European antitrust regulators are considering a requirement that Microsoft sell two versions of Windows in Europe–one with the music- and video-playing software stripped out–should they find the company to be an abusive monopoly, according to people close to the case.
Europe may tell Microsoft to split software
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I sure hope MS won’t get away with it like they did in the US. It would be great if competition could look at MS source code and make their software work and look more integrated into the os. BTW, a ruling for two different versions of Windows would set a precedent and maybe the US people will ask for this too. I have nothing against MS besides the fact that they are a monopoly. Monopoly has been proven to be bad for ANY industry, it’s like comunism, where one gets to dictate where we should go and do and how to do it.
If the only thing EU demands of MS is that there’ll be a cheaper version of Windows without MediaPlayer it might not be that harmful. But setting these kinds of demands for software companies are the wrong way to deal with software monopolies.
The right way is to demand that public communication uses open standards.
Laws should be passed which requires all communication between citiziens and public administration to use open standards.
This would allow citizens to take part in the digital society using any software vendor and allow minor vendors to enter the marked.
Unfortunately even European politicians do not realize that the laws they are pasing inspired from US patent law and DMCA are prenventing an infrastructure based on open standards.
Well, it’s a funny thing in XP when you use the Set Program Access and Defaults dialog to “Non-MS”. All of the IE stuff goes away. If you navigate to c:Program FilesInternet Explorer, you will see no Iexplorer.exe, but you can still set a separate shortcut to c:Program FilesInternet ExplorerIexplorer.exe and, in fact, run the thing, should you, a non-IE person, need to check documentation on MSDN or use a site that requires IE.
I don’t consider that a Bad Thing.
The point that bothers me is that here is an unambiguous case of the operatings system Knowing Too Much about specific files. Layering between BIOS, OS, libraries, and applications is fairly clear. And I’m not advocating the government just step in; I think that the market should, and, perhaps is in the process of, moving to systems that don’t have God-knows-how-much fannying about going on behind the scenes.
[i] a non-IE person, need to check documentation on MSDN or use a site that requires IE. </I.
With all Microsoft’s money, I’m pretty sure they could manage to make Windows Update not require IE, that’s one of the reasons they are what they are, because they force you to use their stuff whether you like it or not.
Microsoft is a monopoly, no one can deny that they aren’t, and this halts progress, and Microsoft will do whatever it takes to keep their strangle on every market they do dominate. The US would have done something but Bush’s administration came along and all of a sudden the government wasn’t interested in doing what it was suppose to. I do hope that they get what they deserve, I’m suprised the EU isn’t going to force Microsoft to break up or not trade in the EU, that would be something.
“I do hope that they get what they deserve, I’m suprised the EU isn’t going to force Microsoft to break up or not trade in the EU, that would be something. ”
In an ideal world maybe. But in this, it would have too many economical damages to the general business in europe.
Wether we like it or not, many smaller companies earn their daily bred by supporting and making add-ons for Microsoft Windows and Office.
Rest assure that something will happend with Microsoft, but it just takes time.. Nothing happends over night..
Probably in 10-15 years we will probably se a difference in Computing that is rendering Microsoft less important.
All adventures ends sometimes.. also microsofts…
“All adventures ends sometimes.. also microsofts…”
All of you with attitudes like that are ignorant. Microsoft isnt a bad company at all, they have excellent tech support and warranties. Their stuff is a bit overpriced, but would they be able to provide such good support if they didnt? I got a Microsoft IntelliMouse, a few months after I purchased it stopped functioning (a bit of negligence on my part), after speaking to one of their tech support guys he concluded that it was indeed broken and they sent me a brand new packaged one without any charge. Didnt even have to send the broken one back. All this anti-Microsoft talk is disgusting. If only you people protested something of more importance. I boo you all.
If this was to really happen, I think it would be fair if this demand would apply to all OS vendors. Redhat, Mandrake and all others put their multimedia apps into their OS and nobody says anything about it. How come there are no demands made for Mandrake to remove OpenOffice.org? Maybe it’s bothering somebody. If you don’t like the OS (in this case Windows) don’t use it. What’s the point of selling cars without the wheels? Unless you are willing to buy a customised version of Windows for the same price or even more expensive then the original package.
