If Microsoft cannot settle an antitrust case brought by European Union regulators, the company may be ordered to remove Windows Media Player as an integrated feature of the dominant Windows operating system, at least for personal computers sold in Europe.
Windows Could Lose Media Player in EU Tangle
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This should not pose as much as a problem for Micorsoft as people are making it. All MS has to do is make it part of a mandatory download when people patch their systems, it was done in service pack 3 for NTFS (it just happened no warning). This would be a 10-20 minute download on dial up.
No, I am not trolling, I would prefer to see IE removed from Windows. However, I am loosing faith in the judical system. Just my humble opinion.
There’s a lot of applications that uses APIs that are from WMP. The fact that Real managed to stay the #1 media player regardless of how it still sucks; and how Quicktime manage to rise rather quickly regardless of how unstable, quirky and slow the Windows version is, it is proof that integrating WMP into Windows wouldn’t make it impossible for others to compete with it. Harder? Maybe. But that wouldn’t explain the millions that downloaded WMP 9, even though it wasn’t bundled in Windows. The funny thing is that if Microsoft was a European company, nobody would have even considered antitrust action there…
No, I am not trolling, I would prefer to see IE removed from Windows. However, I am loosing faith in the judical system. Just my humble opinion.
Install XP Lite, remove IE completely. Watch and see how many modern applications crash and burn… Removing IE from Windows doesn’t serve consumers. If you really hate IE, just hide it in XP or 2k, and install the browser of your choice.
Besides, Microsoft, at least from the article, isn’t saying that this is impossible because it is hard to carry out, rather it is hard to carry out while maintaining binary compatiblity with other applications.
One thing I absolutely have to disagree with is the European courts forcing Microsoft to carry rival software with Windows. Sure, Real and Quicktime for sure would make it into the Windows CD, but what about other rival software? Where do the courts draw the line, and isn’t it even more unfair for those not bundled?
And then in the server field where Microsoft isn’t even close to dominating, the European courts has an opinion on that too. Yeah, I agree with you on loosing faith in the judiciary system. But for a completely different reason.
Mario Monti is not a judge, and he doesn’t like to be played with. If Microsoft would make WMP an obligatory download, they get another fine of 10% of the revenues.
It is easy not to make it obligatory yet get people to use it. When you’re installing Office for example, Microsoft could force you to install WMP. Or whenever an application requires WMP, a window asking you to download WMP or they wouldn’t be able to use certain features or the entire application itself. Probably less people would use WMP, probably it would be more – who knows?
And this is just one method. With the amount of cash Microsoft has, they could have a massive marketing and advertising campaign, where WMP would be a household brand. The point is that Microsoft could easily capture the market using other techniques. But why did they tie it within Windows?
The reason they give is because to give more features for Windows developers, and to the lesser extend, users. I would have to say that I agree with them. Although, if I runned Microsoft, I would have done things differently (tie in certain components of WMP into Windows, but the WMP product itself is marketed separately – more opportunity for money making)
I would really love to see IE, WMP, Windows Messenger, MSN Explorer, Games form Windows XP. Not a troller but these applications annoy me and they are not useful too. IE has better competitors Opera and Mozilla.
But it is day dreaming i guesss:-). Microsoft is never going to let this happen. It has so tightely integrated all things that it is distant possibility!
I wonder why I have to user browser integrated with Windows Explorer? Why should windows explorer open up web content!
“The funny thing is that if Microsoft was a European company, nobody would have even considered antitrust action there…”
What’s that remark based upon ?
Nothing solid at least….
It would be much better if it were forbidden to sell Windows preloaded at the same or even lower price than the hardware only.
People could choose for themselves if they want to buy Windows and Windows Media Player together with a PC or not.
I like having a choice. I would love to see General Motors sell their cars WITHOUT their GM steering wheels, GM engines, and GM seating, so that when I, the consumer, purchase one of these vehicles, I have the choice afterwards to go out and pay large amounts of money for components that really should have been included with the vehicle to begin with. It just makes sense to me.
-_-
He’s right, just take a look at all the telecom mini-monopolies all over europe. Also why is microsoft paying up for something that Apple, most linux distros and just about every other OS also does.
>> It would be much better if it were forbidden to sell Windows preloaded at the same or even lower price than the hardware only.
Totally agree, and even better: making it impossible for MS to punish dealers just because they would like to offer systems with Linux or some other OS on it as well (it really happens).
It’s more like buying a complete GM car, and paying an extra bucket of dollars to get the keys that also trigger some device setting the roadhandling worse that any GM engineer would have wanted.
“Mini-monopoly”, what an inventive contradictio in terminis…
Actually, it’s gonna be like buying a GM car without the radio
geez: What’s that remark based upon ?
Look at France Telecom for example. They are acting so monopolistic and against all common consumer-relations sense that would make Ma Bell look like the feel-good company of the century, yet hold a significant market due to the government-mandated monopoly. Nothing done about that.
And they aren’t the only ones, and telecomunications isn’t the only field. What about Total Elf Fina in France? If they were an American company in America, they would no longer be a single company anymore.
wbsoft: It would be much better if it were forbidden to sell Windows preloaded at the same or even lower price than the hardware only.
If small-time OEMs can get their licenses at $40, imagine second- and first-tier OEMs, who probably gets it at around $20-$30. Now, charging $20-30 less for a OS-less computer is stupid on the marketing point of view because very little people would buy it, making it economically unfeasable.
Small-time OEMs (mom-and-pop shops) would most definately charge less for OS-less PCs, many of them in Malaysia (and perhaps, the same can be said of other places) don’t even bother giving an option for OEM Windows.
Rich: Totally agree, and even better: making it impossible for MS to punish dealers just because they would like to offer systems with Linux or some other OS on it as well (it really happens).
It really happens? Well, that’s debatable since the courts forbad Microsoft from “punishing” OEMs that bundle competing software along with Windows. But it is unlikely that first- and second-tier OEMs to bundle Linux (or any other OS) alongside Windows any decade soon, even if the courts manage to get Microsoft to even encourage such bundling.
Why? The support costs would be unimaginable, and since most of these companies are competing based largely, or in some cases, solely on price, this isn’t acceptable. It would drive up the prices of their PCs to remove any forseable benefits of loading the second OS. Plus, most people buy their PCs from small-time companies – Microsoft doesn’t really care if they load every other OS known to mankind on their PC as long as if they bundle Windows, it is legal Windows.
The problem with the EU courts making Microsoft remove its Windows Media Player for Windows is that it would apply to all other OS Distros sold or distributed online to Europeans. In order for the judgment to be fair to all entities, any and all companies involved with OS distribution would be required to remove all their media players from their own products. That means Apple would have to remove Quicktime, Linux/BSD distros would have to remove their collection of media players(whether they charge for their product or not) from their distro. The courts judgment can not be used to discriminate solely against Microsoft; it will be applied to all of Microsoft’s competitors(pay software or free software).
This whole case is bad for the OS companies, it opens up the way that goverments can dictate what applications can and can not be included within a OS distribution.
Imagine this rulling being applied to web browsers. No distro(along with Apple and Microsoft) would be able to include a web browser. Imagine the hoards of new AOL users(perish the thought) since for most people, getting that AO-Hell cd in the mail or in a magazine would be the only way they could get a web browser since most people don’t know how to use a FTP client. Hell imagine every ISP bombarding you daily with CDs with their browser suite.
With KDE and Gnome going the way of inter-application integration like what Apple and Microsoft has done, they would be fully effected as well.
I’m not French, but the situation in my (European)homecountry is that you can often buy your favorite mobile phone with a subscription of company X, company Y, or even without any subscription at all. For ‘plug-in’ home and office phones, it indeed is one company that runs the net and used to be the only one to pay your bills to, but now calling costs can be handled by others as well. More and more people here don’t even bother anymore to have such a connection, and do without it, ‘going mobile’ instead.
As for petrol and stuff: you can always fill up your car at another gas station that doesn’t belong to Total Elf Fina. And your car will run just as smoothly too ! (Even if it is a GM !)
