 skins installed, most of them more pro-looking and easier than IE7. (I hate IE7) Opera does some really neat things over IE... give it a try - then Download the skins (Menu: Tools, Apperences), add the FIND on page button to the bottom for finding text, its great. Skins recommened: Lix1.5 and MacOS Grey Native (A mix of IE and MacOS). Many of the people I've shown IE too, have made the switch. Firefox, pretty nice - especially 3.0... but I don't like it enough to replace IE or Firefox. And NO, MS refuses to let other browsers do Downloads. And auto-updates blows, like to have control of what is installed.

quote:
I appreciate you giving Microsoft some credit. Office 07 really fixed a lot of interface problems that previous versions had.


I don't like fanboys... I mean, opinions are fine and all - but give credit where its earned. Office2000 was a nice upgrade over 97/95. XP,2002,2003 = whoopie-do, fine to buy if you need it. Office2007, nice, different and interesting concepts. OpenOffice, a free version of Office2000 - without a PIM. I've told some OO developers YEARS ago that the lack of "outlook" is hurting the OO expansion. Some agreed, but where are they today? With all the talented help that work on OO, the cloeses thing they have is Sunbird? It's something, its free... wait, it doesn't have a contact manager!?! I use a free program called EssentialPIM (not a great name) The Pro version is $40. Oh, and they have a portable version for USB flash keys! That is cool.

Hopefully Windows7 will be smaller, as fast as WindowsXP and work better than the garbage known as "vista" - with the Office2007 group working on W7 - that is a good possibility.

quote:
Quite a feat, is it not? Maintaining compatibility to literally hundreds of thousands of programs?

Not really, if MS made the OS as simple as possible - which means more reliable, faster. Stop making things difficult for developers and the end user - there is no problem of compatiblity. The entire Windows line, since the begining has been FUBAR and it always will be that way for compatiblity reasons.


By TheOneStorm on 6/23/2008 9:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Been there, done that. Linux couldn't connect to my wireless internet, and before I got my next Newegg.com order in (for a cat6 cable), it completely died. No error message, nothing. When windows dies, it gives you a BSOD that at least has what failed.

That sounds like an ID: 10T error if you ask me. More the reason why Linux isn't for everyone.


RE: Why cant these pple leave Microsoft alone
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2008 10:15:29 AM , Rating: 2
With Vista you no longer have to go through the browser to get windows updates so its a mute point.


By jimbojimbo on 6/23/2008 2:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Besides, how much of a hurdle is it to use IE for the updates but use something else for all your day to day browsing? Ooooh, so hard to launch an app for updates. Wait a minute, you'd have to launch something for updates anyway so why not IE? His complaint isn't valid at all.


By kelmon on 6/23/2008 4:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
It should be noted that, unless you are the EU Competition Minister, there's nothing wrong with Microsoft, or anyone else, bundling software with your computer (aside from the fact that a lot of people don't want it). That in itself is not anti-competitive. The anti-competitive aspect is when Microsoft explicitly prevents competitors applications from being used as the default for particular tasks that Microsoft's own products are supplied as. As odd as it may seem, I think we can let the issue of IE being required for Windows Update to slide since that doesn't really count as web browsing; as long as you can use Opera, for example, for normal browsing then I can't see an issue with IE doing software updates.


By TimTheEnchanter25 on 6/23/2008 10:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
Out of all the things about Microsoft that people complain about, this is one of the most retarded complaints.

quote:
The inspection, which now is going on with the new OS focused on four key middleware categories -- e-mail, instant messaging, media playback and web browsing.


Other than IM, those are all very important for 99% of computer users. None of those users are being harmed by using the MS versions instead of their competitors. And MS isn't preventing them from installing something else. Basically the complaint is that these other companies want to steal some of the users that either a) don't know they have other options or b) don't know how to get the ones they've heard of.

I see 2 problems with tring to fix this "problem." First, it makes it more confussing for people without much computer knowledge (they are the majority of computer users). I've talked to several people that actually think the MSN homepage is "the internet."