What they EU should do is force M$ to make IE and the Media Player to be *completely removable* instead of having two versions…
Um, Mandrake didn’t write Open Office, and Mandrake also includes Abiword and kword. Mandrake is giving you three choices while Microsoft gives you one. Also, open office, koffice, and abiword are all open and can easily read and write each other’s files.
What you said makes no sense and doesn’t really relate.
This is really quite the wrong way about it. It seems many people (and governments) want to criticise MS for both the quality of its products, and its market position (not really a monopoly in my opinion); and their solution to remedy problem/bundled technology (IE) or bundled technology (WMP) is to absolutley stop MS from making improvements to their products.
Really what people are demanding is that MS should have ignored, or must now ignore, the two largest growing areas of computer usage; the Internet and digital media. I suppose the idea being that if they absolutely ignore, or actively contradict the marketplace, they will lose marketshare. I can’t deny that that is true…
There is no difference, or at least shouldn’t be between IE and WMP on Windows and Apple choosing to bundle Safari and iTunes wih OS X, with only two exceptions. 1) IE runs on Mac (when are we do Safari Windows?) and 2) depending on your view, the Mac stuff may be better. I don’t know, I just use Firefox or Opera.
MS should be monitored for unfair business practices (such as forcing companies like Dell or Gateway to sell only systems with Windows, whether or not the customer specifies it… as I understand they did in the old days) because of their position (IMO) not stopped from bundling new features. I am sure we will hear another round with SP2 with its nice firewall and integrated antivirus. I personally say, yes, security fixes, but the lawyers may very well cry anti-trust; what will this do to McAffe and Norton! Are we really better off if some lawyer forces MS to remove the AV software?
Anyway I say go MS.
What I said was that nobody applies any pressure on other OS vendors for any of the features they include in their OS. The OS vendor ultimately decides what his distribution needs. And if you were to demand anything from 1 company it would be fair to demand the same from all other companies. Or if you don’t like Microsoft’s products, don’t buy. Nobody forces. Use Open Source if it suits you better.
.. Microsoft’s obvious response is to comply.. sell Windows XP without Media Player for, say, 5 euros less.
Then 2 years later they discontinue the product as there is “proof” that there is zero demand for it…
Microsoft’s obvious response is to comply
I dunno. If MS allows anybody to push them easily, MS will be pushed again.
No, it really boils down to the market. I don’t think the government can do anything terribly useful to regulate MS, short of the old thought of splitting it into OS and application groups.
Businesses have to just hoist a middle finger and support alternatives. I guess the amount of MSFT in the portfolios of the various CxOs is the metric to watch…
Bahh. More nonsense from governments over MS. Simple answer to all of this. Just don’t use MS if you don’t like it.
“Bahh. More nonsense from governments over MS. Simple answer to all of this. Just don’t use MS if you don’t like it.”
That’s why they are a monopoly, people don’t know there is an alternative.
MS isn’t in trouble for bundling things, they are in trouble for not allowing you to remove (essentially replace) them. Bundling other peoples software is not supposed to be the solution, it’s the punishment. The solution would be for MS to allow you to remove their own software. The point is, whether they like it or not, MS’s overwhelming influence in it’s major markets gives them a great deal of responsibility, one which they are not living up to. The virus’s for instance, lets say that Windows is just as secure as unix and the whole ‘virus’s attack Windows because of marketshare’ this is true. Then because of that marketshare MS has a higher security responsibility than a unix distributor/developer. Governments wouldn’t allow such a flawed product to be sold in any other industry, so why software? You couldn’t sell a car with that many problems, or sell food that diseased. MS only gets away with it because they have a monopoly (people don’t know there are options). Without that monopoly nobody would have to use their software.
Once you start bringing in flawed analogies your argument loses any credibility.