I am not sure why MS cannot ship is Media player its an essential part of it operating system.
The only thing i can imagne is that if they ship Windows seperately from its Media player users are not directly glued in their (MS) drm .net.
What i still do not understand however is the fact that some hardware vendors get less discount or priveleges from MS if they also sell non-windows pc’s. Same goes for Intel wich makes agreements with big hardware suppliers in the Netherlands that if the also AMD they could risk Intel would no longer would like to sell to them or at least not for the same price, Actebis is a example in the Nethelrands of this.
Is they not forbidden by law in Europe or at least in the Netherlands?
>”Mini-monopoly”, what an inventive contradictio in terminis…
I call them that because just about every EU country has one but as a whole in the EU there isn’t a telecom monopoly (just litle ones in each country). And it’s not just telecoms, the same could be applied to electric power companies for example. Over here (Portugal) there’s even an highway monopoly (they all belong to the same company) making us pay unbelievable toll prices and i’ve never seen the EU doing anything about it, even though we have the biggest number of traffic accidents per capita in europe, mainly due to really bad roads (it’s like: use the highways or die!).
You ought to know that you cannot compare the country U.S.A. with the collection of countries organized in a E.U.
– It would be possible to argue that Directshow (technology behind WMP) is a part of the operating system. It is however hard to argue that the WMP player is part of the operating system; it can be replaced by any other Directshow compliant player. The same is true for codecs. Considering the Windows media 9 codec part of the OS is nonsense.
– Competitors need to remove their media players as well? Anti-trust regulations apply only to companies with considerable power in their market. An order to Microsoft to remove its WMP would not apply to companies like Apple and Linux vendors. They have no conderable power in their markets, they can do what they want.
This is similar to the telecom business the former state companies have to share their networks with smaller companies, but the smaller companies are free to refuse sharing their networks with others.
– Monopolies by former state telecom companies are dealt with by national anti-trust organisations. At this time there has not be a reason for an EU wide anti-trust investigation against one.
The EU, is just wasting time, WMP is in my humble opinion good for home users.
Alot of ppl I know like WMP…i think its ok, and has come along way…wmp7 was bad.
I can’t see the point of this, well they should really be investing more in Opensource and pushing linux into the academic university’s and schools, with subsidies.
Ok nothing wrong with shipping WMP with Winxp.
but thing that bothers most of us is that “dont integrate” it to the system. Let we hav an option of which player to use and whicb browser to use. Go to microsoft update site. It does not allow you to update windows with other browsers. If you other browsers, u have to download updates. what this means? This is not good for consumer. Ok people may like WMP(including me) but what if I want to remove it what if I want to remove IE(Would love to do that) windows assumes a lot of things. If it’s browser it’s IE, if it’s any media player, its WMP! !! and that sucks
There is this kind of idea among americans that the EU is one country, like the US. I feel it is necesary to make this clear.. The EU is not one country, it is a collection of countries, each with it’s laws and regulations. Of course there are some regulations decided by the EU parliament that apply to all the member countries. But you couldn’t find a company in Europe to compare it to Microsoft, in terms of market share (I mean monopoly). At least not in the computer business.
That is why comparing Microsoft to France Telecom or any other national-oriented business is wrong. We like competition in Europe, because it benefits us consumers. We see that Microsoft is doing whatever it wants in the US, and we don’t want to see it here too. They think they can get away with anything. Maybe in the US, with the legal system there, it’s no surprise. So yeah, I am glad that EU doesn’t fall for Microsoft’s tactics.
And it is wront to say that if EU makes Microsoft unbundle its Media Player, the same rule can apply to Linux and other OSes. I don’t remember Linux distro makers saying it’s impossible to take out xine or mplayer. Everything is possible. And by the way, some Linux distributions include Real Player also, so can you compare that to Microsoft’s tactics?
Microsoft needs a lesson. And a good one. I hope the EU will give it to them, the hard way.
>That is why comparing Microsoft to France Telecom or any other national-oriented business is wrong.
So what you’re saying is that monopolies are good if they’re european but bad if they’re american?
Just for comparisons sake, can anyone from the USA tell us how much a 512Kbps dsl line costs over there per month? The telecom monopoly over here charges €35 for those, with a 2GB download/upload limit (they actually discriminate between national and international traffic) and a €120 activation fee.
A lot of people here make a direct comparison with Windows against Linux/BSD: They too come with a lot of multi media tools. There is however one MAJOR difference, during installation, you can decide not to install any of these tools. If you like, you only install the kernel. In my point of view, MS should not be forced to remove WMP (or more apps) it should however be possible to choose what to install or not, perhaps a Windows “light” version can be available too without all the bells. Who needs WMP/MSN/IE/… on a file server anyway?
well the problem isnint if this is going to cause problems for home users. The problem is as soon microsoft gets competition it includes that kind of software for free until there is no competition. mozilla -> ie
realplayer -> wmp
i heard that they are going to start to intergrate antivirus software in the os aswell.
and that is the problem people is lasy they dont look around for a better product why should they its allredy intergrated in the os.
if microsoft had had any competition with the office suit
then microsoft offce would probobly be intergrated aswell.
ok so it migth be nice to get all that stuff with the os
but if it continues we will have one company that makes the os and all application it runs.
then i must say that ms needs competition ie has had much development since netscape lost the war
Having a monopoly is not against the law. Using your status as a monopoly( Which microsoft is not ) to stay that way is.
So what if WMP is bundled with Windows. So what the courts are saying is consumers are too stupid to look for alternatives?
I see no reason for the law to interfere. Laws are to protect you from someone else violating your rights.
How are they violated because the copy of Windows YOU PURCHASED contains other Microsoft programs?
Nevermind me, let the mob continue…..
France Telecom is a monopoly in France, like Belgacom is in Begium and the respective companies in other EU countries. And it doesn’t mean that they don’t allow for competitors to do business. There are a lot of small to medium companies selling communication services in the EU countries. It’s not like France Telecom says – you can use the phone line to make calls only if you are our customer. You are free to use other companies.
And I did not say that monopoly is good. It’s bad wether is national or multi-national based. But multi-national companies like “insert name of multi-billion monopolistic company biggest software maker here” have a bigger negative impact on us consumers.
So what I want? I want to make a call? I am free to GET RID of the existing phone line and do it with a mobile phone or use another phone company. I want video and audio? OK, can I GET RID of Media Player? Can I reclaim the wasted HD space? Let’s say I need only Real Player for all my multimedia content. Now why should I be forced to keep Media Player inside my computer?
It’s not the fact that these players are bundled with the machine – it’s the fact that they CANNOT BE REMOVED – and are in resident memory whether you like it or not, at all times.
I cannot speak for linux distros, but I am sure there media/web browsers are removeable in favor of another.
For all the trolls that think Apple does the same thing. On the newest computers, Apple still INCLUDES Internet Explorer for the mac (witch was discontenued by MS themselfs). If I want to use Mozilla or Real Player in the place of Safari/QT – I simply drag QT and Safari to the TRASH – That’s it. They are not a componet that is required by the system (AT ALL)
Whatever to do with the Portugees telecom monopoly is only of the Portugees goverments concern, the EU doesn’t and shouldn’t interfer with that. Microsoft however is a monopoly in all European Countries and then the EU should act.
FYI the local telecom monopoly KPN overhere does get fined or ordered to lower prices every once in a while for abusing its monopoly power. You should blame the Portugees goverment for not acting against the abuse of monopoly power not the EU.
WMP is not “Resident in memory” unless you are actually using the application.
I don’t think so, the EU should act when national governments don’t, portuguese politicians are such a bunch of morons that if the EU doesn’t act (and a lot of times they do, fortunately) we get screwed. Portugal Telecom was also fined for not letting other operators use their infrastucture, but the fines were so low (~ €50000 i think) that it was cheaper for them to pay than have competition.