For example, I'll use my Grandma buying a new pc; instead of just booting up Windows the first time and letting her use the programs she knows, she gets a bunch of choices. She doesn't know that she uses a "web browser" and that it's called "Internet Explorer." All she knows is that the little "e" next to the start menu opens the internet. So, if Windows asks her what web browser she wants and gives her 5 choices, she won't know what to do. Then she would have to pick an IM program, email, and media player that she wouldn't know what they all are. Plus, if people make a bad choice, I don't think it would be easy to switch again if they didn't know what they were doing.

The second problem is adding excess bloat to the OS with programs people don't need. Most people that use firefox, AIM, itunes, etc know how to find and install them. For all the people that don't use them, they don't need them included with the OS. I'm assuming that the solution to the "problem" is installing the options on the hard drive. But, even if it is just on the disc for you to choose, there is only so much room on a DVD and it shouldn't be wasted with things people don't need on there.


By michael2k on 6/23/2008 11:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
Because Microsoft indirectly controls the desktops of 90% of the US/world?

And Apple/Google et al don't get away with anti-competitive behaviors. I don't think you understand what anti-competitive behavior is if you think they are getting away with it.

Microsoft controls Windows. They use Windows monopoly to gain an advantage in IE and AOL. They deny Compaq the ability to bundle Netscape or AOL by withholding Windows licenses. That is anticompetitive.

Apple controls iPods; they do not use the iPod to prevent competition in a different market in order to control it. They did not do so with iPhones, for example, nor music stores. Amazon was allowed to continue selling iPods while running their own MP3 music store. Nor did they stop Walmart from selling iPod while selling Zunes and CDs.

Google controls Search; they do not use Search to prevent competition in a different market, such as email or pictures. Where have they hobbled Yahoo or Microsoft or anyone else from creating a search engine, or online services?

Apple's iTunes is free and clear because it doesn't force you to only use DRMed music to load up your iPod. You are free to use CDs, downloaded MP3s, and other unprotected MP4s to load up your iPod.


By Solandri on 6/23/2008 12:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a simple question - why wont they leave Microsoft alone? How come Apple, google and the rest get away with anti-competive behaviors but Microsoft keeps getting penalized for the same thing? Why isnt this kind of investigation extended to Apple's itunes?

Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The article doesn't really make this clear. In 2000 Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly. When the article says they settled with the DOJ in 2001, it means they negotiated terms of settlement with the DOJ (a consent decree) rather than risk the DOJ coming up with its own terms and possibly having the court grant them. Those negotiated terms are what lets the government meddle with Microsoft in this manner.

The same thing happened with IBM back in the 1950s. At the time they did really crappy stuff like charge you $1 million/yr to lease hardware which really only cost them $100k, required you to have an expensive service contract if you wanted to lease their hardware, or deliberately crippled their hardware with a jumper and sent a serviceman out to "upgrade" your system by removing the jumper if you paid lots of $$$.

After they were convicted of being a monopoly they submitted to a consent decree which forced them to sell hardware instead of only lease it, and to spin off service to a different department which got no favors from the hardware side of their business. This is partially the reason Microsoft rose to prominence - IBM decided to go with a third party operating system in their original PC instead of brewing their own, since software was frequently upgraded and said upgrades could be interpreted as a service.

Those of us old enough to remember all this mostly feel there's some karmaic justice in keeping Microsoft under the government's boot in this manner. Microsoft's initial monopoly trial and conviction was in 1997. If you ever wondered why you can screw up Windows so badly by visiting a malware site with IE, this is why - Microsoft linked IE with Windows deeply at the OS level to give it a competitive advantage over Netscape. The DOJ argued (rightly IMHO) that this was anti-competitive, and that Microsoft should be forced to decouple IE from Windows.

