Linked by Adam S on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 14:50 UTC
Windows According to Microsoft beat writer Mary Jo Foley, word is that "Windows 7's mail, photo-management and movie-maker subsystems applets are all being replaced by optionally installable Windows Live equivalents." To many, replacing subsystems with services is a good thing. But what will the self-professed geeks think? Cnet seems to think that "Windows 7 must appeal to geeks--or else!"
Order by: Score:
Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 15:41 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

The problem here is the real tie-ins that many advanced users would want to see optionally installable (internet explorer being the biggie) would never move that way - they're far too integrated into the OS (and for intentional reasons too - as noted with the whole legal battle regarding IE vs Netscape).

Plus I'd be interested to see just how removed these optional components are when they're not installed. To use MS Office as an example: In the past, even when the optional components weren't installed, they'd often still be referenced within whichever Office application said component uses. Thus the users see a menu item, they can still click it, and then get greeted with a message like this:
"x is not currently installed. Please insert Office n CD"

Edited 2008-09-23 15:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Laurence
by Adam S on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 16:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Things like the help engine, and MANY components in popular apps, reference IE. Quickbooks won't install unless you have IE AND FLASH!

You can't pull IE from Windows. But things like Windows Mail, Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, Messenger, etc should be easy to strip out.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Things like the help engine, and MANY components in popular apps, reference IE. Quickbooks won't install unless you have IE AND FLASH!

You can't pull IE from Windows. But things like Windows Mail, Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, Messenger, etc should be easy to strip out.


I know that - I even said that (albeit in a more direct way):
they're far too integrated into the OS


My point was some of the crap that drive people away from windows is some of the crap that's so far burried into the OS that it simply can't be removed (for the same reasons you reitterested yourself)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by kaiwai on Wed 24th Sep 2008 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Things like the help engine, and MANY components in popular apps, reference IE. Quickbooks won't install unless you have IE AND FLASH!

You can't pull IE from Windows. But things like Windows Mail, Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, Messenger, etc should be easy to strip out.


You realise that there are a large number of applications that use Mediaplayer as part of their application. When you mean, "I'm want it removed" - do you mean just the shell but the WHOLE lot - in the case of the media player, do you also want the CODEC's removed as well - which therefore means that we'll have vendors having to ship, most likely, out of date versions of mediaplayer with their software because the vendor can't be certain that the media player will even be installed.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by BrendaEM
by BrendaEM on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 16:21 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

If the form of the bloat really as important as the volume of it? If MS keeps on their trend the average use will need a super computer to check their mail.

The only compelling reasons to move from XP up MS's tech-tree are Directx for games, and the artificial restrictions they put on BluRay's DRM.

I seriously doubt that MS is capable of making a good product, at this point.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by BrendaEM
by BluenoseJake on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 16:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by BrendaEM"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"The only compelling reasons to move from XP up MS's tech-tree are Directx for games, and the artificial restrictions they put on BluRay's DRM."

MS didn't put the restrictions there because they wanted too, they put them there because if you want to support BlueRay, and not get slapped with a huge DMCA lawsuit, the only way is to play ball.

Do you really think MS wanted to take the time to put all that crap in there when they had more important stuff to do (like WinFS)? I don't think so.

Edited 2008-09-23 16:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by BrendaEM
by lemur2 on Wed 24th Sep 2008 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by BrendaEM"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The only compelling reasons to move from XP up MS's tech-tree are Directx for games, and the artificial restrictions they put on BluRay's DRM." MS didn't put the restrictions there because they wanted too, they put them there because if you want to support BlueRay, and not get slapped with a huge DMCA lawsuit, the only way is to play ball. Do you really think MS wanted to take the time to put all that crap in there when they had more important stuff to do (like WinFS)? I don't think so.


If you are to claim that DRM is only in Vista in order to support playing BluRay movies, please note that there are at least six versions of Vista, some of which claim to be targetted for business use.

Most business-use PCs will not be used for playing BluRay movies.

So where, pray tell, is the business-use version of Vista that I can buy which does not have the DRM for BluRay movies embedded?

Where is the version of Vista which does not have the DRM for BluRay movies embedded that I can buy for my PC which does not have a BluRay drive?

If there is no such version, then your DRM argument simply doesn't wash.

Edited 2008-09-24 02:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by BrendaEM
by kaiwai on Wed 24th Sep 2008 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BrendaEM"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are to claim that DRM is only in Vista in order to support playing BluRay movies, please note that there are at least six versions of Vista, some of which claim to be targetted for business use.


Excuse me, but the only one relevant to the consumers are Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate. Considering that all of them are the same binaries; the only difference being the key used unlocks more features - I don't know why you're making this conclusion that there are six different versions, as if there were six distinctly different and incompatible versions of Windows out there.

Btw, there is only one version for Business, its called *gasp* Windows Vista Business.

Most business-use PCs will not be used for playing BluRay movies.


And what is the purpose of that statement. Yes, we know that businesses don't use BluRay, but what relevance is it to the conversation?

So where, pray tell, is the business-use version of Vista that I can buy which does not have the DRM for BluRay movies embedded?


Considering that SecurePath adds no overhead to the operating system itself (and that person from New Zealand has been refuted so many times, its the stuff of legends) - again, I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. You seem to be putting random statements out there without any context.

Where is the version of Vista which does not have the DRM for BluRay movies embedded that I can buy for my PC which does not have a BluRay drive?


Does it even matter. SecurePath is there, it adds no overhead, if you have no bluray drive, it isn't going to be in use. Again, where are you going with this?

Btw, learn what DRM is versus securepath.

If there is no such version, then your DRM argument simply doesn't wash.


Again, you make no sense what so ever.