The point is on any, Linux/BSD/Apple the default browser or the media player is not necessary for the proper functioning of the operating system. On any of these OSes one can install alternate browsers or media players and the operating system will still work fine even if you “remove” the default packages. As someone pointed out above, even if you are using an alternate browser, in mswin, you are forced to keep the default packages. That is the difference and what is mandated by EU is that the default packages are not actually necessary for running the operating system and hence should not be made a indivisible part of the operating system.
If I’m not mistaken, the EU doesn’t sit back after cashing the fine. If they conclude that nothing has changed, the fines will go up and in the end they may impose a fine for every day that the situation hasn’t changed.
That will change any company’s attitude eventually.
Why do so many people complain about IE and WMP etc being intergrated into Windows? You shouldn’t forget the target audience: people who wouldn’t even know how to install another media player or internet browser, simply because they don’t even know others exist!
I, personally, wouldn’t mind seeing WMP removed from Windows (I barely use it anyway) but I at least have the decency to look beyond my own needs, and for example think about my parents and grandparents.
So MS is ordered to remove WMP from the OSs it sells in Europe. Thus, people in Europe are forced to download it from Microsoft. Oh the horror. That’ll sure show Microsoft. I guess the america haters across the pond are sure bitter about that remedy. If they had their way everybody would be forced to run Linux.
” You shouldn’t forget the target audience: people who wouldn’t even know how to install another media player or internet browser, simply because they don’t even know others exist! ”
If they find out “others exist”, why refuse them the option to completely replace what they have with what they want.
As said, the OS doesn’t need browsers or media players to function. An OS can provide these programs allright, but making them unremoveable stinks.
The same answer for both:
I am not sure that MS won’t be able to give the software bundled with windows. I think the issue is that if some vendor has a tie up with say Real then they should be able to just remove WMP and substitute RMP “without sacrificing any core OS functionality” unlike IE currently. This is because WMP is not critical for functioning of the operating system as such.
Even when people crib about IE, they are asking for the ability to replace the browser if/when they are capable. If the default is good for you no problems! Again as I said it is the facility to replace without hampering the core OS functionality which is being asked. Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption 😉
You can mock Microsoft opponents all you like, but your steering wheal example is a bit off target.
A better example would be if you needed a special nozzle to fuel GM cars, a nozzle that wouldn’t fit in other cars. That would pose no problem to the consumer as GM cars are frequent and besides GM would buy most of the gas stations.
Now imagine that the GM fuel system have real advantages.Let’s say it leaks far less gas to the environment. So GM manages to lobby for a law that makes it illegal to tamper with the system so that GM cars can be fueled from non GM nozzle equipped gas stations.
Now, if you don’t own a GM car it all of a sudden becomes hard to find an ordinary gas station as most of the gas market focuses on providing fuel for the market leading GM cars.
After five years GM have improved their nozzle and offer you to upgrade your car if you have signed the GM licence version 6.0 where you promise to stay with GM for 20 years. If you havn’t signed you can buy a brand new car for the full price.
Buying another brand is out of the question, since they are not compatible with the fuel system infrastructure in the society around you.
Finnaly, lets assume that you are fortunate enough to become president of GM. Tell me, do you think it would be a good idea to lower GM product prices in these circumstances?
The EU steps in and shows Bill Gates up. I mean come on, you do realize that most people are just going to goto the Windows site or the CD and install all of these things that were eliminated.
“I call them that because just about every EU country has one but as a whole in the EU there isn’t a telecom monopoly (just litle ones in each country)”
The telecoms began as national monopolies but all national markets in the EU are open to competition under the single market competition directive.
I’m sure France Telecom is still the largest provider in France, as British Telecom is still the largest provider in the UK but the market is open and competition is driving prices down.
why is it that ms fanboys always bring up linux distros when we are talking about ms including software ?????
if they actually had a look at a linux distro, they would notice that the distro maker always includes at least a few different programs in each genre… ie, a couple of browsers (mozilla konquerer), a couple of word processors (kate abiword), couple of office suites (koffice openoffice), loads of multimedia programmes, loads of graphics editors….. but hopefully you get my point.
with the linux distro you are free to use any or none of the included stuff, dont want it ? dont add it.
ms forces people to use wmp… why would I want that to play me mp3 in media player when winamp does a much better job ?
Why do so many people complain about IE and WMP etc being intergrated into Windows? …
I, personally, wouldn’t mind seeing WMP removed from Windows (I barely use it anyway) but I at least have the decency to look beyond my own needs, and for example think about my parents and grandparents.
Removing integration would have no effect on them. Everything would look exactly the same as now to a user, except advanced users would be able to remove and replace browser and media player components.
James Dorn wrote:
> I want to use Mozilla or Real Player in the place of Safari/QT
> I simply drag QT and Safari to the TRASH
Excuse me but you simply do not have a clue of what you are talking about. What you are trashing is explicitely called “quicktime PLAYER”. You are not trashing Quicktime. You cannot, because it is part of the OS (and it is a good thing). Practically every single application in Mac OS that displays any form of picture uses QuickTime for that.
Well, in fact, in Mac OS 9, you could trash Quicktime (or disable it in the extensions manager), and you could very well forget to have any non-text based application working. Including Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, by the way.
People keeps mistaking the difference between system services and applications…
Extrapolating I guess what people wants is an OS without video rendering services, audio services, imaging services, hypertext rendering services, compression services, vector font rendering services, HID services, windowing services, text input services… we could extrapolate forever…
What is it that you consider an operating system to be, and nothing else but an operating system?
Wrong….you’ve looked over the essence: removeability. That’s what people want.
Windows isn’t complete as it is, and they actually want it to have fewer apps!? The EU is only attacking it’s own consumers.
WMP is not “Resident in memory” unless you are actually using the application.
What the heck are you talking about, sure it is. Find any mp3 or movie on your hard drive and view it with an exlorer window (with Web panes turned on) and Media player componets are right there waiting for you to press play.
Excuse me but you simply do not have a clue of what you are talking about. What you are trashing is explicitely called “quicktime PLAYER”. You are not trashing Quicktime. You cannot, because it is part of the OS (and it is a good thing). Practically every single application in Mac OS that displays any form of picture uses QuickTime for that.
Well, in fact, in Mac OS 9, you could trash Quicktime (or disable it in the extensions manager), and you could very well forget to have any non-text based application working. Including Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, by the way.
People keeps mistaking the difference between system services and applications…
Please look at your statment in regards to what I said, I can remove the APPLICATION becuase its not REQUIRED by the OS. Go, and try to remove Windows Media Players Execuable.
And even at that, I dont see anywhere that MacOS X needs even the Quicktime Libs. I am sure the Framework for QT can be removed without the system even complaining.
None of this will matter in a few years. All OS’s other than Microsoft will be useless for the internet. Now that MS is implimenting a new interface into Longhorn (Alero?!?) That erases the lined between an Application and a Web-Page. Microsoft goes and hands out the dev tools to every University in America for free if they do not use Open Source Alts. Every graduate from college will only understand how MS’s closed crap works. I face the fact that Microsoft will make my Mac un-browseable to the internet in a few years…. No big deal.. right?
I haven’t read all the comments but it seems that most people are arguing about whether IE or WMP should be included in Windows. I think that Microsoft should have the right to choose the components that they include in their product and it should be the consumers choise to buy or not to buy it. However even this choise is not available. When you buy a new system (especially a laptop) you are FORCED to buy windows. I have read that this is because of licensing agreements between the manufacturers/retailers and Microsoft (Microsoft gives huge discounts for a huge purchase of licenses). So instead of taking action to completely ban these unacceptable practices the judges basically care about whether the IE or the WMP icon will be removable so that the other companies do not complain. Everything works for the companies and who fucks consumers? If I want to buy (even) and IBM laptop for example what support is given to me against the monopolistic tactic the forces me to buy Windows even if I am not planning to use it? (Sorry but http://www.windowsrefund.net/ is not adequate!)
I’ve completely removed IE, WMP, and windows messenger and everything seems to work quite nicely on my system.
Acually Norway produces oil, 3,330 thousand barrels per day. And the UK 2,463 barrels/day. And both are run by evil socialist (labour) types (afaik – ianaeonp (I am not an expert on norwegian politics) ) !