I do believe that you do have a legitimate point in open standards for government publications. It might not be feasible at the moment, but its a worthy goal.
“That’s why they are a monopoly, people don’t know there is an alternative.”
Uh, no. Monopoly is defined as:
1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action,
2: exclusive possession or control,
3: a commodity controlled by one party,
4: one that has a monopoly
You have no idea what you’re talking about. People not knowing something is a function of their ignorance on the matter, not of Microsoft’s monopoly.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=monopoly
You define as well as Microsoft programs… in loops…
Uh, no. Monopoly is defined as:
…
4: one that has a monopoly
“You have no idea what you’re talking about. People not knowing something is a function of their ignorance on the matter, not of Microsoft’s monopoly. ”
I wasn’t defining monopoly, I was giving a reason for it. Start looking at context a bit more.
“Once you start bringing in flawed analogies your argument loses any credibility.”
What part is flawed?
I don’t like Microsoft being a monopoly. I think the US government should have broke them up when they were on trial. But I disagree with this move to make them split up their software.
If you dislike Microsoft so much then support OSS, all forms of OSS and support it with your money. The only reason Microsoft can maintain their monopoly is because of their bank account. If you take the money you would normally put in Microsoft’s bank account and instead put it in Linux you would be taking a step to prevent Microsoft from having a monopoly.
But personally I think Apple is an excellent innovator and should be funded for their hard work. They are cooperating with the OSS philosophy and community and deserve our support. So I implore you. To save on TCO and easy of use and security costs and peace of mind please use Apple hardware and software. They need our support more than ever and we will be rewarded for our contributions with new innovations, new technology, more free software being included with the hardware, etc.
Linux can make it on its own and doesn’t necessarily need corporate funds to compete. Its almost anti-capitalist in nature. But Apple could definitely use the help and IMO are good capitalists. There aren’t many left.
Sun, if they pull their heads out of their asses might also be good capitalists. But that remains to be seen.
Thanks …
You’re right that it’s not feasible for every data type out there. Video is one example where you barely have an open standard format available.
However, for many types of data it is feasible. Generally politicians have been positive in Denmark about open standards. For instance, the official Danish public digital signature has been secures as an open standard.
However… many politicians do not understand that passing laws allowing patentability of protocols and document formats and laws like DMCA work against the goal of open standards in the digital infrastructure.
It is very important for democracy that we can be allowed to communicate freely on the Internet with any client product we want to just by implementing an open standard.
Why not force them to open up their APIs and file formats? Instead of concentrating on what will cause harm to Microsoft, why not concentrate on what will help competition and consumers?
Several of us who use Windows strictly for the apps would switch platforms in a New York minute if some vendor were able to make their stuff 100% compatible with Windows
I too got a new mouse (wireless) a few months ago. It was a Logitech. It came with a 5 year warranty. It still works. The MS mouse competing with it came with only a one year warranty.
“You’re right that it’s not feasible for every data type out there. Video is one example where you barely have an open standard format available.”
I think your point is correct, but MPEG (MPEG4 for the net) is free for all end users to use.
“Why not force them to open up their APIs and file formats? Instead of concentrating on what will cause harm to Microsoft, why not concentrate on what will help competition and consumers? ”
They should do that. But the goal here is not only to help out the economy, but to pubish MS if they are found guilty.
“Several of us who use Windows strictly for the apps would switch platforms in a New York minute if some vendor were able to make their stuff 100% compatible with Windows”
Which apps are holding you?
“Why not force them to open up their APIs and file formats? Instead of concentrating on what will cause harm to Microsoft, why not concentrate on what will help competition and consumers? ”
They should do that. But the goal here is not only to help out the economy, but to pubish MS if they are found guilty.
By default, isn’t helping out the economy punishing Microsoft ?
I mean, handing out their APIs/file formats isn’t exactly a proposition that MS would be thrilled with I don’t think.
“Several of us who use Windows strictly for the apps would switch platforms in a New York minute if some vendor were able to make their stuff 100% compatible with Windows”
Which apps are holding you?