Unfortunately, the punishment from this initial consent decree back in '97 was mostly negated by an incompetent DOJ. It required Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from new sales of Windows, but specified Windows 95. When Microsoft rolled out Windows 98, they went right back to bundling it, thumbing their noses at the government and industry the entire time. That's what eventually led to their big conviction in 2000 (by which time Netscape had died due to IE's bundling), and their current consent decree. So you will excuse me if I don't cry a river that Microsoft is suffering unfairly.


What About Privacy?
By KakarotUSMC on 6/22/2008 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 3
After the anti-competitive oversight, what about privacy? Will they force Microsoft to tell its customers when Windows 7 is phoning home?

Also, will the Windows 7 EULA be written in such a way that the average user (1) can understand it and (2) doesn't need 3 hours to read through the end?

I'm all for spending my tax dollars on this type of oversight if it means my concerns as a private citizen are being acknowledged.




RE: What About Privacy?
By wordsworm on 6/22/2008 12:03:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
After the anti-competitive oversight, what about privacy? Will they force Microsoft to tell its customers when Windows 7 is phoning home?


I wouldn't be surprised to see code included that allows the government to infiltrate your computer.

As for spending your tax dollars on 'oversight,' I'm sure MS is having to pay for it, if they haven't paid for it already. Didn't they have to pay some fines when this whole thing started?


RE: What About Privacy?
By nilepez on 6/22/2008 12:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
All Eula's are complicated. Almost nobody reads them, and it's not known that they'd hold up in court. Anyway you look at it, if Justice wants to look at EULAs, that's fine, but it shouldn't be part of the MS issue, because they're just as hard to follow in WOW, EQ, Crysis, or virtually any other commercial S/W.


RE: What About Privacy?
By TreeLuvBurdpu on 6/22/2008 2:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the oversight is intended to remove all flaws and inconveniences in Windows. We probably don't have enough tax dollars to empower the government to do that. They are notoriously poor at developing software (how many of you use ADA?)


RE: What About Privacy?
By KakarotUSMC on 6/22/2008 7:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
HA! I used Ada and AdaSAGE when I was younger. That is so funny.

Although Ada is used in many missile guidance systems... hmm.


RE: What About Privacy?
By Haltech on 6/23/2008 3:03:16 AM , Rating: 2
what were you designing???? :)


RE: What About Privacy?
By Donkey2008 on 6/23/2008 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm all for spending my tax dollars on this type of oversight if it means my concerns as a private citizen are being acknowledged."

LOL. The feds are more than likely reviewing the Windows code to make sure it is "accessible" to any law enforcement if need be. Remember, post-9/11 legislation taught us that American citizens have the right to privacy from everyone except the federal government. They are just making sure that MS is still a "team player".

(waves American flag around)


I would be more concerned....
By Acanthus on 6/22/2008 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
With windows 7 having a lot the features that were promised in Vista that were dropped.

*cough* WinFS *cough*

And where was the DoJ on the whole DX10 for vista only issue?

(im a heavy vista user)




RE: I would be more concerned....
By akugami on 6/22/2008 12:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a programmer but AFAIK, DX10 didn't purposefully lock anyone into anything. You are still free to use DX9 even on Vista or just stick with the much wider audience available and make your apps XP only.

What the DoJ is looking at is anti-competitive locking in of common apps to MS only apps or having API's that can do things with the OS that would be otherwise difficult to near impossible for 3rd party vendors.

For instance, making Windows Explorer searches using only Windows Live and not being able to change it to Google or Yahoo. Or having a default web browser of Internet Explorer and then tying it into their OS (when it's not really needed) to kill competitor's web browsers. Yet another example would be those custom API's that are used to develop MS only apps while other developers are left hanging.

In the case of Vista and DX10, you are still free to use OpenGL which from my casual researching (I'm not a programmer) seems just as capable as DX10 on Vista. Even if OpenGl was severely cripped so long as the DX10 API's that MS distributes is the same as those they use internally then everything is fine.