Edited 2008-09-24 04:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by BrendaEM
by BluenoseJake on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BrendaEM"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

uh, there is drm in all OS's, without it, you can't play dvds. Even linux needs libraries to do it. DVDs don't decrypt themselves.

The only difference between Vista and XPs DRM is securepath, which is needed to play BlueRay disks.

If you think that only Vista Home or Ultimate can play BlueRay, you are very misinformed. Do your homework before posting please.

Reply Score: 2

Subsystems?
by tamlin on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 16:34 UTC
tamlin
Member since:
2006-06-18

NT (3.51 - 6 and beyond) has got, to my knowledge, just three subsystems:
- Win32
- OS/2 1.x
- POSIX (some really ancient version)

Is someone trying to tell me Microsoft added a *moviemaker* and other crap as subsystems, that they now (if so, rightfully!) are to remove?! (though making such obvious *apps* into services seems like a bonehead idea - actually, I'd call it idiotic).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Subsystems?
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 19:38 UTC in reply to "Subsystems?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I think it's just a use of the wrong word by the journalists. It's hard to call the Photogallery a 'Subsystem' with a straight face. It's just a program.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Subsystems?
by sbergman27 on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Subsystems?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

It's hard to call the Photogallery a 'Subsystem' with a straight face. It's just a program.

That's what we said about their web browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Subsystems?
by benhonghu on Wed 24th Sep 2008 14:32 UTC in reply to "Subsystems?"
benhonghu Member since:
2008-08-24

That's exactly what was in my mind when I read the title the first time. Leveraging protected subsystems to user mode? I don't think so hehe.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Subsystems?
by dnstest on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:42 UTC in reply to "Subsystems?"
dnstest Member since:
2006-06-11

How many times will OSNews link to a Mary Jo Foley article? Don't we all know by now that she absolutely does not know what she is talking about. She eats bullshite fed to her by MS marketing all the time! A serious tech website should never link to Mary Jo Foley...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Subsystems?
by sbergman27 on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Subsystems?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

How many times will OSNews link to a Mary Jo Foley article? Don't we all know by now that she absolutely does not know what she is talking about.

I've always rather liked her articles. She reports on Microsoft, does it with a critical eye, but avoids going over the line and becoming a "Microsoft Basher". After all, there's plenty of low hanging fruit on that tree.

From Mary Jo in the comments on the story:

"""
You're right: Subsystems is a bad word choice on my part. I will replace it in the post. As far as further clarification of which bundled apps get replaced, so far I have none, as the Windows 7 team is not talking about the product -- at least not to me -- beyond what is being said in the "Engineering 7" blog. MJ
"""

Edited 2008-09-24 17:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Subsystems?
by dnstest on Thu 25th Sep 2008 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Subsystems?"
dnstest Member since:
2006-06-11

"""
You're right: Subsystems is a bad word choice on my part. I will replace it in the post. As far as further clarification of which bundled apps get replaced, so far I have none, as the Windows 7 team is not talking about the product -- at least not to me -- beyond what is being said in the "Engineering 7" blog. MJ
"""

Sorry, but it still stands that she doesn't know what she is talking about. She wouldn't have made that mistake if she knew what she was talking about, others obviously had to correct her. I never said she was biased, and I use MS software every day, so I am not bashing MS. Should I not expect a certain level of quality and accuracy in technology journalism?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by phanboy_iv
by phanboy_iv on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 16:42 UTC
phanboy_iv
Member since:
2007-09-25

They should add "app compatibility" to that list of optional services. That feature has become less and less helpful over time, to the point where it's almost useless in Vista, and the need for it has almost been obviated by VirtualPC.

Reply Score: 1

Good News for the most part.
by BigDaddy on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 18:40 UTC
BigDaddy
Member since:
2006-08-10

I don't use Windows anymore, but this is welcome new all the same. The PC's that I administer for friends and family are all Windows machines. I can safely say that none of them use the Windows branded "extras'. They take up space on an already cluttered menu and they are all over the place in context menu's. Plus they only perpetuate the propreitary codec lock in. Movie Maker on XP would only allow exporting to WMV I think. I have not tried the one on Vista. Nor any of the other Windows branded apps.

I seriously doubt that Windows Media Player will be unbundled though. There is too much lock-in there for Microsoft to risk people trying other (arguably) software. Too bad they can't expand this to all that horrid OEM software. (Thank goodness for PC-Decrapifier.) Another thing about the Windows branded apps is they all advertise themselves or sell advertising space. I sure don't miss that aspect of Windows.

This is not to say that Windows is the only one to include more software than people need. Even on Kubuntu (my OS of choice) there is a ton of software than I do not want that comes installed by default. I remember back in 2002 on Mandrake they gave you an option of what apps to install during the intial installation. I would love to have a Debian based distro that had all the KDE GUI configuration applications, but none of the fluff. If you do uninstall some of them, you get that scary warning that doing so may make upgrading difficult or impossible. hasn't happened to me because I keep my /home on a different partition and I reinstall the entire OS a few months after the upgrade.

Reply Score: 1

dubbeljoetieëf
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 21:57 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

My god, this sucks balls. The Windows Live version of mail was an epic fail, and I actually happen to REALLY like Vista's Mail application.

Bah.

Reply Score: 1

RE: dubbeljoetieëf
by helf on Wed 24th Sep 2008 05:56 UTC in reply to "dubbeljoetieëf"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

ugh, I've had to use Vista Mail. I HATES it with a passion. Gimme outlook 2007 any day ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: dubbeljoetieëf
by Zoidberg on Wed 24th Sep 2008 12:08 UTC in reply to "dubbeljoetieëf"
Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

Windows Mail sucked, it was just Outlook Express with a minor facelift. How you could like that outdated piece of junk and then turn around and say Windows Live Mail was "epic fail" is completely beyond me.

Reply Score: 2