There’s about a dozen of them, most audio-specific. A couple of custom ones from work, and a few other misc. ones.
…why buy Windows if you do not like its configurability? That’s like me making some random piece of software, say, an anti-virus / firewall duo, two in one package, and selling it. Yeah, its got two of my products in it. Don’t like it? Use something else. Microsoft Windows is not the only operating system in existance. If you do not like the way they do business, or make their software… use… something… else. There are other choices. Nobody forces you to buy Windows. There is another option. There is Linux, and there is Apple.
Microsoft Windows wouldn’t BE a monopoly if people wouldn’t USE IT.
I doubt its going to do them real good to make Microsoft sell a “cheaper, stripped-down” version. It’ll only stregthen the monopoly.
“That’s why they are a monopoly, people don’t know there is an alternative.”
Maybe people LIKE using Windows. Oh no?!?! Can it be??? Some people prefer Windows?? The world is going to end!! I get so sick and tired of people assuming that everyone hates using Windows and doesnt know of anything else out there. That has to be the dumbest logic that only a a hard core anti-Microsoft zealot could come up with. I know a few people that are fully aware of other offerings, but CHOSE to go with a Windows machine.
Back on topic… I think its a dumb idea to force Microsoft to have a version without Media Player. Dont use it if you dont want to. Besides, if you look at your average computer that you buy at a store, they tend to come bundled with other media players such as Quick Time or Real Player. Should Microsoft be forced to have a version without a media player, than ALL operating systems should have that requirement as well. Also, those versions of Windows that ship without Windows Media Player should NOT contain any sort of a media player from another company.
Few people seem to understand and those that do soon overlook the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with bundling every possible bit of software into another. The problem with Microsoft is that IE or WMP aren’t really bundled, they’re entwined with Windows for NO OTHER REASON than to make their effective removal impossible. Really, Windows could just work without IE or WMP, and those could be as separated from it as Mozilla and Winamp are – but instead they’re imbricated so that even if you don’t use them, you have portions of them slogging your system. The ignoramus will repeat after MS that ‘that’s needed in order to achieve better quality’! As if this weren’t outright consumer damage, the monopolistic position of MS’s makes it what it really is intended for, unfair competition.
Compare this to any other OS I know’s possibility of replacing whatever WB / MP it comes with.
I forgot to mention that using whatever closed standards they so wish is irrelevant. Let them use whatever they like, even if it’s to prevent competitor’s from making compatible products. Just don’t force anyone to use them as they do. And there’s more to ‘forcing’ than ‘pointing a gun at your head’.
I personally liked Works for DOS. After 12 years, Word does nothing that it didn’t do then. So why did MS change their file formats again and again and again? That’s the sort of thing that should be tacked by anti-monopoly law.
The majority of people are ignorant of anything other than Windows. In fact I know quite a few people who don’t even know what an operating system is yet use it daily.
The whole point of the EU forcing Microsoft to produce a version of Windows without a media player is for people like this. Using this method it draws people’s attention to the fact that Windows Media Player is actually a separate piece of software. It’s only when people are aware of this that they may actually consider alternatives.
The other benifit is for PC manufacturers, they aren’t forced to ship Microsoft’s software and can instead ship a media player that they choose.
the difference between MS Windows and the Linux Distros is I have the option not to install the apps bundled with the Distros, now, do i have the option not to install IE and WMP on an XP install?
Word’s file format (excluding XML) hasn’t changed since 1997.
Compare this to any other OS I know’s possibility of replacing whatever WB / MP it comes with
Although I do understand your point, I also understand the other point of view. Integrating new features is pretty much universal in the OS world. For example, while you can remove the default media player in Mac OS X, the libraries it uses are pretty deeply embedded in the OS as a whole; things would break if you were to rip it all out. IE on Windows is the same deal.