RE: I would be more concerned....
By blaster5k on 6/22/2008 12:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't really see why not allowing other search engines or whatever is a problem. If Microsoft chooses to do that, it puts them in a bad place. If other people have better offerings (and people NEED the added power), they will start integrating them into other operating systems. More and more people will start moving that direction, more work will be done on other OSs to make them even better, and Microsoft would lose money. It's not really in their best interest to do something like that -- anti-trust nonsense or not.


RE: I would be more concerned....
By BansheeX on 6/23/2008 1:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, you people are getting it. The entire big brother argument depends on the assertion that a free market monopoly can suddenly start doing imposing limitations against consumer demand and not incur losses in marketshare. MS can't start doing things people hate and force them to buy it. Look at all the people refusing to buy Vista. Look at Dell charging fees to drop Vista, and people flocking from Dell to other OEMs. You... have... freedom. The end. Just keep every company far away from subsidies and special privilege tax breaks and we'll have a fair playing field for small business.


RE: I would be more concerned....
By djc208 on 6/23/2008 7:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be more concerned that the Government will have any say in Windows at all. It's not like they have a wonderful track record for being on time, under budget, or producing quality products.

What scares me is that we have an organization that destroyed Social Security, can't balance their checkbook, and spent more time on what baseball players were using steroids than how to fix the healthcare system, trying to "improve" Windows 7 to benefit consumers and MS's competition. Wonder how much they "helped" already with Vista?


Anyone aware of when the patent for windows?
By SunAngel on 6/22/2008 11:09:23 AM , Rating: 1
I suspect once the patent is over we can have generic versions of windows that are mightier than windows itself and cheaper.




RE: Anyone aware of when the patent for windows?
By cmdrdredd on 6/22/2008 1:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I don't know about the patent but I've only been using Vista for about a year. And now they expect me to pony up another $400 for another OS. Screw that.

That is, if they try to charge outrageous amounts like that for it.


By TreeLuvBurdpu on 6/22/2008 2:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well you can keep using your existing system. Or would you like them to develop a new one for free? How would you expect them to pay their developers? This was the old model of financing software development. Then Microsoft charged for new versions and people called it the "Microsoft Tax". Funny thing is now people want to buy software as a service. Sun and others have promoted "the network is the computer" for years. When you stop paying them your system stops working. At least in your case you still have what you paid for.


By Rebel44 on 6/22/2008 5:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody forced you to pay 400$ for Windows - I bought Vista HP 64bit OEM for 110$ :)


By djc208 on 6/23/2008 7:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think computer code falls under a patent. The overall design or certain methods of performance may (i.e. Apple's Multi-touch interface could be, but the code to do it couldn't) but as seen by OSX, Linux, Palm, etc. MS doesn't hold the patent on operating systems.

I'm pretty sure computer code falls under copywrite law, in which case there's little hope since copywrite law protects content MUCH longer than patents do.


I'm not in favor of this
By amanojaku on 6/22/2008 2:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
I have a history of disliking MS, but what the DOJTC is doing strikes me as anti-American.

First, there's the issue of innocent until proven guilty. Spying on a company implies that the government suspects wrongdoing NOW . Is it true that MS' past dictates its behavior in the future? If that's the case, anyone who's in jail is automatically going to commit crimes in the future. Why bother "investigating" MS, then? Just close the "evil" company down, and kill all convicts, too.

Second, I don't think it's necessary to scan Windows 7 code, yet. It would be simple to test the final product for software incompatibilities, and it would be damn obvious if MS is including software that violates anti-trust statutes. If any issues are found I think that's the point when the DOJTC should investigate code and issue a freeze before the product reaches the market. Considering the crappy state of security MS faces a greater risk of loosing its code to the world because an outsider has access.

Finally, there's no guarantee that anything found in the code is purposely malicious. There could be some bad programming; for all of MS' money and talent it still has legacy crap in its current systems. Some of that legacy crap could spill over to Windows 7 in spite of the claims of a rewrite, and that could be the cause of middleware incompatibilities.

