Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:10 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

In the past two months, Microsoft and Google have been bickering over one central issue: HTML5. The Verge has learned that Google is forcing Microsoft to build its YouTube Windows Phone app in HTML5, despite its own Android and iOS versions using superior native code. Although Microsoft has offered to build ad support along with making other tweaks as Google has requested, a full HTML5 app isn't currently possible on the platform.

The difficult thing here is that Google actually has a very good case; it's their API, their service, their rules. On top of that, YouTube publishers - big and small - need to earn money from advertisements too, and incorrect implementations make that harder. Microsoft's mafia practices regarding patents, extorting companies to pay for Android use even though Microsoft has contributed zero code to Android plays a role too. Lastly, Windows Phone is essentially irrelevant with 3% market share - it's not as if Microsoft ever concerned itself with minority platforms.

Still, all this does is hurt consumers, no matter how few Windows Phone users there are. Just work this out, please, you bunch of children.

Thread beginning with comment 569789
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Thank you Microsoft
by jgagnon on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Thank you Microsoft"
jgagnon
Member since:
2008-06-24

XP, Vista, and Windows 7 will all wipe your MBR without warning when installing on a system that has another, non-Windows OS on it. So, yeah, they make it harder to dual boot even prior to Windows 8.

Reply Parent Score: 15

RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft
by Alfman on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Thank you Microsoft"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jgagnon,

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader? There are no official standards with regards to BIOS bootloaders and if we're talking defacto standards then arguably linux should be doing more to work under NT's bootloader.

I agree they all should work better, but the chainloading mess seems to be mostly caused by lacking multiboot standardization in BIOS rather than a problem directly caused by MS. This has been addressed in EFI, the following link may be of interest.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Int...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by voidlogic on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
voidlogic Member since:
2005-09-03

>Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?

Perhaps not, BUT this will automatically create an entry for the previous Windows install in their bootloader, making the distinction a non-issue.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by WereCatf on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?


Well, Linux-distros generally install GRUB, ie. they, too, overwrite MBR. There's a difference, however, as Linux-distros try very hard to install a GRUB-entry for any other OSes that are installed, too, like e.g. when I install Ubuntu on a machine that's already got Windows installed there appears a boot-menu entry for Windows along with Ubuntu.

Edited 2013-08-16 17:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by jgagnon on Fri 16th Aug 2013 19:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader? There are no official standards with regards to BIOS bootloaders and if we're talking defacto standards then arguably linux should be doing more to work under NT's bootloader.


Grub may have had more than a few issues over the years, but I've yet to have one Linux distribution fail to recognize another Linux installation when setting up dual boot. However, I've had MANY times where Vista/7 have stomped all over other Windows installations on the same system.

My worst nightmare over several days (because I was too stubborn to give up): setting up a system with XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Linux... each on separate hard drives. I don't remember which distribution of Linux it was, but most likely Ubuntu (I'm mostly a Debian guy now with some Mint thrown in).

XP stomps all over everything unless it is first in line in the install order. I could not get XP to do anything other than destroy any previous bootloader.

Vista will recognize a previous XP install some of the time but never anything else. About half the time I had XP and Vista ready to boot after Vista was installed, but the other half left me with either an unbootable system or just Vista. Sometimes I had the boot menu listing both XP and Vista but only the Vista option would boot. It was the randomness that pissed me off more than anything.

Windows 7 seems to be able to recognize XP being on there but has major issues if both XP and Vista are already installed on the same box. In fact, I was unable to find any way to have Windows 7 and Vista peacefully coexist on the same computer without chaining the bootloaders. So it would first boot to a menu listing Windows 7 and the "previous OS". Choosing previous OS would then list XP and Vista in a menu, with no way to go back. Windows 7 would not install into Vista's already installed boot menu.

Linux, however, had no issues getting in the mix and setting up Grub accordingly. XP/Vista were not on the main menu because they were hidden behind the 7 bootloader.

The final install order for occasional success was XP first, then Vista, then 7, then Linux. Any other order left at least one OS unbootable.

EDIT: Fixed some poor memory issues.

EDIT: Ok, they may not be fixed... I'm having trouble remember exactly how the boot menus were after it was all installed. It was years ago, sorry for any mistakes.

Edited 2013-08-16 19:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by judgen on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Debian defaul installer: Last section of the install;
Would you like to install grub(2)?
You could pick no if you want to, and debian does not force the rewrite of the MBR, and THATS the difference.

The reason debian can not load itself from the NTLDR is due to the fact that it is illegal (in the US atleast) to touch the windows partition (as EULA's has legal standing here unlike the rest of the world, except canada and some parts of the pacific and carribiean) that way and install teh chainloader, so you would have to install it manually. But they make it rather easy to do it yourself with a pre bundled package but also by direct binary download from the debian site.

I bet it is as easy for most distros.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 08:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?


I would think that the NT bootloader simply doesn't allow for multi-booting of different OSes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by ishtar on Mon 19th Aug 2013 21:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
ishtar Member since:
2013-07-30

There's a difference between wiping the MBR clean to make sure you are the only usable OS on the system, and automagically installing into an existing MBR.

Yes, newer *nix bootloaders can scan adn add themselves to other *nix bootloaders. Windows cannot do that, even with their lame grub clone.

Reply Parent Score: 1