I do not agree with Microsoft’s real reasons for having welded IE into Windows, but the truely evil thing about it (QC issues aside
is that the bundling/integration of features is what the majority of people want, and is in it’s own way empowering. They see it as getting more for less from a big name. People would be pissed if they had to buy an OS, a web brwoser, a media player, an email client, a firewall, anti-virus software, etc, etc.
Microsoft often does the right things but for the wrong reasons. I have no issues with them integrating functionality into Windows, even if it pushes some other companies out of business. As a whole, as long as we keep fighting against MS on patents and standards issues, they are still a rather (if irritatingly) productive component of our society.
Having said all of that, I am mostly a FreeBSD user who likes Mac OS X and DragonFly, just so you don’t think I’m coming at this from a pro-MS stand-point. I’m just more selective with the problems I allow myself to have with people.
I find it really entertaining how many of you people will complain about Microsoft being a monopoly, not knowing what a monopoly actually is, but instead foolishing accepting whatever the government in power tells you it is.
I find it really entertaining how many of you people want the government to do something to Microsoft, when you have no control over what the government does.
And I find it really entertaining how people think it’s perfectly acceptable to go to the government and ask the government to dictate how a software vendor sells its products and what is included in those products. Apparently, buying something else is too difficult for these stupid people.
Having said that, GNU/Linux rocks!
Kingston, no, it’s not the same as QuickTime and the likes. I can remove QuickTime Player and Safari and the Finder and everything works properly. Try removing Explorer and Windows Media Player in Windows, and it doesn’t work properly. It’s not a matter of libraries (it should be), it’s a matter of them integrating the applications themselves.
Mike…
“I find it really entertaining how many of you people will complain about Microsoft being a monopoly, not knowing what a monopoly actually is, but instead foolishing accepting whatever the government in power tells you it is.”
And your definition is different how?
“I find it really entertaining how many of you people want the government to do something to Microsoft, when you have no control over what the government does.”
That’s the governments job.
“And I find it really entertaining how people think it’s perfectly acceptable to go to the government and ask the government to dictate how a software vendor sells its products and what is included in those products. Apparently, buying something else is too difficult for these stupid people.”
Part of the gov’ts job is to regulate things like that. And yes, it is too difficult for a lot of people to buy other things, especially when they don’t know there is an option.
“Maybe people LIKE using Windows. Oh no?!?! Can it be??? Some people prefer Windows?? The world is going to end!! I get so sick and tired of people assuming that everyone hates using Windows and doesnt know of anything else out there. That has to be the dumbest logic that only a a hard core anti-Microsoft zealot could come up with. I know a few people that are fully aware of other offerings, but CHOSE to go with a Windows machine.”
Well of course some people like it. The fact is that most people don’t know. Don’t take the OSNews crowd as an average group of users…we are all geeks.
“Back on topic… I think its a dumb idea to force Microsoft to have a version without Media Player. Dont use it if you dont want to. Besides, if you look at your average computer that you buy at a store, they tend to come bundled with other media players such as Quick Time or Real Player. Should Microsoft be forced to have a version without a media player, than ALL operating systems should have that requirement as well. Also, those versions of Windows that ship without Windows Media Player should NOT contain any sort of a media player from another company.”
MS’s influencial position in the market places a greater responsibility than other OS makers, and even then if MS had not been trying to lock other developers out this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Darius, what kind of audio are you into? I do a lot of that at work.
Agreed.
I did not find anything that said there was a requirement that Windows without Media Player be sold for less. Microsoft could actually charge more, because of the difficulty of stripping all that extra code out.
“it’s not the same as QuickTime and the likes”
My point is that the libraries for those apps (Quicktime esp) are not easilyy removed. As most of the code for those things is in the libs, you accomplish litte by removing the app itself. They are part of Cocoa, Mac OS X’s native API. The libs for WMP and IE are the same thing to Windows.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/
Integration is an form of evolution, and the way of the computer world, much as with real life.
We are not speaking of underlying framewords though, we are speaking of the front ends. You can remove QuickTime player and use another media player with absolutely no issues. Not so with Windows Media Player.
Not so with Windows Media Player.