I'm playing devil's advocate; I don't believe for one second that MS wants the world to use anything but MS products, and I believe MS would try to do anything to guarantee its control over the world's software. Still, as a future business owner I have to worry about the government's power and its impact on my business.




RE: I'm not in favor of this
By caqde on 6/22/2008 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
It is called making sure they stay on the right track, or for that matter making them understand what the right track is.

quote:
Second, I don't think it's necessary to scan Windows 7 code, yet.


I don't want the DOJ going over millions if not billions of lines of code at the last minute. If they find something. Understand this isn't some paltry small application this is an OS with bundled software that many software developers use parts of to make their software work. Doing things this way they are likely to see the code that is being changed and catch the issues before the issue becomes closely tied to the operation of a system.

Trust me as a software developer. You do not want to scan someone's finished code to look for issues. Especially something of this size. Small applications are bad enough. Looking through a huge mostly(I hope) documented code is going to be a nightmare.

quote:
Still, as a future business owner I have to worry about the government's power and its impact on my business.


As far as being a business owner. Unless you are planning to make something that is as important to the world as Windows I don't think you are going to need to worry about the government stepping in and watching your every move. I mean heck how many single companies have as much power over your lives as Microsoft. . . . . . . None. Period. The other major power holders have companies that can step in to take over if they act up and these competitors are likely to have similar market share.


RE: I'm not in favor of this
By kelmon on 6/23/2008 5:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't believe for one second that MS wants the world to use anything but MS products


History, unfortunately, has proven differently, as the original investigation into Windows by the US government demonstrated. This is why the continued investigation is required - to ensure that Microsoft continues to comply with the original judgement. Let's be honest here, which business would rather that some customers used its competitors products? Microsoft are in this position because not only did they want customers to use their own products, but they made it as difficult as possible for customers to use alternatives. It will be interesting to see what the judgement is passed from the current investigation into WordPerfect vs. MS Word - did Microsoft purposely withhold information about Windows 95 from WordPerfect to prevent it being a competitor to MS Word? Time will tell.

Finally, remember that what the Department of Justice is doing is protecting you from other Americans that wanted (past tense because I'm feeling generous today) to control what you could or could not do on your computer. That's not anti-American, that's doing their job and you'll be better off for them doing it.


RE: I'm not in favor of this
By theapparition on 6/23/2008 9:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, there's the issue of innocent until proven guilty.

It is highly worth noting, that in the EU, laws have been changed such that companies are "guilty until proven innocent". I couldn't make this up if I wanted to.

For example, if a piece of machinery explodes and kills someone, the burden of proof is now on the company to prove that it's machine was safe. Otherwise, a default judgement will be filed and the company held liable for wrongdoing.

No wonder more and more companies are hesitant to do business in the EU.


Timeline
By crystal clear on 6/22/2008 12:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft handed over the code and copies of Windows 7 in its current state to Department of Justice Technical Committee (TC) members to comb for possible antitrust violations.


Now what is the timeline for this T.C. to finish its work & give its recommendations.

Then what is the timeline until all their recommendation are implemented.

Given Microsoft's poor track record to deliver their products on time,expect delays way beyond 2009.

Microsoft should know from their experience with VISTA-

"You never get a second chance to make a good first impression."


As for Windows 7 -

"Nothing comes easy that is well done."




RE: Timeline
By multivirtual on 6/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Timeline
By Icelight on 6/23/2008 9:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's a terrible day when a successful company can use their generated revenue to purchase products.


RE: Timeline
By multivirtual on 6/23/2008 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Tell it to the DOJ, bud.

It's not that MS buys other people's products. The point is that there's a distinct lack of innovation happening in Redmond. Microsoft feels compelled to be dominant in every possible arena, and so when it sees a new market that it feels it needs to be in, it simply BUYS its way into a market. When that fails to give it the desired market position, it moves to Plan B. And that's where the DOJ comes in.


Same crap different day
By stimudent on 6/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Same crap different day
By Expunged on 6/22/2008 5:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Love how you get voted down for saying something that challenges the ethics of Microsoft and/or Intel at DT. I think your analysis could be expanded to cover a large number of businesses thought. The number of unethical business moves made every day by a plethora of companies would astound most people.