I think I smell some regime changes coming 😉
“Please look at your statment in regards to what I said, I can remove the APPLICATION becuase its not REQUIRED by the OS. Go, and try to remove Windows Media Players Execuable.
And even at that, I dont see anywhere that MacOS X needs even the Quicktime Libs. I am sure the Framework for QT can be removed without the system even complaining.”
Dorn, do yourself a favor, go and delete those unnecessary Quick Time Libraries and the unnecessary QuickTime Framework located in your system directory. While you at it remove the QuickTime kernel extension. Then after that you reinstall OSX to get a working system again. Moron.
Furthermore, all those lovely play here buttons you see are just that; buttons. They open Windows Media Player to play the file, kind of like clicking on an HTML link will open your web browser and display the link page. (It doesn’t mean its lurking in resident memory.) In lay terms we call that a “shortcut” kind of like those things in your start button menu – you don’t see all of them running resident memory but when you click on them sure enough they work! Even when you click on a file the correct programs opens and displays the file contents — all that is done the magic of what we like to call “file associations”.
While I’m at it, IE, OE, MSN etc are not integrated into the system. Use XPLite and uninstall them. Windows runs damn fine without them, when I click on a file thats an HTML, Firefox opens up and displays it (no that doesn’t mean Firefox sits in resident memory all the time – its ok I can tell your slow to catch on). The issue is running other applications on windows that relied on those “integrated libraries” – for instance PowerDVD requires the DRMclient.dll file from WMP to execute correctly, the built in browser in IRCmp3 utilizes the IEcore.dll for rendering HTML in its “built in browser”. However this isn’t microsofts fault they make these applications APIs open so devs wouldn’t have to remake their own HTML engines etc for their applications. As a small side note all those Play buttons that you think are out to get you disappear when you uninstall WMP as well.
Tyr Tyr Tyr, thats small potatoes.
Venezuela makes about 10,000 barrels per day, and they’ve won Miss Universe more than 5 times. Hello? Which country would take over next?
>> Having a monopoly is not against the law. Using your
>> status as a monopoly( Which microsoft is not ) to stay
>> that way is.
I think you haven’t used personal computers for a long time.
>> So what if WMP is bundled with Windows. So what the
>> courts are saying is consumers are too stupid to look for
>> alternatives?
There are two kinds of people here:
1) People who doesn’t want MS’s products other than the os and doesn’t want all the vulnerabilities/overload that that software carries.
2) People who has no idea such alternatives exist because they do not have motivation to look for them, as there’s already a player within the OS. This is 90% of the population.
>> I see no reason for the law to interfere. Laws are to
>> protect you from someone else violating your rights.
What happens is that MS is really clever, like with the browser they know that if the install the player in every single windows installation, later they can go to disney and say: “listen pal I’ve got WMV on 99% of the computers of the world” and disney will say, “what the heck I was doing thinking of doing Quicktime!”
Don’t you see that? This is what the EU doesn’t want to happen the same situation like the one with IE.
>> How are they violated because the copy of Windows YOU
>> PURCHASED contains other Microsoft programs?
There are no regulation which forbides what I have described abobe. Sadly.
>> Nevermind me, let the mob continue…..
You should inform yourself better before ranting.
>> Extrapolating I guess what people wants is an OS without
>> video rendering services, audio services, imaging
>> services, hypertext rendering services, compression
>> services, vector font rendering services, HID services,
>> windowing services, text input services… we could
>> extrapolate forever…
Try to troll as loud as you want, but this is not what people say.
I managed to extirpate WMP from WindowsXP with my bare hands thew registry editor and Ultraedit, it wasn’t easy and I feared to screw a few things. I managed to do it, and now I watch all my content using BSPlayer.
We are not talking about stripping API functionality we are talking about removing undesired middleware and no to make it part of the underlying Os like IE.
I do not use IE at all and I will love to remove that rubbish from the OS so I will not sufer from it security problems all the time a new vulnerability is found. But I can’t because there’s a lot of software like AutoCAD which now uses it as API funtionality.
In this forum there are lots of people which truly like Win2k/XP but are tired of MS’s crappy middleware, MSN explorer, Messengers and such.
>> What is it that you consider an operating system to be,
>> and nothing else but an operating system?
I will explain it quickly:
I do not want IE, MSN, MSN Messenger, Stupid windows games, Half of the accesories.
I want everything to be selectable upon install, for me is OK if MS chooses to bundle rubbish as soon as I can select not to install it. It was possible originally on Windows 95/NT4!!!
As soon as Wine is able to run a few more apps in Linux I will deflect my desktop boxes to it because there I can choose on Linuxland.
Dorn, do yourself a favor, go and delete those unnecessary Quick Time Libraries and the unnecessary QuickTime Framework located in your system directory. While you at it remove the QuickTime kernel extension. Then after that you reinstall OSX to get a working system again. Moron.
Furthermore, all those lovely play here buttons you see are just that; buttons. They open Windows Media Player to play the file, kind of like clicking on an HTML link will open your web browser and display the link page. (It doesn’t mean its lurking in resident memory.) In lay terms we call that a “shortcut” kind of like those things in your start button menu – you don’t see all of them running resident memory but when you click on them sure enough they work! Even when you click on a file the correct programs opens and displays the file contents — all that is done the magic of what we like to call “file associations”.
While I’m at it, IE, OE, MSN etc are not integrated into the system. Use XPLite and uninstall them. Windows runs damn fine without them, when I click on a file thats an HTML, Firefox opens up and displays it (no that doesn’t mean Firefox sits in resident memory all the time – its ok I can tell your slow to catch on). The issue is running other applications on windows that relied on those “integrated libraries” – for instance PowerDVD requires the DRMclient.dll file from WMP to execute correctly, the built in browser in IRCmp3 utilizes the IEcore.dll for rendering HTML in its “built in browser”. However this isn’t microsofts fault they make these applications APIs open so devs wouldn’t have to remake their own HTML engines etc for their applications. As a small side note all those Play buttons that you think are out to get you disappear when you uninstall WMP as well.
First off, this is not a peeing contest to see who’s right, so there is no need for name calling. If you really want to get down to it – the kernel is open source, and therefor the lines that index QT can be removed from the system. On the other subject, you are absolutly wrong – they do not whatsoever launch WMP, when you click the play button (not a link), the player sits right in the window pane.
I am tired of your rudeness, you should be banned from the fourm becuase of your mouth.
Well, It’s more like having a GM car that can only be driven on GM roads. The gas example is also appropriate.
What you are looking at is a standards issue. Gas nozzles are pretty generic, but imagine one company getting all the money from the licensing of their design because their design is what best fits most cars. Others can’t use that design, since they would be sued so they have to make inefficient designs that may not even get the gas into the car. OK… a poor example.
Try this: Standards are much like language, no one should “own” it. Imagine two groups speaking English. If there is no common standard (gramar and meaning) then they will not understand each other. Imagine if you had to pay someone a fee in order to learn and use that language? If it were not used by the majority, you would not pay it. However, since it is the main language of the world, you are “forced” to use it.
Microsoft is not wrong in bundling it’s software. It’s not even wrong that they obscure their code. But it’s when they try to force their own “standards” on other groups (thinking of the UN, DVD, XML, and E-Mail taxes) they won’t just be setting the standard and saying “Have at it”, they will be holding out their hand, demanding money, and saying: “I want it”. THAT, is what bothers me most. They want to control the standards via licensing so that they grow rich off of other peoples efforts – not unlike how they got to where they are now.
Imagine if TCP/IP were licensed? The internet users today would be paying whoever owned that license a fee. I think you see my point.
This is all nonsense. I don’t use Windows Media Player execpt to play wmv files. No one has to use Windows Media Player. If I ran Microsoft and didn’t have to answer to a board of directors, I would just pull all my products from the EU.
This is all nationalist crud.