Can you elaborate on why? I haven’t launched WMP9 in… I don’t know, years. When did SP1 come out?
All it took was setting the ‘Program Access’ functionality and I never saw WMP9 again. Its there, because its integrated into the system and its libraries, but I never have to see its front end again.
“Can you elaborate on why?”
No, I can’t…and neither will MS. Hence them claiming it can’t be done.
I don’t know on these issues, I’m generally in favour on MS on the legal end.
Let’s take internet browsing for instance. When I but a PC, I expect to get home and voila, I can browse the interent. So, they bundle IE..all good.
Now how about the ability to remove IE. I say no to thise. MS has other products which tend to link with web browesers. In order for them to do proper end to end testing and ensure the user is able to quickly use the system, they need to be guaranteed of certain things.
For example, lets take MSN messeneger. It has the ability to check your hotmail e-mail. It does so, but opening a browser externally and opening the hotmail page with your account.
Consider if MS allows the removal of IE.
1. The user does not have IE installed, so now this feature of messenger is useless. Not only that, messenger will probably have to have additional code to check for this.
2. The user has some other browser installed. How is MS supposed to make sure the messenger experience is tested thoroughly. Now they have to increase their test vector to include all major browsers. They also write a command for each browswer to launch the hotmail page (its possible their command line options are different).
These two points are not exclusive to MS. Imagine any 3rd party developer. Any game which has say help files as HTML. SHould they even be concerned that the user may not have a browser installed? Or should some other application have to worry that the user might not have WMP installed to play their tutorial video?
*****************************************************
Okay, I’m not an idiot, I understand the concept of vendor lockin and MS hesistancy to actually abide by standards properly. But the issue of bundling/removal exists aprt from them. For the sake of this argument, I’ll give MS the benefit of the doubt.
Yet, from my point of view. MS provides a base set of applications that provides a basis for basic operation of a PC, and the internet. It guarantees that such applications are available for other applications to use, which is a good thing.
Nothing stops you from installing another browser. I’m using firefox right now. Otherwise, it just sounds like “MS, you’re too successful! We’re going to not allow you to do things that any other compnay can do, to limit your success for the sake of creating a more balanced industry”
Well am not a oss or ms zealot. In my view, operating systems need to be fair to other applications like IE or Mozilla. If you use Mozilla and IE on windows you would knw IE is integrated in windows like it’s an part of operating system itself and take a look at other OSS distros galeon, mozilla, firefox, opera can be removed or added completely without interfering with OS functionality. But wish MS WIndows IE and WMP are integrated to such an extent that they assume that whenever we would want to surf internet it has to be IE or whenever we want to play a clip it has to be WMP. IE has been integrated into Visual Studio and other stuff too. Doesnt that makes geniune case of trying to mislead user of alternatives out there? How many of us will use alternatives when we know MS will not allow them to be embedded into system as IE or WMP??
It’s not microsoft’s fault that windows has the most viruses. Users are too stupid and windows is the most popular os in the world. Are you suggesting microsoft put in anti-virus software on their computers? The same problems would arise for any other os. User stupidity >>> computer security. No matter how secure an os is, the user is still the weakest link. Windows is secure for average joe if you update all the time and practice safe computing.
You say people don’t have any other options. That’s true, but that’s because their games or software don’t support other operating systems. Gamers make up a huge portion of the buying market. You’re going to have a hell of time moving them to linux or mac. This also is not microsoft’s fault. This is the software vendors problem, and don’t say ms should open up their apis. Compatability is their number one priority when they go into builiding a consumer os. It’s why they stuck with 9x so long. It had the greatest compatibility. They lose money if they don’t, and they have spent much much time and resources to ensure that your programs from 10 years ago will work today. It’s not fair to hand over an advantage they’ve built up fairly.