RE: Same crap different day
By amanojaku on 6/22/2008 5:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
The post from stimudent was voted down because this isn't a new violation by MS. This is punishment for past behavior in previous Windows Operating Systems and has nothing to do with what is in Windows 7. The DOJTC wants to curb any issues before they happen, which is Big Brother-ish.


Hurray!
By MBlueD on 6/22/2008 5:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is entirely possible that its staff will have to make major changes to the code of Windows 7 and IE 8 to make them acceptable to the TC.


Rejoice, for Windows 7 is going to be designed by a COMMITTEE!




RE: Hurray!
By Icelight on 6/23/2008 9:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, it worked well for all those programming languages designed-by-committee back in the 70s/80s!

I mean, everyone still uses ADA. Right?


Big brother is watching Microsoft
By Optimizer on 6/24/2008 10:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
But who is watching Big Brother?




By michael2k on 6/24/2008 12:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
We are. At least, we're supposed to.


Headline Picture...
By maverick85wd on 6/22/2008 6:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
the Ballmer pictures always make me laugh, this one is no exception.

quote:
"There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge"


nice work




poor microsoft
By NICOXIS on 6/22/2008 6:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine someone coming into your computer and watching you every day as you go about your business, looking through your stuff, waiting for you to make just about anything. This unpleasant sounding scenario is analogous to what users are facing as everything is being reviewed by Microsoft.




By lukasbradley on 6/22/2008 8:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine someone coming into your room and watching you every day as you go about your business, looking through your stuff, waiting for you to make a mistake.


Mom, stop it. I'm 34 years old.




MSN Messenger
By AnnihilatorX on 6/22/2008 8:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
MSN Messenger is now known as Windows Live Messenger by the way, compared to Windows Messenger which was tied into the OS.




Double standards
By crystal clear on 6/23/2008 7:36:39 AM , Rating: 2
The people who accuse & fine Microsoft for anticompetitive antitrust violations like the E.U. are themselves guilty for not promting free & fair competition.

Now read this-

The European Commission is still choosing Microsoft over open source despite wanting to promote competition.

BRUSSELS (Reuters)—The European Commission, a thorn in Microsoft's side for its antitrust campaigns against the software giant, is falling short in its own internal attempt to promote more competition in the technology sector.

The European Union executive has so far not followed its own policy that it purchase office software and operating systems with open standards as well as Microsoft products.





only if...
By swizeus on 6/23/2008 9:38:38 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft have had a better compatibility with vista....




Mel Brooks
By OxBow on 6/23/2008 10:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
Why do Ballmer's public appearances seem like they were choreographed by Mel Brooks?




6 days to go before END OF XP
By Belard on 6/25/2008 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's not said on Daily Tech that I've seen.

When the June 30th deadline comes and goes, Microsoft is forcing ALL retailers to pull Windows XP off the store shelves, online order cataloges, etc.

They are to ship these legit copies of XP back to Microsoft to be DESTORYED! No, not just letting supplies dry up - but to actually remove and destory the #2 selling OS (#1 selling if more consumers had a choice) in the world the past year... about 70million copies, vs 120million for Vista, but not including about 20% of Vista users upgrading to XP afterwards.

Business are not dealing with Vista, its not worth the headache or the expense.

My guess, if Windows7 is actually stream-lined a bit (not counting on the HEAVY DRM to be removed), then when it comes out in 2009 that most new PCs will have quad-cores to deal with it. At the rate AMD and Intel are going, Quad Cores will be about $100 or less. Both already have such CPUs for just under $200.

So throw a lot of CPU horse power at the problem?




Solving the OS issue
By rcc on 6/27/2008 2:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
If people really want to solve the OS issue. They need to get the the collective software companies to come up with a spec and tell the OS developers that this is how we are going to interface. Period..