I agree, you both came up with far better examples than what I had originally posted- my point wasn’t to poopoo the MS naysayers though. Basically what I wanted to do was to highlight the fact that these legal decisions seem to only “fix” a symptom (i.e. various third party software components breaking as a result of removing certain bundled Windows software), not the underlying problem (such as the system under which said third party software became dependant on the aforementioned components in the first place).
Personally, I would happily remove IE and WMP and a multitude of other components, but I don’t for fear of breaking the other software that I’ve installed.
IMO Microsoft should be rather ordered to make Windows Media formats public, documented and royalty-free for potential implementors.
I think the main issue is just one, and is not removability. It simply is: supported standards.
If the system by deafult supports ONLY certain standards (let’s say codecs since we’re talking video) it is quite obvious that the DEAFULT standards are the one which will mostly be endorsed by everyone (since companies tend to settle to the lower part of the spectrum, for example when releasing a product you usually make sure it works on the slowest machine on sale at the moment and with the deafult system installation).
Fastforward to Microsoft: since the “standards” made by default into the operating system are Microsoft’s, the industry as a whole (take internet for example) settles onto that. Sure you can put divx real or quicktime codecs, but the OFFICIAL endorsement would be on default codecs. Meaning microsoft’s. Not only that, think about all the codecs drama happening with windows media player. On older machines DIvx is a nightmare and WM just plays hiccups. Still, if you install and run, let’s say, VLC, everything is just fine. So it’s not fault of the machine itself.
Summarizing:
1) The monopoly microsoft has on the operating system and Microsoft continuous disbelief in open standards limit customer’s choice. Only microsoft standards are and will be accepted in the future. And this is bad.
2) It’s not a matter of inclusion of WM into windows, what is wrong is the actual closed philosophy of the system itself, the limited number (lack) of open standards supported, the conitnuous search for new means of incomes that is driving microsoft into a own the system own all approach. It’s Msn not talking with AOL, html pages not showing correctly, the list can be quite long.
Under this light, I surely support EU decision to stop microsoft. It’s not only in EU interest, but I think is in the interest of the market in braod terms.
This is the most amusing thing I’ve seen yet today. People endlessly complaining that you can’t remove blahblahblah from XP. People using the registry to try to get rid of WMP! Ha!
Google is your friend people. If those bundled apps tick you off so much that you complain about it on message boards it seems like you might spend the whopping 60 seconds to do a web search on your issue.
Since no one has, apparently, I’ll entice you by informing you that it’s just one little .inf text file on your XP system that hides programs like WMP and Messenger so they don’t appear in the add/remove programs dialog. Yep. That’s it everyone. A text file. You delete the word “HIDE” from next to the program name and you can remove the app just like any other program.
So easy.
I bet Microsoft is getting a headache from rolling their eyes when people file suit over such things.
“First off, this is not a peeing contest to see who’s right, so there is no need for name calling. If you really want to get down to it – the kernel is open source, and therefor the lines that index QT can be removed from the system. On the other subject, you are absolutly wrong – they do not whatsoever launch WMP, when you click the play button (not a link), the player sits right in the window pane.
I am tired of your rudeness, you should be banned from the fourm becuase of your mouth.”
Not a peeing contest? I belive you took the ball and ran with it from, “slow and moron” to “should be banned and rude”. Or maybe its only a pissing contest if I’m doing the peeing as well? Afterall one person peeing is obviously not a contest.
Now lets get down to it, since you seem to think life begins and ends in the kernel. We’ll strip out the kernel lines for QuickTime… well you just borked Quartz Extreme. Unfortunately QE is not open source. No more GUI for you, no more Apple applications – since, if you’d like to check me on this, Safari, the iApps, the ProApps, the Microsoft apps, even the Adobe apps are not command line tools. You could alwas argue for substiting X-Free, but it doesn’t run Apple apps nor can it access outside of the BSD subsystem (which not everyone installs). So if your idea of removability is “I can take stuff out so that the system, or extremely large parts of it, becomes basically unusable” then you’ve made an excellent point. How its different than what your arguing against in windows – I have no idea.
As for WMP, and Windows XP. Running something inside a window does not mean its permanently in resident memory. In fact I’d have to say that going by how something displays in the GUI for determing if its in memory or not is bad idea. Otherwise when I open a directory up in Explorer, all those files must be loaded into resident memory because they are being displayed in the same window I clicked on their folder in. In case you haven’t noticed other programs behave the same way, for example, Adobe Acrobat does this in IE – and it does it through a plug-in system thats called on demand. WMP usage does the same thing, explorer.exe uses the WMP libraries to run WMP files within itself. Its even something thats practiced outside of Windows, Konquorer in KDE does it too.
> I managed to extirpate WMP from WindowsXP
Good luck at trying to get omething as Adobe Premiere working for you. If it does work, let me repeat that you do not have a clue about what is it that you just removed from your system.
> I do not use IE.
Yes, definitely we would be better with a plain text, non-hyperlinked help system, to name an application of its service.
The problem is your perceived concet of what WMP or IE are. To my mother, selecting the icon and hitting delete is quite the same as getting rid of “that rubbish from the OS”. Either your case can be thrown pretty much in the same bag or you are effectively ripping off part of the OS, even if notepad.exe keeps working.
As if there were few alternatives… and you still struggle to run a Microsoft OS without Microsoft Software. Grow up while you are at it.
@Rajan R
” The funny thing is that if Microsoft was a European company, nobody would have even considered antitrust action there..”
FYI, cases of European companies which got fined or prohibited from expanding their activities in the European market because of their monopoly or illegal predator bahaviour behaviour are commonplace. FranceTélécom was fined several times and forced to give their competitors cheap or even free access to their infrastructure, carrefour Can no longer open a supermarket in France because of anti-trust laws, etc.
Microsoft is breaching the law of the countries it is operating in, therefore they have to face the legal consequences of their acts.
Embrace and extend. Let the OEM’s customize Windows, by allowing them to add software, but forbid them deleting anything. MS has invested a lot of time in developing and testing their software. And they have a brand to protect. Allowing OEMs to add software in no way damages the OS or the brand. Windows is plenty stable enough now. This provides innovative software houses who can convince OEMs to carry their software somewhat of an equal footing with MS. If Netscape had come with every instance of Windows on a new PC, MS would have had a harder time killing them, even if the OEMs had to pay a modest licensing fee. Of course, MS could still integrate IE better with the rest of the OS, but making the APIs and file formats public would take away some of that advantage.
Ok, I dislike M$ as a matter of principal, and am rabidly anti-WMP (thanks to V9)
That said, this is total horse manure. I cannot and will not fault a company for bundling one of their products free with another. It’s not like M$ isn’t allowing users to choose something else, they are just providing their crappy version free with the OS. BFD. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. As a programmer the fact that they document it’s calls enough for people to actually call libraries from it is a big bonus, not a penalty.
Case in point, I am using XP as my primary OS, and haven’t used Realplayer or Quicktime in over two years thanks to RealAlternative and QTAlternative, or Windows Media Player since they added WMV support to BSPlayer and WMA support to WinAMP. Installing RTAlt, QTAlt and KLite++ Mega Codec pack (which now comes with BSPlayer 1.0) is SOP for any system I set up.
They want to go after companies for bad practices with media players, they should be going after Realplayer, perhaps the worst piece of junk damn near forced on users ever. Apple should probably be taken to task as well for that POS they call Quicktime.
Proprietary file players need to go the way of the dodo, since there really is no good reason to make anything these days in anything other than DivX or MP3.
“[..] RealAlternative and QTAlternative [..]”
FYI: that is illegal.
Microsoft could never be able to include all competitors who ported their video/audio codec to MS Windows. What when new software comes out?
The problem imo is that people don’t know about alternatives for one and that companies and organisations thrive on the assumption every internetter can view WMV. Especially regarding latter versions, that is not true.
Is WMV really the only example? No. MSIE, MSOE, and many others are also examples.
Instead, it would be more fair if MS would provide an easy way to uninstall their software with the ability of the user to uninstall the DLL’s too. It is the user’s computer, it is their opinion wether they want something or not (“Why i like Debian”). But please, no government intervention, though i agree somewhat with their assertion.