The other problem is that people are just used to windows and pc’s are cheaper than the competition. Let’s face it, the windows gui is the most familiar in the world. If you’re the average joe, you also realize that if you’re computer breaks down that you won’t have as much help if you had linux or a mac if you even knew them. This comes from personal experience too. I had a problem with my firewire controller since windows said it couldn’t be enabled. I googled my problem and sure enough only one or two sites popped up offering the solution. And these were from discussion forums. I’m an experienced windows user, but I don’t know everything. I wouldn’t expect the same amount of support if I had linux or os x.
To be honest with you, people don’t want the alternative. Macs don’t run that many games, don’t forget emulation which is awesome by the way now that my snes is broken
. And they’re more expensive. There’s the extra hidden cost of not having a person help you if you’re mac breaks down. Linux is too geeky now and it still has the same problems. It also doesn’t have as great hardware support as windows. Just because it works for you doesn’t mean it works for the rest of us. You’re also forgetting that it’s harder to set up for a non-techie person. Windows is the better choice for average joe. There is no better alternative for them.
sorry about my bad english.
The main reason that you can’t ever uninstall IE from Windows is because IE is used for almost everything in Windows.
The desktop, is IE, you can browse internetpages in the background of your desktop if you want to.
Browsing files, uses IE.
IE is so tightly integrated that it can’t be removed.
Actually, when you go to the software settings, you can remove IE, but windows will restart and reinstall IE.
In some cases it is wonderful, everything is integrated and works like it should work. That’s the unique selling proposition of Microsoft. Everything works and works together in such a manner that even people with no computer knowledge can use it. Unix/Linux are by far not as userfriendly as Windows.
But… because everything is so tightly integrated and because only MS knows how Windows and other programs of them really work, it’s a disadvantage for other software companies.
What I mean is, it’s not because media player or internet explorer are included that they have what some people call “a monopoly”, but it’s because the lack of communication how things work. MS is very closed when it comes to the inner workings of its programs. Other software companies don’t “really” know how windows works. All they have is the released api. Microsoft might use their own custom api to make their programs. This gives MS the advantage of maybe creating applications that work “better” for their operating system, or at least give that impression. But that’s something I’m absolutely not sure of.
Furthermore, and this is not the fault of MS I think…
When you go to a computer shop, how many computers have windows already installed? I would say (not sure though) 99%?
I would like to see hardware and software completely seperated.
When you buy a computer, software can not be pre-installed, unless the buyer has choosen the software he wants and let the shop install it.
This way, when someone buys a pc, he has the choice of installing Windows, Linux or whatever…
Most people will still choose Windows, but the choice is there.
Also, about comparing linux distributions with Windows.
A distribution is not linux. Linux is the kernel, a distribution adds several other useful tools to that kernel.
I wish the same thing could be done with Windows.
Microsoft releases the kernel, and others make “windows distributions” with it.
My opinion.
Don’t take it too seriously.
“It’s not microsoft’s fault that windows has the most viruses. Users are too stupid and windows is the most popular os in the world. Are you suggesting microsoft put in anti-virus software on their computers?”
Yes it is responsible. Some can’t be helped (arguably), like e-mails relying on idiot users to actually download an executable and run it, but aren’t most of these windows virusus spread by exploits and the use of “features”?
Why on earth would you make an e-mail app app that runs scripts included in the e-mail that can do whatever they want? Yes, several versions later, they turned it off by default. It really should have been foreseen, but this is an example of how Microsoft thinks and how that hurts everyone.
They don’t have to include a virus scanner. They could work on less exploitable software, less idiot features, and a fine grained system of authority (more fine than user name) so that things can’t just go around doing what they (not you) want.
..Microsoft Japan got raided by the FTC. And an antitrust investigation has been started by Japan.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/26/0522201&mode=thread
Yes, this is the wrong approach, as I believe. It is little cosmetics on an ugly face.
I’m not a communist, anti-cooperatist or left-winged person, but what I know for sure is, that the problems lie much deeper. Or to name it differently: Beauty comes from inside.
What will this change for M$ ? Not much.
They still will be able to sell their full-featured version. They will put more PR into it, so it will sell better. Noone may have a desire to get the stripped-down version: “Oh, you use that Windows/2 ?”
The result of that case most likely will affect the Microsoft verdict. It will affect it in that IMS was told by the commission to license their database structure to two competitors. This decision was overturned by the EU court of First Instance and will most likely mean any ruling will either be overturned or not require them to reveal their source code to competitors… even spliting their product (source: WSJ – http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107775103863339377,00.html).
Now, I have little love for Microsoft. Their business tactics are highly questionable and they put out a product that could be made far better. However, arguments against their bundeling of software are idiotic. Other companies bundle media players and internet explorer apps, just becuase it is in the dominant position does not mean that it must do it’s business backwards to “level the playing field”. Indeed, a “level playing field” would mean that whatever was required of Microsoft should hold true to their competitors as well.
I’m not talking about code that may prevent other apps from working that were not made by MS, I’m talking about the maker of an Operating System putting enhancements into their product to improve their offerings to their customers. Quality and motivation issues aside, that is great. It should not stop anybody from buying or finding an alternative and using that to a native Windows app, but it should not mean that MS not include what it does have.
Bundling is the most convient wat to get products to people who use them. But I can gaurantee you this: those who harp on MS Window’s lack of virus software and how vulnerable Windows is, will most likely see people harp on the fact that they bundled the Virus software into Windows should they chose to do so. They are damned if they provide for their customers and damned if they do not.d
Quality is what will drive people to better products; being just good enough for the job will help keep them with a product.
“Yes it is responsible. Some can’t be helped (arguably), like e-mails relying on idiot users to actually download an executable and run it, but aren’t most of these windows virusus spread by exploits and the use of “features”?”
More like worms, not viruses that are spread by exploits, but they both do damage. But yeah, a lot of features are implemented without any idea of security.
“Why on earth would you make an e-mail app app that runs scripts included in the e-mail that can do whatever they want? Yes, several versions later, they turned it off by default. It really should have been foreseen, but this is an example of how Microsoft thinks and how that hurts everyone.”
I have to agree with you. Hardly anybody uses html e-mail. Microsoft was very short-sighted on this and many other things. I think the spam problem wouldn’t be such a big deal if html e-mail was never on by default. If microsoft realizes that consumers are idiots about this, then they should put security over features.
“They don’t have to include a virus scanner. They could work on less exploitable software, less idiot features, and a fine grained system of authority (more fine than user name) so that things can’t just go around doing what they (not you) want.”
Less idiot features? What kind? Microsoft target market is 90% computer retarded. Microsoft could make the operating system as a whole secure like making xp home users not be admins, but users demand that all their programs run out of the box. Computer idiots want their systems to work and if they don’t, they blame microsoft. It’s a double-edged sword. Microsoft should however make software developers security-conscious also. Still, most vendors require users to run as admins. Not entirely microsoft’s fault.
Microsoft has to cater to computer retards all the time. This is a good thing though since not everybody wants to learn about computers. Microsoft should make every effort to save them time. But that will be the bane of windows.
“What I mean is, it’s not because media player or internet explorer are included that they have what some people call “a monopoly”, but it’s because the lack of communication how things work. MS is very closed when it comes to the inner workings of its programs. Other software companies don’t “really” know how windows works. All they have is the released api. Microsoft might use their own custom api to make their programs. This gives MS the advantage of maybe creating applications that work “better” for their operating system, or at least give that impression. But that’s something I’m absolutely not sure of.”
If microsoft is using custom apis, then yeah, they should definitely release them. That is totally unfair and that is abusing monopoly power. We just don’t know if they are doing it. Microsoft should make every effort to level the playing field, and not just to comply with settlements. They need a better public image. It really is awesome when software made by two different companies can run together, integrated, flawlessly.
What I was talking about was releasing the internal workings of windows that would allow competing operating systems to run windows programs. That’s just plain unfair.
“Also, about comparing linux distributions with Windows.
A distribution is not linux. Linux is the kernel, a distribution adds several other useful tools to that kernel.”
I knew that already. The main reason I was saying just linux was that linux itself can’t run windows programs.