This creates a standard interface that anyone can write software to, or write an OS to comply with. It puts the OS companies on the level of a Utility power provider, as long as you create a power plant that outputs to this spec, you can play the power game. If not, no one is going to use your output.

Not that this is likely to happen, for a number of reasons. Not least of which would be to get a committee to agree and be able to define such a specification. But it solves the problem neatly. And, any such spec would be a compromise, which would inevitably comsume RAM and processor cycles.

It would still be an immense task to enter the OS market. But it's also an immense task to enter the Aircraft Carrier building market. Joe's Welding Shop is never going to get there. Neither will a 2 man software development firm be able to write a successful OS.




This is pretty obvious, but...
By Motoman on 6/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By nosfe on 6/22/2008 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 4
a better idea would be to give us control over the apps/drivers that are installed by default that way beginners will have the same old windows experience while the more advanced users get to tweak the OS at install to our hearts content; sure there is nlite but that doesn't mean that MS couldn't/shouldn't give us more control over the installation process


By TreeLuvBurdpu on 6/22/2008 2:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
The best way to do this is to purchase a different operating system that does have that capability. The worst way to do this is to have bureaucrats in Washington make decisions on the features which can be allowed and how it should be implemented and write that into a law. I think it is woefully naive to think that more government intervention by the US or the EU will have an upside. Now when we see incompatibility of features, disconnectedness of data and system disintegration we can point at Washington and Brussels as well as Redmond.


RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By caqde on 6/22/2008 2:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well we have a few issues here. IE and WMP. Some web browsers require IE (Skinned Browsers with plug-ins), not to mention quite of few applications require IE for built-in web capabilities. With WMP again we run in to application issues where applications use part of WMP to run media inside their applications.

I believe as long as the core DLL's of these applications are accessible these issues won't show up, but if the applications are completely gone users will run into compatibility issues where they will need these applications installed to fix the issue.


RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By Expunged on 6/22/2008 4:52:40 PM , Rating: 1
Here's a thought, how about Microsoft take a look at the linux model and learn from it instead of trying to claim that they are the founders of all computer operating systems and sueing linux development corporations. Most of the linux installers have for years had the base system packages that they install and then the ability to select each and every little package that you might possibly want to install with a little description of what each does.

Maybe Microsoft could develop Windows 7 with a better install process or enhance their postinstall to include a product selection tool that would allow anybody to install anything they wanted. Follow Motoman's suggestion as to give us just an OS, those of us who want to pick whatever we wish, let us. Return us to the good old days where you could actually remove Internet Explorer without destroying your OS, where you had to install WMP if you wanted it, and where the base OS install didn't take 5 gigs. Instead of the wonderful "You've finished installing Windows XP, do you want to register now", how about "You've finished installing Windows 7, what additional programs would you be interested in?". Have a list that OEMs can add any software to they wish, if Dell want's to make Firefox an option, let them, and have it all out there in the open for the average Best Buy computer purchaser to choose.

Such a simple solution you would think would be obvious to Microsoft, it addresses the enthusiasts who don't want a bloatware OS while appeasing the goverment who doesn't want anti competition. While it might cut into their market share, you can bet Microsoft would group their products at the top, or at least put in the description "The world's most popular web browser" and "The media player you've come to trust", the same kind of slogans the used car guys get away with. Give Motoguy a cookie because this idea has some merrit, maybe one of those source code auditors will happen to take a look at these posts and give it some thought.


By The Sword 88 on 6/22/2008 6:20:22 PM , Rating: 1
Why wpuld MS learn from linux in this regard? How many non-tech people do you know who want to have to go through additional hassle to install their OS? Hell how many of them even want to install an OS instead of just using whatever hp/dell installs for them?

