Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Sep 2006 21:38 UTC
Microsoft Two US software firms are asking the European Commission to take action against Microsoft's new Vista operating system, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. Adobe Systems has told EU regulators that Microsoft should be banned from incorporating free competing software for reading and creating electronic documents with Vista, the paper said, quoting people familiar with the situation. Anti-virus software maker Symantec will send officials to Brussels next week to brief journalists about features of Vista that it has told EU regulators will undercut rival makers of computer security software, the paper said.
Thread beginning with comment 164717
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You're not into it !
by Kochise on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't understand you..."
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

Taking your example about cars : If GM sells me a car with an integrated autoradio, what prevent me to remove it to switch to another one, or just don't use it and put it another one aside ? GM's autoradio is provided for free, and is NOT AS FEATURED than the Pionner's one !

Imagine I had a old GM car with the Pionner autoradio. My old car was good, but reached its end of life. I remove the Pionner autoradio from the old car, buy a new one and reinstall my Pionner autoradio side to GM's and use my Pionner autoradio. GM could have every market share they wants, they cannot prevent me to install MY autoradio !

So do Microsoft, they cannot prevent me to install the software from Adobe/Symantec/... I WANT to use ! The freely provided implementation/piece of software aren't as useful as the one provided by Adobe/Symantec/..., so people WILL comes to contact Adobe/Symantec/... ! Don't forget that Windows is not released with Office preinstalled or Visio preinstalled or ... so there is room for market !

Now if the user find the little gadget-like utilities provided in every Windows installation useful enough, why will you FORCE Microsoft to remove them ? At 300 $, I want something else than just a raw file manager, I expect some kind utilitied preinstalled. What I do not want is to but an 'empty' operating system at 300 $ and to buy for another 200 $ several sharewares/utilities to makes my operating system at least usable !

If you compare on the other side, every Linuw distro are released with several preinstalled packages making a fully usable operating system out-of-the-box ! But this come with a price, all these application are not always compatible between each other. At least while using Microsoft's preinstalled utilities, you guarantee you can speak the same language (file format) with every other computer (RTF for Wordpad, BMP for Paint, etc...).

So the question REMAINS : why forcing Microsoft to preinstall some Adobe/Symantec/... components inplace of Microsoft's ? Microsoft and Adobe/Symantec/... aren't partners in creating a common task-group operating system names "Vista'n friends", this is just "Vista" and it's only Microsoft at the commandement !

I'm french, EU based, agree with the 'fair' trial made to Microsoft by the European Commission (understand Microsoft played the nuts for too long, EU aren't under their lobby, EU have rules about monopoly they're just trying to enforce where in US Bill Gates supported George W Bush to get a the trial canceled). I'm just fed up with this Microsoft stuff !

I'm not 10 years old, it's just everybody is spitting at Microsoft while licking their balls and kissing their ass ! Sure Microsoft have a 95% market share, and they had it with unfair practices. But it's EU commission to judge impartially all of this, without having parasits turning/lobbying around them.

And like I said, if Adobe/Symantec/... aren't happy with Microsoft, why don't they all join their forces to promote an alternative OS they could deliver customized releases/distos like some Linuxes one ? Why is there no Adobe Linux distro, no Symantec distro, no ... distro ? IBM made its choice and promote Linux based systems. If everyone disatisfied with Microsoft join the move, I think the 95% Microsoft market share could drop quite a bit !

Just to make you notice that the Ubuntu distro is quite a success because fully featured out-of-the-box. Instead to moan, Adobe/Symantec/... could provide their components to the Ubuntu team to implement in the next distro (6.10). I'm sure it will then have even more success and be installed on even more computers. So where's the problem ?

Kochise

Edited 2006-09-22 14:33

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: You're not into it !
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 18:24 in reply to "You're not into it !"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

The Ubuntu team wouldn't ship the products unless they were open source or free, I think.

I agree with you though. Windows is not as dominate as it once was. If people aren't happy with them then they can buy an Apple or learn Linux.

The thing that would get MS in trouble is if the features aren't removable. As it stands I doubt MS will lock Norton or McAfee out of the OS since that would be anti-competitive. As such they are just providing basic functionality with XPS and the Security Center.

If security center is what I think it is then Symantec is just being a big baby; I'm assuming it's an update of the XP-SP2 security center that monitors various aspects of the os security.

I thought Symantec's big thing was that they wanted permission to modify the Kernel which I think is a horrible idea. I'd just rather let MS be the only ones who can touch the kernel, and I've felt that MS needs to lock applications out of the System Directory all together.

This is really a non-issue, and I hope the EU realizes this before they do something dumb like force MS to ship a stripped version.

Now that I think about it, why doesn't the EU start a state funded competitor to MS like they did with Boeing, they start Airbus, if they're so sick of it.

Reply Parent Score: 1