If governments would fuck off and stay off the IT business (that includes trademarks, copyright, patents) this world would be a much better place. The people can regulate theirselves. Socialist government, you say? LMFAO, yeah, a government with not much government intervention isn’t a “socialist government” whereas this is a sign of one. But patent FUD is ALSO a government regulation… (which doesn’t work as it was intended, same for copyright). But no, THAT is not what the US government is doing! Instead, they chose the plutocratic, oligarchial way: a 2-1 with the corporations in power, where the people lose.
After all, aren’t they the ones promoting the use of propriety standards and locking the public into staid players like QT, Real Player and WMP. Why don’t governments support and enbcourage the use of open media formats that aren’t locking any consumer down to a platform or piece of playback software. This whole agument is crap without looking at how to prevent MS from owning media playback formats and screwing the public as a result.
Lets go for Ogg Vorbis (better than bloody MP3 anyday) and Divx or some other open formats allowing for a media rich open society.
As for integration, it would be nice to get rid of apps without having the process f up the usage of other apps but that is a matter of dll centralisation and uninstallers checking, dare I say it, dependancies for apps and leaving what is needed and getting rid of the rest.
Why don’t governments support and enbcourage the use of open media formats that aren’t locking any consumer down to a platform or piece of playback software
Because governments should not encourage or discourage or being getting involved in any way with what people use as a media player. Think about. It’s not that hard to understand.
“Lets go for Ogg Vorbis (better than bloody MP3 anyday) and Divx or some other open formats allowing for a media rich open society.”
DiVX encoded on the fly? Seriously, which DiVX format can be used for on the fly live streaming for say 200kB/s (or a bit more or less, but also with a low-quality, low-bandwidth counterpart for dialup users) with all of the following: open format, good quality of codec, easy usage of client & server?
I have had many conversations with a person who works as techie for video/audio conferences at public and independant (radio, tv, online, offline) stations and it turned out either Real or Quicktime “just works” while no open format “does work”.
The “old” Quicktime formats are actually MPEG4*, whereas the latter works on MS Windows and Apple MacOSX. No _native_ Linux; the “hacked” codec trick with MPlayer is actually illegal. All Real codecs are proprietary, but using the “hacked” codec or a native SO together with MPlayer is also illegal. He argumented people using Linux could use RealPlayer to view video, i argumented that’s only for a few platform, and that the codecs aren’t open. We’re still bound to software; crappy software (recent /. discussion about Real again, everyone knows this is a piece of junk made to do the exact opposite of what the user wants!). Then we’ve had a long discussion about Helix and studied the licenses.
We’ve even had a long chat together with a OGG Theora developer. We discussed a variety of possibilities and this Theora devver came with valid points. For example regarding MPEG roylaties and regarding Helix and its’ license, on which i also frowned upon earlier. It also turned out that regarding Theora, it will eventually support this “live, on-demand, streaming, low bandwidth video” ”’feature”’, but not for _now_. On the end of that long discussion, which lasted quite some hours, i suggested to lobby with the NGO’s about donating money to the Theora project argumenting a public or independant service should be open, but other than suggesting, there’s not much i can do…
Ergo, there we saw (at that time) no serious alternative. What do you suggest?
* = one of the stations is using this; i like this one most, for now. Together with RTSP support, which MPlayer can handle (www.live.com/mplayer), the best solution, since it runs theoretically on any platform. Support to play this is included with libavcodec. But.. there’s roylaties on MPEG. Blegh..
Nka: On any of these OSes one can install alternate browsers or media players and the operating system will still work fine even if you “remove” the default packages. As someone pointed out above, even if you are using an alternate browser, in mswin, you are forced to keep the default packages.
Since SP1, you can “hide” WMP which is in all practice and purposes uninstalling WMP. EU doesn’t want just that. They want WMP out by default, or rivals in along by default.
Nka: That is the difference and what is mandated by EU is that the default packages are not actually necessary for running the operating system and hence should not be made a indivisible part of the operating system.
Most of the OS isn’t “necessary” for the OS to run. I mean, other than a bootloader, a kernel, some basic CLI shell – what else would you need to run an OS?
I think the issue is that if some vendor has a tie up with say Real then they should be able to just remove WMP and substitute RMP “without sacrificing any core OS functionality” unlike IE currently. This is because WMP is not critical for functioning of the operating system as such.
That vendor would have the same effect “hiding” WMP and installing RealONE and they would be absolutely sure that every application that uses any part of WMP (i.e. KaZaa) would continue to work. They don’t require WMP to be fully removed.
Nka: Even when people crib about IE, they are asking for the ability to replace the browser if/when they are capable.
Yes. I replace my browser on Windows. I’m using Opera. Yeap, there’s still a nice “e” icon in my start menu’s More Programs list, but who cares about that? What matters is that I can use Opera (or if I want to, Mozilla, Firefox, etc.) unhindered. And if I really don’t want to see that “e” anywhere, I could easily hide it via Add/Remove Programs list.
The main people that crib about IE being there by default is competitors of Microsoft and people who would want nothing more than so see the Redmond giant go bankrupt.
Uno Engborg: A better example would be if you needed a special nozzle to fuel GM cars, a nozzle that wouldn’t fit in other cars. That would pose no problem to the consumer as GM cars are frequent and besides GM would buy most of the gas stations. […]
Your analogy breaks down in many key areas. For one, for Windows, you don’t need a “special noozle”, or in this case I presume media format to enjoy all the joys of modern computing. You can still install RealONE, Quicktime, WinAMP, etc. In other words, you can use other “noozles”.
Another point it breaks up is when GM lobbies for a law banning using other noozles for your GM car. The only law I could think of that applies in this case is DMCA – lobbied by what should be the fuel companies in your analogy (RIAA and MPAA). In fact, Microsoft licenses its codec to interested parties.
Then you suddenly jump topic and bring up Licensing 6.0 which applies only to corporate customers and have nothing to do with WMP. So perhaps the special noozle in your analogy is Win32 – there’s no law stoping anyone from porting their app from Windows to other platforms.
geez: Wrong….you’ve looked over the essence: removeability. That’s what people want.
No, that’s what Microsoft competitors and a certain portion of cyberpolitical geeks want.
James Dorn: Please look at your statment in regards to what I said, I can remove the APPLICATION becuase its not REQUIRED by the OS. Go, and try to remove Windows Media Players Execuable.
Start> Control Panel> Add/Remove Programs> Set Program Access and Defaults. Or if you like, delete wmplayer.exe at X:Program FilesWindows Media Player
Oh, and you can drag it to the Recycle Bin if it pleases you.
1) People who doesn’t want MS’s products other than the os and doesn’t want all the vulnerabilities/overload that that software carries.
I don’t know too many viruses that uses WMP vunerabilities. But removing it wouldn’t stop Windows’ security problems. As long as Windows remain the dominant OS on 90+% of desktops, it would always be an target to security breaches. Regardless if they strip the OS down to the bare necessities.
Ucedac: In this forum there are lots of people which truly like Win2k/XP but are tired of MS’s crappy middleware, MSN explorer, Messengers and such.
That’s because MSN Explorer is a pay-for service, while for Messenger, even Microsoft comes up with a better altenative (MSN Messenger, which is in every way better than Windows Messenger).
James Dorn: On the other subject, you are absolutly wrong – they do not whatsoever launch WMP, when you click the play button (not a link), the player sits right in the window pane.
The system initiates certain WMP APIs. On slower computers or computers with less memory, you would see this take some time. Even on a fast computer, it takes a moment or two before finally appearing. Unless of course if you’re using thumbnail view, in which WMP would have already been initiated to provide thumbnails of video files.
In any case, open Ctrl-Alt-Del, go to Processes, point to me exactly which process is exclusively WMP. As for earlier on the kernel – you can already remove QT without even glancing at the source. But don’t expect to run OS X in any of its glory and awe after removing them.
Ressev: They want to control the standards via licensing so that they grow rich off of other peoples efforts – not unlike how they got to where they are now.
Let’s point to a related case of WMP. WMA and WMV differences with MPEG is its selling points. Microsoft made those new features and put it in WMA and WMV. And they license it. And then again, their chief competitor is MPEG, whose licensing fee for their codec is almost double that of Microsoft’s. And most of Microsoft’s other competitors are either relatively obscure (i.e. Ogg Vorbis, FLAC) or closed (i.e. Sorenson
Bill Sykes: This is all nationalist crud.
Considering that EU combined is the third largest market in the world, after China and India, and its combined GDP is highest in the world, I think it is fortunate for MS shareholders that you aren’t making decissions for Microsoft.
boorack: IMO Microsoft should be rather ordered to make Windows Media formats public, documented and royalty-free for potential implementors.
What about MPEG4 and AAC currently pushed by Apple, and to the lesser extend, Real that incure higher royalties than Microsoft? What about Read Media’s formats which for years maintain dominance regardless of its inferiority?
deathshadow: Proprietary file players need to go the way of the dodo, since there really is no good reason to make anything these days in anything other than DivX or MP3.
Funny, DivX isn’t open.
DiVX 3.x by MS wasn’t. The “hacked” DLL, DiVX ;-), wasn’t either. OpenDiVX, later named Porject Mayo, was open but went proprietary. Now there’s XViD, which is open. But see me earlier comment regarding this.
Rajan wrote:
>geez: Wrong….you’ve looked over the essence: removeability. >That’s what people want.
>No, that’s what Microsoft competitors and a certain portion >of cyberpolitical geeks want.
I’d say one has to be a geek of sorts to be perfectly at ease with not finding WME in the configuration-panel’s list of software to be removed. The non-geek part of “people” will wonder why and feel irritated, as they’ve grown accustomed to being in full control over install and uninstall with all other software……they will want no exceptions, they will want removability for WMP too and no geeky incomprehensible explanation on why this isn’t possible.
So, after WXP SP1 it is possible ? I don’t think that’s what Microsoft wanted if they didn’t have some pressure on their backs.
Just not using the software isn’t enough, as removing pre-installed IE (like I’ve done) from W98 and WME improves the stability of the entire OS. Even after reinstalling IE from a CD or download your system will still remain more stable.
(Note: I can only talk about the situation before WXP, because WME is as far as I’ll follow Microsoft’s path.)
I’d say one has to be a geek of sorts to be perfectly at ease with not finding WME in the configuration-panel’s list of software to be removed. The non-geek part of “people” will wonder why and feel irritated, as they’ve grown accustomed to being in full control over install and uninstall with all other software……they will want no exceptions, they will want removability for WMP too and no geeky incomprehensible explanation on why this isn’t possible.
Funny, although I’m the family geek (which is a big family BTW), I never heard of anyone wanting to get rid of WMP from their PCs. Ever since WMP was placed into Windows – and that’s before NetShow, it can’t be uninstalled except manually. A few call on how to uninstall Windows Messenger because they were under the assumption that it needs uninstallment to install MSN Messenger – but that’s about it.
(BTW, if you’re looking for the size of my family, it is 56 first cousins, and counting).
So, after WXP SP1 it is possible ? I don’t think that’s what Microsoft wanted if they didn’t have some pressure on their backs.
The antitrust settlement caused this. Yet I haven’t seen anyone use it, except maybe to hide Windows Messenger, which is a annoying little pain-in-the-a**. Even the most anti-Microsoft of users, they see little point in hiding as they use the app once in awhile.
Just not using the software isn’t enough, as removing pre-installed IE (like I’ve done) from W98 and WME improves the stability of the entire OS.
I agree. But IIRC, Windows 98 is no longer on retail anymore. And hopefully, the same can be said of Windows ME. But that’s Microsoft problem is IE causes instability – I hardly used Win98/Me because of it. Why should the courts force something on a company that may increase its competitive advantage?
Regardless, Windows 98 is already off the shelves and its market share is slowly reaching the point where it is irrevelent.
(Note: I can only talk about the situation before WXP, because WME is as far as I’ll follow Microsoft’s path.)
You see, that’s your problem. Windows XP is worlds away from Windows Me. While Windows Me would crash (if you’re lucky) anywhere from everyweek (or if you’re unlucky) to everyday. I have yet to see my installation of Windows XP crash.
And plus, while in Windows Me I have seen IE causing BSODs, I hardly have stability problems with IE on XP. Sure, IE crashes every so often, but the most it would bring down (that is, in rare cases) is Explorer, which would restart in moments. And since I hardly use IE anyway (Opera diehard fanatic here), I never had any problem with IE.
Or WMP for that matter (which is the original topic of the thread, BTW), which I only use when I am required to (streaming video from certain sites). I use WinAMP,even for video viewing (and probably would consider WMP again if they hired some real industrial designers to create a *proper* user interface that isn’t migrain inducing. Since I own a camcorder yet hardly use it, whenever I do I may as well use Windows Movie Maker instead of spending money on something I hardly use.
Rajan wrote:
>But that’s Microsoft problem is IE causes instability – I >hardly used Win98/Me because of it.
I stated before that this instability [that kept you from using Win98/Me more], was caused largely by the way the preinstalled IE was spaghetticoded into these two versions.
Luckily some third party software was developed to make IE removable, resulting in improved stability -even after reinstalling IE.
Too bad you’ve never followed this routine….It would have make you use Win98/Me more (including IE), and at the same time stop you from being the stubborn Windows-apologist you are now, when it comes to removablity…. 😉
“Even the most anti-Microsoft of users, they see little point in hiding as they use the app once in awhile.”
That’s quite a wild assertion. First, you imply that the most anti-Microsoft users use MS Windows and MS WMP. I beg to differ, though this is most likely nitpicking.
I have more problem with your assertion that pparantly according to you, all MS Windows users use WMP every once in a while. Uhm, exactly why would they? When i still used MS Windows, i remember using WinAmp and other, nice Video Players. I never used WMP, and more importantly never used it after their security patch which included some nice “features” and a “lovely” EULA.
“Funny, although I’m the family geek (which is a big family BTW), I never heard of anyone wanting to get rid of WMP from their PCs.”
Hello.
Btw, how can i use WMP without a known remotely exploitable vulnerability AND wthout using DRM or the new EULA?
geez: I stated before that this instability [that kept you from using Win98/Me more], was caused largely by the way the preinstalled IE was spaghetticoded into these two versions.
You see, I can’t debate with that. You wanna know why? Since 1999 up to 2000-1, I was using Linux almost exclusively. It is only when I tried Windows 2000 then I slowly moved back to Windows. I never cared about Windows 98 or Me because they were not that known for its stability. (Before 1999, I was a Windows 95 user with a brift stint with Windows 98)
geez: Too bad you’ve never followed this routine….It would have make you use Win98/Me more (including IE), and at the same time stop you from being the stubborn Windows-apologist you are now, when it comes to removablity…. 😉
Sorry. Even if Windows crashes every damn minute, I wouldn’t lobby for the courts to ban Microsoft from integrating IE. Why? They would only be pissing off their customers and cause them to investigate other options (in my case, Linux). But the instability caused by IE, from my brief stint with Windows 98, came not from Internet Explorer but from a variety of places. Either way, you can’t be too sure that when you press that save button, Windows wouldn’t feeze or your screen turn blue.
That’s why I started using Linux. And I only switched back because of Windows 2000’s stability. On Windows 2000 then, I used IE, which IMHO at that time, was the best free browser available (Mozilla was slow as hell, Opera wasn’t free). Never had much of a stability problem with it. In fact, the only reason why I moved to Opera even though at that time it crashes far more often than IE was because of the speed and features.
Oh BTW, I did use Windows ME before, but it was brief and in between in rare, random moments (i.e. when I needed to go to cyber cafes when the Internet is unaccessible at home). Hated it a lot. But that was when I was already using Windows 2000.
My point? My opinion has nothing to do with how well Microsoft software works. I hardly, if ever, use IE (except recently when I’m forced not to use my own PC), WMP (I use WinAMP; RealONE when I’m in the mood of radios), Windows Messenger (like most people, I’m using MSN Messenger, along with ICQ and Yahoo) or Outlook (even though I have a POP3 account, I’m using http://www.mail2web.com instead, Outlook 2003 when I’m at my PC).
Microsoft wants to create even more instability with their OS? So what? Not my problem, Linux looks very attractive this year around.
dpi: That’s quite a wild assertion. First, you imply that the most anti-Microsoft users use MS Windows and MS WMP. I beg to differ, though this is most likely nitpicking.
Well, I was talking about Windows users, anyone with a relatively good command of English would know that. Why would any, say, BSD user, hide WMP, IE and the likes when they don’t use Windows? Besides, you would be suprised the amount of rabib anti-Microsofties using Windows.
dpi: I have more problem with your assertion that apparantly according to you, all MS Windows users use WMP every once in a while.
I never assert that. What I assert is that of all the Windows 2000 and XP user, I don’t know anyone who hides WMP even though they know of such an option. And I gave my reason which was that I occasionally use it for streamings that require WMP (you can’t embed WMP in Opera yet, so you would have to open it in WMP).
dpi: When i still used MS Windows [blah blah blah]
What was the last version of Windows you had tried?
dpi: Btw, how can i use WMP without a known remotely exploitable vulnerability AND wthout using DRM or the new EULA?
For EULA, unless you’re using it extensively, I don’t see why you have to be worried about Microsoft tracking you. But anyway, Microsoft now in the latest version by default doesn’t record your activities, but allow (and encourage) you to do so.
As for DRM, you don’t really have much of a clue how it works, don’t you? DRM only comes to play when you have a piece of media that is protected by that DRM – all commercial media players (amongst them Real, who initiated this antitrust proceedings) have something similar. But DRM don’t affect you if you don’t have any DRM-protected media. And if you do have DRM-protected WMAs/WMVs, they are completely and utterly useless outside of WMP.
Rajan, you wrote:
>off their customers and cause them to investigate other options (in my case, Linux)
Someone posted here earlier in this thread that Linux has nothing to fear from the EU. Did you miss that info ? It’s still here, though.
Bye-bye Rajan, maybe we’ll meet again on another subject here at OSnews. I also hope that you’ve come to understand something more about Europe too.
ciao,
geez
Someone posted here earlier in this thread that Linux has nothing to fear from the EU. Did you miss that info ? It’s still here, though.
*roll eyes* My point is that if Windows XP still sucked as much as Windows 9x, more people would be considering Linux (and other options) than there are today. I have yet to have any stability problems with Windows XP, except once (which was my sound card’s fault, certainly no WMP).
Bye-bye Rajan, maybe we’ll meet again on another subject here at OSnews. I also hope that you’ve come to understand something more about Europe too.
Well, I understand Europe a lot, in fact if all goes well, I may be studying in Germany 2 years from now. (I’m BTW, an advocate of a EU-like confederation in South East Asia, so I should be more pro-EU than anti-EU)
But before we leave this thread, wanna explain why EU is bothering with the server editions of Windows? They aren’t close to being a monopoly any century soon – why does antitrust laws apply there?
“Well, I was talking about Windows users, anyone with a relatively good command of English would know that. Why would any, say, BSD user, hide WMP, IE and the likes when they don’t use Windows? Besides, you would be suprised the amount of rabib anti-Microsofties using Windows.”
Fair enought.
“I never assert that. What I assert is that of all the Windows 2000 and XP user, I don’t know anyone who hides WMP even though they know of such an option. And I gave my reason which was that I occasionally use it for streamings that require WMP (you can’t embed WMP in Opera yet, so you would have to open it in WMP).”
Therefore, “Hello”. I’m one of the users who always wanted to customize more than easily possible, who always changed the start menu’s content according to how i saw it better fitting, and one who prefers to remove software which isn’t used. I’m also quite certain i wasn’t the only person, given that during that time my friends customized their desktop too, in similair ways [and i still do this in my current Window Manager; i don’t need to know that i can click on X to execute Y when i don’t want to be able to clock on X or don’t want to execute Y]. I never “had” (as in that i was forced) to use WMP either. Why should it be on my computer then? Why shouldn’t i have the simple choice to install or uninstall a certain program. With so many other MS programs, it is possible.
“What was the last version of Windows you had tried?”
Windows XP.
“For EULA, unless you’re using it extensively, I don’t see why you have to be worried about Microsoft tracking you. But anyway, Microsoft now in the latest version by default doesn’t record your activities, but allow (and encourage) you to do so.”
Ah, MS changed manners. How nice
. Why did they? The argument (“if you have nothing to do, you don’t have to bother”) you are using is the same one the Stasi used under their regime.
“As for DRM, you don’t really have much of a clue how it works, don’t you? DRM only comes to play when you have a piece of media that is protected by that DRM – all commercial media players (amongst them Real, who initiated this antitrust proceedings) have something similar. But DRM don’t affect you if you don’t have any DRM-protected media. And if you do have DRM-protected WMAs/WMVs, they are completely and utterly useless outside of WMP.”
(In correct English, you say “you don’t […], do you?”)
Answer: i do, i have researched DRM and TCPA extensively. I have even written an article about it to a local privacy organisation, and for a paper.
First of all, it doesn’t matter to me wether other players give me the same functionality. I’m now discussing this one. The other ones will receive equal criticism for their manner, and the fact that one murders another doesn’t justify you to do so either. Perhaps you find this a bad analogy, i suggest however that you read some list of fallacies; you’ll find this one there noticed. If in some discussion i criticize the other players not, while i do criticize WMP, you have all the right to make this point and i’d refrain. Certainly!
Second, those players aren’t included in the Windows OS and could have been uninstalled easily when they were installed.
Thirth, my actual point. I asked you a QUESTION and you do not ANSWER it, instead you go talk about something else, say “they do it too”, and blabla. Can you just actually answer it, or is it that i have to answer it myself? Since the thread is almost dead i’ll do the latter. Here is the problem: When the patch for a known (!) remote vulnerability in WMP came out in IIRC june 26 2001, it came with additional FEATURES: DRM. Now, leave your “it doesn’t hurt you” claims aside because i only want the actual security patch! I don’t want these extra features, i have my reasons for that, and i should have that choice. Yet when i want this patch, or want to install XP SP1, i am forced to install a patch which is bundled with extra features.*
* Makes me wonder wether they revoked the new EULA in that specific patch. It would surprise me. Second, the problem, when it were appropriate, _existed_.
In my country we have a word for these practices (in the case of a selling (!)): tie-in sale. But there’s no sale here, because you only pay for the whole Windows license. However, wether legal or not, wether prosecuted or not, it is still an intense unethical and unfriendly behaviour imo.
Makes me wonder who of us two doesn’t “get it”.
I really wouldn’t know. I’m not deep enough into that matter.
Still, as somebody that’s using BeOS and will probably follow the offshoots of this OS, I was speaking as an interested consumer with experience in PC’s only and looking at it totally from the point of user-friendliness.
In fact it’s the bundling of Windows with new PC’s that seems to be even more relevant to me.
We’ve grown accustomed to it, but it would have been quite normal and sensical to buy your PC in a store without any OS, and choose your own preferred OS (from the same store or another store).
Installing an OS is a breeze, not only since recently, as for instance the “old” BeOS Pro install I did recently was child’s play and took me less than 10 minutes, just as it would take a total newbie.
Conclusion: You don’t have to be a geek to feel irritated with some important aspects of “The Windows way of doing things”. Just being a consumer is enough (whether you live in the EU or not).
Actually, the legality is dubious. If I had my way, media formats locking you into their player would be the illegal part. Just gimme the damn codec and let me watch the file in the player I like.
Also, old QT as Mpeg4? Say what? Oldschool Quicktime is either Radius Cinepak or hmm, Indeo 3 I think? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Quicktime video that had quality of picture or compression approaching MPEG4, of which DivX is basically a rewrite, unless they actually use a non-apple codec (like Mpeg4 or DivX).