Sure for some users that would be great but I really dont think MS cares about the tiny fraction of users who would only buy windows if it had that feature, they want to sell their product to the most people possible adn being able to slectively install things is not high up on most people's prioroity list. Most of thos epeople probably install the most useful piece of software ever: Google toolbar, so I doubt they want th eotpion no tto install windows media player or internet explorer


By amandahugnkiss on 6/22/2008 6:06:58 PM , Rating: 1
hopefully they'll leave out the TCP stack too! No browser, no media player, and no way to go download your favorite alternative :)


RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By Motoman on 6/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By Aloonatic on 6/23/2008 6:07:06 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing I can think of is the annoying (and a little childish) use of M$ instead of Ms??? It mite have been big and clever the first time someone did that but now it's not really. Sorry.

I was going to write something pretty similar, but instead of offering free downloads, MS should charge less for the bare OS and then make people pay for the add-ons. This is possible now as IE isn't required for updates.

I'm not sure how people would find the options though. Maybe a MS shop included in the control panel? But then they would have to include competitors products too? All rather confusing perhaps?

Then they could have a Home-Simple edition which has IE7 and WMP etc included which costs a little more but at least gives people the choice?

Many people (such as my parents) really don't give a fig about Firefox Vs Opera Vs IE7 etc and just want something that works.


RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By Motoman on 6/23/2008 11:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
...the M$? You're kidding me...to be honest, I've just been doing it for so long that I don't even think about it anymore...

Granted that the precedent has been set that web browsers are free, media players are free, etc. I don't think that anyone would be open to paying for any of that stuff.

And I don't think that a "MS" (sigh) shop in Windows would need to offer competing options at all - this is MS stuff, and if you want something else, go find it on your own. Because you know the minute they did that Mozilla et al would be falling over themselves to make it brain-dead easy for anyone to find and install their stuff - even grandma.

And you're right...the vast majority of people don't care - if the PC came with IE on it, then that's what they use for web browsing...just the thought of trying something else is downright scary ("...but, are you sure Firefox is compatible with Dell? I don't think we should try...it's fine. I think it would invalidate my warranty...").

...I recall the conversation I had with an older gent upon setting up his machine with IE and Netscape back in the day..."so, try each browser out and just decide which one you like better." "So I have 2 internets?" "No, no, there's only one internet, but you have 2 browsers..." "But I'm only paying AOL for one internet...I can't afford two..." "No, see, there's only one internet and AOL isn't going to..." "I don't understand this. I only want one internet and I don't want to pay for 2." "<deletes IE icon> OK, you only have one."


By Aloonatic on 6/25/2008 4:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
I think the MS shop issue that I "invented" pretty well sums up the rock and hard place situation that MS is in.

They are the only OS in town, and as part of that they included browsers and media players because they always have, when there was little competition worthy of note as far as the masses were concerned.

They have carried on offering browsers and media players for "free" but, of course, everything has a cost, apart from Firefox, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic....

Taking them out then raises the problem (as someone else pointed out) of how you download another browser (for example) without IE?

The MS shop idea was meant as a simple way to get the MS "extras" and make people pay for them if that's what the EU and such mean by competition, but then they would complain that there is no mechanism for buying the competitors products.

Essentially, I'm not really sure what MS are meant to do.

They have to behave responsibly (because we are all responsible global citizens now apparently? :-s ) and provide a platform for people to compete against them whilst not competing too well because if they do they are stifling the competition that is the competition and stops competitors competition against the competition who are competing against MS and the competitions and..... :-s

Oh frak it, I don't know :-s

All I do know is that I bye-pass IE7 and outlook/mail and use Firefox and Thunderbird and Media Player Classic abd don't really seem to have too many problems.

A copy of Vista/XP without IE7 and outlook and Media Player wouldn't cost that much less?

Oh, I use MP11 as a DHCP server for my PS3 as it seems to be the most reliable and easy to use product that I can find after the MP4 reg changes of course.


RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By Belard on 6/25/2008 2:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps its childish to get ones pantied in a bind becomes someone dares refer to MS as "M$"? All it takes is a few MS employees to vote someone down for that.


RE: This is pretty obvious, but...
By 306maxi on 6/30/2008 6:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
It's just childish and it's very old now.....


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki