“The US States still pursuing Microsoft have upped the ante by asking the judge to force Microsoft to show them Windows’ source code, their reasoning being that they need this to verify whether or not Microsoft is telling the truth when it says that producing a stripped-down and/or IE-free version of Windows isn’t technically possible.” Read the rest of the article at TheRegister. Our Take: Once again, all these hordes of lawyers are hunting the wrong thing. These days, it is inconceivable to ship an operating system without a file manager or a web browser or even a media player. What the States should be researching and demanding is clues for truly dirty business practices, not for the right (or not) to include your own software in your own OS.
Show us the Windows Source Code, States Ask Judge
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“What the States should be researching and demanding is clues for truly dirty business practices, not for the right (or not) to include your own software in your own OS.”
Yes, I agree. If MS competitors want to replace IE on the desktop, why not build us a better alternative instead of trying use the legal system to remove IE and force feed us their drek.
IE (the browser) is not that hard to remove – it’s the underlying APIs that make it work. Problem is that dozens of other programs use these same APIs. Removing them I believe would break these other apps which include NeoPlanet (a web browser) and countless others.
I don’t understand why the lawyers cannot see the real problem with Microsoft.
Of course it has nothing to do with including IE in the OS. Microsoft’s real problem is that it relies on sweetheart deals with hardware vendors to deny alternatives on the desktop. That is the real reason that alternative operating have failed to make a dent in Microsoft’s monopoly. Hardware vendors who don’t go along with Microsoft’s licensing agreements get punished by higher prices for including Windows.
Microsoft defends these policies by claiming that they discourage piracy.
What enables MS to get away with this is
1) margins in the PC industry are very low
2) most people expect to get a free OS with their computer
3) if a HW vendor goes along with MS, they can hide the cost of the OS in with the cost of the rest of the computer.
So in essence, Microsoft’s software is already free to the average consumer . Why bother with anything else unless you really care?
Even though the OS needs a browser, it’s not right to only put ie on the system. If they are going to bundle ie, then why not bundle netscape too. I do agree there is much worse though. I just helped configure XP a couple days ago, and the first thing that happens when you start msn explorer is it asks you if you’d like to sign up for an msn account, after wich if you don’t have an email account, it forces you to register a msn email account. Also msn instant messanger is bundled with it, so that when you get your email adress it automatically signs you on to their service. It’s one thing to bundle a web browser, but bundling a web browser, an instant messanger, and an isp, is going way over the line.
I don’t have the time to look it up now, but it is not too hard to remove Messenger and the annoying Passport nag message from Windows XP. You have to change a setting in a certain file to make Messenger appear in the “Add/Remove Programs” window. I believe MSN Explorer is even easier to remove since it already shows up.
If you don’t actually subscribe to MSN’s ISP service, I would just ignore MSN Explorer anyway…it is MSN’s version of AOL’s “user friendly” interface. I prefer My Yahoo!, anyway.
Hey ‘thrift’… why should a company be forced to include another company’s product in their OS? Microsoft has every right to include IE in Windows, and Netscpae has every right to develop their own OS with Netscape included, correct? Granted, IE is becoming more and more integrated, but that’s simply the way they chose to structure their OS.
Windows XP does NOT force you to make an MSN e-mail account. You can simply chose to not set up your Internet connection at that time. Then you can make a connectoid to your ISP on your own. You can also uninstall Windows Messenger… find the SYSOC.INF file on the system ({SYSTEMROOT}INF), look for the line that includes MSMSGS and remove the “HIDE” from that line. You can then go into Add or Remove Programs and uninstall Windows Messenger.
BTW, you can always install Netscape and just not use IE… nothing FORCES you to use IE as an Internet browser.
The problem is the MEDIA.
You see, our beloved MEDIA cannot sandwich a story about Microsofts illeagle business practices between commercial breaks.
The truth requires technical knowlege that the vast majority of people don’t have.
CNN cannot learn these technical issues and convey them to masses in small soundbytes. That means its a “bad story” and you’ll never see it in mainstream media format.
An in-depth news show such as an episode of 48hrs would probably do some good, but without SEX or VIOLENCE its unlikely to ever happen, it just wouldn’t get ratings.
Microsoft just takes advantage of companies who will listen to anything they (or their trainees) say.
What’s really going on is the Federal government is trying to entangle itself in the new economy in the most obtrusive way possible. If they can gain the power to determine what software products companies can and can not release, just think of the ramifications. It would be great for congressmen, and federal lawyers and courts.
Antitrust laws are 100% BS. Check out the book “Antitrust: The Case for Repeal” for one of the best books written on the subject. Every other book on the subject I’ve read has been hypocritical (oh, antitriust for cases when the wind blows west and the hedgehog sees his shadow but not for other cases…)
If you wanna get rid of Messenger in XP, just go to the Messenger directory and delete or rename the executable – it won’t bother you anymore
Well, I did this in XP Pro .. never tried it on the Home version.
The monopolistic, predatory practice of M$ is indeed criminal. what is more criminal is that the Justice Department did nothing about it in the 1980’s and 1990’s – just when stopping this criminal behaviour would have had the most impact. Day late, dollar short to do it now.
M$ is just like a schoolyard bully. Bullies do what they do because they get what they want.
What’s worse, however, are the apologists who rush to the decence of the bully. They justify the bullying, minimize the damage done, and even shift blame to the victims. Usually, they dismiss the behaviour as something the bully will outgrow as they mature.
Unfortunately, bullies seldom outgrow their behaviour. More often than not, they grow up to be abusers – of their families, friends, coworkers. As their power grows, so too does their bullying. After all, it’s gotten them this far, why stop now?
So, do you give your lunch money to the bully, or do you get beaten up after school?
“Microsoft’s real problem is that it relies on sweetheart deals with hardware vendors to deny alternatives on the desktop. ”
Right on. That’s exactly where Be Inc got a punch in the face, when no PC dealer wanted to bundled BeOS in a multi-boot system.
This really dirty practice is a common thing at Microsoft. They started with the now well-known “MS-DOS Tax” that just killed CP/M chances, and established an OS monoply on old system. Microsoft was sue for this unfair practice, but they make sure the legal process would take long enough … and when they loose, Microsoft doesn’t cared: Windows started to replace DOS …
We can say any negative things about Bill (which in part are true, most probably), one thing we have to give to him, he’s a hell of a business genius.
It’s not at all the point that you can download netscape, and that you can get around messanger, and all that it’s that it comes by default. For most people it is simply easier to use a product that’s already installed. I garauntee that if netscape came included with windows rather than ie, the percentage of people that used netscape compared to ie, would vastly change.
>You can also uninstall Windows Messenger… find the
>SYSOC.INF file on the system ({SYSTEMROOT}INF), look for >the line that includes MSMSGS and remove the “HIDE” from >that line. You can then go into Add or Remove Programs and >uninstall Windows Messenger.
Now what end user is actually going to do that, and then download a competing messaging client, rather than just running the one that was set up for them. Most users don’t even have a clue as to how to do that.
So there is always the ability to use another competitive product, but it’s most probable that the end user will not ever try to the competitive product, but instead use the built in product.
I don’t think the “default installed software” is a legal problem. In fact, if we go this way, where do we stop ? I’m mean: I just created a little editor that stand as a great replacement for NotePad. Do I’ll sue Microsoft because NotePad come bundled ? The TCP/IP stack ? The Solitaire game ? etc etc.
Windows is the Microsoft propertie, and I think it’s their 100% right to bundle whatever they want.
The *real* problem, IMHO, is the private/hidden contract between Microsoft and PC makers (Dell, etc) that block makers to sell systems with Windows AND an other OS in a multi-boot way (Linux, FreeBSD, etc).
I think THIS is the real dirty trick that must be stopped.
These days, it is inconceivable to ship an operating system without a file manager or a web browser or even a media player.
Eugenia, i think you missed the original point: not that ie is bundled, but that it was bundled to oust netscape. microsoft’s defence was (at some points) that it was for better integration and therefore the code should reflect this architecturally.
still, i think the best thing all these states can do is drop the lawsuit and put their money where their mouth is by upgrading to free OSses.
>Eugenia, i think you missed the original point:
I don’t think so. The people who are missing the point are the States’ laywers.
>not that ie is bundled, but that it was bundled to oust netscape
That was probably a major reason, yes. Still, IE should have been bundled with Windows. It was/is the wise & logical thing to do.
>microsoft’s defence was (at some points) that it was for better integration and therefore the code should reflect this architecturally
I agree with Microsoft on that, 100%. IE today serves inside many programs. For example, KaZaA uses IE to display stuff.
Check Steve’s comment above. I agree with Steve, that was my point all along anyway.
“That was probably a major reason, yes. Still, IE should have been bundled with Windows. It was/is the wise & logical thing to do. ”
I totally agree. With todays context, the first thing you do after installing a fresh OS is using the default browser to get all other softs you need. It’s now a vital part of an OS.
I remember when Microsoft started to bundle IE with windows. That was a shock, so “unfair” against Netscape.
But now, name just one OS that did NOT bundle a web browser ! OpenSource OS can be shipped with many, because of their natures free nature. But why asking a commercial OS developer to bundle a product from a competitor ????? That just make no sense.
If AOL really want Netscape to be bubdled with a commercial OS, well, they just have to pay the huge investment and create their own OS (as Microsoft did).
For you guys that say MS and PC makers have some sort of deal that blocks other OSes from being shipped as the default OS: You can indeed buy systems that have Linux installed as the main OS. The thing is, what business is going to sell a product that there is no demand for? The average user does not know how to use Linux. Now you may say that the reason for that is MS’s OSes have always been on systems, and that’s just what people are used to. Well, the main reason for Windows being on every system is that it is the platform for which most apps have been written. People genuinely LIKE Windows, and if that wasn’t the case it simply wouldn’t be on all the boxes that it is. BEOS was a great OS, for example, but it, like most other alternative OSes, shoot for the wrong goal. They tend to specialize in one thing or another. Linux/Unix/FreeBSD is great for servers, but not for the desktop. MacOS is great for multimedia, as was BEOS, but not for servers, and they just don’t have the apps to make them widespread. Windows, on the other hand, does everything, and God knows it doesn’t do everything perfectly, but you can find a flavor of Windows for eveything you need to do. The key is in what it can do as a desktop OS. None of the other OSes do it as well as Windows, and there’s no way to argue that.
People don’t want to/don’t know how to make multiple partitions to install Linux, they don’t want to pay out the wazoo for proprietary hardware to run MacOS, etc.
And Thrift, I think you may be missing the point that MS has every right in the world to put their own software, whatever it might be, in their own OS. People have the choice to install another OS if they want to do so, but like you said, most won’t. That’s because most people find that Windows does what they need it to do. If they find that Windows doesn’t do what they need it to do, they’ll do the research and go looking elsewhere.
Besides, Windows does include a large amount of software developed by 3rd parties. Without this software, your computer wouldn’t even boot! What is this software? Think drivers.
> Now what end user is actually going to do that, and then
> download a competing messaging client, rather than just
> running the one that was set up for them. Most users
> don’t even have a clue as to how to do that.
I use ICQ because my freinds do I also uninstalled MSN casu I wanted the space. Users that won’t don’t really care politics doesn’t matter to them if they can do ehat they want.
As for Netscape I’d use it except it’s been crap since Version 6 While IE has improved. I started using FreeBSD recently so I downloaded mozilla for it, it’s just as crap as netscape (Netscape is based on it isn’t it?). They should focus on making a better product than crying foul because if they do I will switch.
But MS isn’t truely bundleding IE. IE is now part of the OS I can’t unistall IE from my XP install. Bundleding a browser in Linux or any other OS is different because you can unistall the default browser if you don’t want to use it. I wouldn’t have a problem with MS bundleding IE with Windows if I could unistall IE. But as it is even if I use mozilla I still have to have IE on my system. Why do I need two browsers? If MS would give me the ability to uninstall IE I would be happy. As it is I will keep complaining.
This has been bothering me, Now I haven’t tried it, but in XP (pro but maybe home is the same) in the add remove programs it does have an option to remove IE, though I didn’t try it since I still use it. It was my understanding that MS split IE into being a Removable IE internet browser. But if you remove that, the IE as in being able to look through files and such remains. IE is two parts now. Maybe i’m wrong. I have no problem with MS including apps liek IE, it makes sence, it’s just as long as I can remove them. There isn’t a option to remove things such as outlook. I mananged to get rid of MSN messanger after some time deleting files. Though it took many tries. Looks as if there is an order to this. I just guessed on my own and got it, maybe someone has a good way listed. I have yet to be able to get rid of Outlook, and have heard people can’t remove WMP8.
MY question is if, IE is not two seperate things like I’m thinking how would you navigate your files if it was removed? That makes it seam rather important. If MS just stopped calling it a browser and refered to it as a file system tool (i guess the mac equivilant is “finder” i think thats what you use in mac, or the tracker in beos) and just say it’s capable of internet browsing I don’t think courts could say much.
The other thing that continues to bother me is people talking about all these things where Windows tries/makes you sign up for MSN or a email account, or passport or anything else. This is most certianly not true for XP pro, maybe the home version, if so people should say in the home version you get this instead of making it sound like XP in general does this. XP pro has never asked me to sign up for anything. It bugs me about such things less than any other WinOS ever. I’ve found it nice how if you ever do anything it might ask you if you want to do such and such and theres an option not to do it and to never do it. Click it and never think of it again.
I’m fine with what ever MS includes, as long as I can go through and un-install any app that comes with it. If I can get it to were it is just the OS, no apps no extra anything if I want then I think MS is fine in what they are doing bundling wise. And having things as a default install is fine, most people would be confused if most things wern’t there.
The big thing is the big problem was missed by the courts. It’s about the bootloader stupid! Years can go by and IE will be removable, wow, yeah, but every app not mentioned in the case like outlook isn’t removable, wow we will be so much better off. The big thing for me was the bootloader issues.
“For you guys that say MS and PC makers have some sort of deal that blocks other OSes from being shipped as the default OS: You can indeed buy systems that have Linux installed as the main OS. The thing is, what business is going to sell a product that there is no demand for? The average user does not know how to use Linux.”
You miss the point IMHO. Yes a computer with ONLY Linux or BeOS is not viable as a business point of view. The issue is that Dell by example *CANNOT* release a system that include both Windows and Linux ! They don’t even have the choice. Being free, it could add a great value for a specific, specilized brand. But they can’t. Look at the BeOS and Hitachi story. Be Inc negociated successfully with Hitachi to release systems with both Windows & BeOS for some asian market (japan I guess). But at the last minute, they withdraw. Why ? Because Microsoft reminded their “private” contract that they can’t bundle other OS.
Be Inc get screwed on his first (and only) chance to be more visible on the market. And that precisely why it’s an illegal use of monoply, the abuse.
” I also uninstalled MSN casu I wanted the space”
LOL what kind of hard drive do you have to be so in need of the MSN used space ? 🙂
“If MS just stopped calling it a browser and refered to it as a file system tool (i guess the mac equivilant is “finder” i think thats what you use in mac, or the tracker in beos) and just say it’s capable of internet browsing I don’t think courts could say much. ”
That’s a really good point indeed. When Internet started to spread in the public, and first few browsers just appeared, they were like independant applications, as a word processor, or something. Now Internet and the web is SO important in our day to day life, and for everybody, that browser is nothing more, in 2002, a basic service, exactly like a file browser.
So it’s why to continuing to sue Microsoft only based on a web browser is totally wrong ! This is a huge waste of time and resource that could be more efficiently put on a trial against the “multi-boot” monopole abusing issue.
If it was primarly a fs tool and not a browser, then it should not be the default app the launch urls etc from.
I think you really need to look at the whole picture, MS seems to attack at all fronts using whatever they can be they ethical, unethical or downright illegal (Though hard to prove). By picking just one issue you can probably argue the legallity of it, and probably the ethics of it, but when you look at everything they do its hard not to see their tactics as unethical, if not illegal.
I think the fact that MSN messanger isn’t able to be removed without “hacks” is just downright cheeky after the IE thing. messanger is not required by users, i’ve never seen anything to say it contains vital APIs, having it installed by default is one thing (though i’d prefer it wasn’t) but making it hard to uninstall intentionally is very sus.
As it stands there is no real way for any other OS to make it on to the Desktop. And i think the “sentance” for MS should be somthing to make sure other OS’s have the oppertunity to make it. though what this is, i dunno.
“I think the fact that MSN messanger isn’t able to be removed without “hacks” is just downright cheeky after the IE thing. messanger is not required by users, i’ve never seen anything to say it contains vital APIs, having it installed by default is one thing (though i’d prefer it wasn’t) but making it hard to uninstall intentionally is very sus. ”
I understand your point of view, but this is THEIR OS. They can make the way they want. If MSN is hard to uninstall, it’s because anyway NOBODY care except from us (yes, I hate MSN too). But I don’t see the point to legally put pressure on Microsoft about that.
And I’m talking about EVERY single things that may sucks in Windows. At the end, there is NO LAW that describe what an OS *must* have, and what an OS *must not* have. This is a commercial product, and in a free society, they have the FULL RIGHT to design their product the way they want.
All the nitpick we can found her a mostly from us, the geeks. The almost totality of the common human beings don’t care about ANYTHING of those “problems”.
Read this Scot Hackerw’s article
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/0827_hacker.h…
Sorry Eugenia, I didn’t noticed that you have pointed to this link.
In response to Steve:
“Microsoft’s real problem is that it relies on sweetheart deals with hardware vendors to deny alternatives on the desktop.”
Right on. That’s exactly where Be Inc got a punch in the face, when no PC dealer wanted to bundled BeOS in a multi-boot system.
While the bootloader issue is definitely an important one, you guys all seem to overestimate its importance, much as Scot Hacker did in his (otherwise very good) editorial on the subject. Yes, it definitely hurts alternative OSes that you can’t buy say a Vaio running Linux or the BeOS. Fine. But it’s much, much less important than the alternative OSes’ lacking of support for popular applications, drivers, and everything else that users want and need. A few of the posts here (and in response to Scot Hacker’s article back in the day) seemed to imply that the only reason the BeOS failed was because of the bootloader issue. And that’s completely wrong. It failed primarily because it simply couldn’t offer much to anyone except geeks who were willing to put up with not having program x, not being able to use hardware y, and not being able to open file z. Yes, the bootloader problem is a factor, but it is certainly not the overriding one.
In response to anonymous:
But MS isn’t truely bundleding IE. IE is now part of the OS I can’t unistall IE from my XP install. Bundleding a browser in Linux or any other OS is different because you can unistall the default browser if you don’t want to use it.
I don’t see how the ability to uninstall the application has anything to do with whether or not you use it. Sure, it wastes your disk space if you choose not to use it, but that’s hardly illegal. Heck, if so, let’s all sue Be because the BeOS came with some kernel optimizations (taking disk space) for CPUs I don’t have. The ability to uninstall programs/features from the OS does not (and should not) in any way affect the legality of including those programs/features. Not being able to uninstall it doesn’t mean you’re required to use it.
If any alternative OS really wants to make inroads into the desktop market, they’re going to have to gain some serious ground on Microsoft’s near locks on:
a. Formats
b. Functionality
By functionality, I mean drivers and applications. With very, very few exceptions, if you want an application, you know there will be a Windows version. If you want to use a piece of hardware, you know it will work with Windows. It’s very nice piece of mind.
By formats, what I mean is two-fold. For one, since almost all applications run on Windows, all their respective file formats are of course also available. But more importantly, Microsoft basically owns a number of important formats: Office files, Windows Media files, various video codecs, the web (partially; IE supports pretty much every site, a feat no other browser can claim). You know that if you’re running Windows and the appropriate software, you’ll never encounter a format you can’t use. Again, it’s very comforting.
I’m not saying that any legal penalties should be paid by Microsoft–I haven’t fully decided yet–but in my opinion, forcing Office to move to an open format, for example, would do many more wonders for alternative OSes than changing the bootloader restrictions would.
…But it’s much, much less important than the alternative OSes’ lacking of support for popular applications, drivers, and everything else that users want and need…
The question is: if there was a way to introduce OS’s to average users by means of multiple boot PC’s, would it boost development (popular applications, drivers, and everything else that users want and need) for these OS’s?
i think it would. how will exposure on such a scale harm an alternative OS? i think it could only benefit an alternative OS. microsoft obviously thought so as well
run this in your run menu:
RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%INFmsmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove
This removes windows messenger instantly without having to modify any files.
More interesting tips to tweak XP can be found on:
http://www.tweakxp.com
> MY question is if, IE is not two seperate things like I’m
> thinking how would you navigate your files if it was
> removed? That makes it seam rather important. If MS just
> stopped calling it a browser and refered to it as a file
> system tool (i guess the mac equivilant is “finder” i
> think thats what you use in mac, or the tracker in beos)
> and just say it’s capable of internet browsing I don’t
> think courts could say much.
I think MS have reused a lot of code in Windows that IE uses So really uninstalling it would just remove files that were only needed by IE to run leaving any shared files on you’re system.
> LOL what kind of hard drive do you have to be so in need
> of the MSN used space ? 🙂
You can never have to much drive space, memory or too fast a processor. :p
The #1 reason that MS alternatives fail is because of user apathy. The people who say “The average user doesn’t care to learn new OSes or download replacement software when Windows works just fine” are correct.
The bundling issue is another nail in the alternate OS coffin.
I personally like MS products; I use the dreaded Win98 for most purposes and I leave it running all the time. I believe that Office and IE are top-rate programs.
I just don’t like their practices/politics. I have no doubt that MS would still be on top if they tried competing on the merits of their products rather than relying on bundling deals with OEM’s and user apathy.
Even though I am an intermediate computer user, I still struggle to get Linux to work the way I want it to. I could never afford to replace hardware that I owned with the hardware that was supported by BeOS in order to run it properly. But I still try because of MS tactics. (And because I don’t need to do anything useful with my computers…)
The only way to combat apathy is to care…
Most users don’t care about free software as in free speech, they care about free software as in free beer.
They just want free beer, and as far as they are concerned when they buy a PC, they get free beer (Windows).
MS has actually benefited from the piracy of Windows (becuase it increases their market share) if not from the piracy of Office.
Of course this premise falls apart with the new XP licensing scheme. I see it working at businesses but I don’t know about home users.
Maybe the licensing scheme will end user apathy? I know that I never plan on buying XP.
“A few of the posts here (and in response to Scot Hacker’s article back in the day) seemed to imply that the only reason the BeOS failed was because of the bootloader issue.”
I still do think it’s a critical issue. It’s the exact replication of the “DOS Tax” problem that helped Microsoft to get a monopoly in the early time of PCs.
As Santana said (sorry for the bad english): Those who ignore the history is condamned to repeat it.
Sure it’s not the principal reason why Be Inc failed as a mainstream OS (lack of soft/driver is surely the first one). But getting a jam in the face by a monoply that abuse of it’s position doesn’t help the process …
“MS has actually benefited from the piracy of Windows (becuase it increases their market share) if not from the piracy of Office.”
hehe. I hope not starting a flame war, but I considere home pirating as a HUGE marketing power. I’m a professional software developer, and I always condamne in the products I develop any kind of piracy protection.
By exemple, few years ago I worked on a security maanger for NT networks. In my opinion the best way to get market share is to let it be pirated in home use, so people start to know how to use it, and love it. Then at their job office, if they have to buy a soft for this specific needs, they are more likely to choose ours, because it’s known field, and they know what the soft worth in real case.
(sorry, I deviate from the original thread 🙂
It makes no sense to penalize Microsoft just because they include a web browser of their own making with their OS(s).
Internet Explorer is software, and Microsoft has every right to create it and sell it, or give it away, in almost any fashion that they please.
What is not correct is how Microsoft (apparently) limits OEMs to distributing either Windows and no other OS(s), or, other OS(s) and no Windows on the same computer.
This OEM/OS fiasco is surely a large part of the problem:
How can one sell an OS in a Windows world when OEMs cannot include another OS along with Windows?
Microsoft is playing dirty tricks as usual to say “down, boy” to the competition, and the lawyers just don’t get it.
The problem is IMHO not bundling IE but integrating it with OS, so every time you boot into Windows it (IE)is sitting in the computer RAM whether you use it or not.
One major point that is always overlooked when the statement is made about how awful it is that OEMs cannot include another OS along with Windows on the same computer is that the OEMs CHOSE to sign that contract. They didn’t have to sign it. How that is Microsoft’s fault is beyond me. If I write up a contract saying that I will give you $1,000,000 as long as only YOU spend it on yourself and only you reap the benefits from it (which includes not spending it on your family or friends, and you cannot use the money to buy gifts or investments that you then give to your friends or family), and you agree to it and sign it… is that MY fault?
“is that the OEMs CHOSE to sign that contract. They didn’t have to sign it. How that is Microsoft’s fault is beyond me. ”
Yes, it’s EXACTLY the point: THEY DO HAVE TO SIGN the contrat with Microsoft, THEY HAVE NO CHOICE ! Just a second and imagine you are a Dell (and for the example I’ll use fictive numbers).
You build and sell 1 Million units per years. Now when you ship the actual PC, you need to put at least 1 OS in there. If you choose Linux, or FreeBSD, or BeOS, you are totally screwed, because you lost all the public market. Your sales drops to 5000 units a year, and you are dead.
SO, you HAVE to put Windows as a minimum. Windows XP Home price is about 99$ per unit, and if you buy those in the regular way, you don’t have a contract with Microsoft, so yes, you can bundle Linux with it.
Here’s the price of this operation:
Windows: 99$ x 1 000 000 = 99 000 000 $ a year.
Linux: 0$ x 1 000 000 = 0 $ a year.
Then, at your door knock Microsoft with a big smile. They offer you a contract of mass-ordering of Windows. And guess what ? If you sign the contract they’ll sell you each Windows units for 25$. You are a CEO that owe to all share olders and the administrative baord. You have the choice of stay free and support Linux (and get nothing in return), or drop Linux in the trash, and save 74 Millions $ a year.
Yes. That’s exactly what happen currently.
PC builders **HAVE TO SIGN THE CONTRACT** if not they loose the competitive advantage for their PC sales, and just have to fill for Chapter 11.
Now that’s exactly why Microsoft is illegal, because they use their monopoly advantage (must have Windows in PCs) by abusing of it (it’s me and *nobody else*).
> Yes, it’s EXACTLY the point: THEY DO HAVE TO SIGN the
> contrat with Microsoft, THEY HAVE NO CHOICE ! Just a
> second and imagine you are a Dell (and for the example
> I’ll use fictive numbers).
It seems like the vendors are just cheap bastards to me, or it could be the fact people who are going to install OSes other than windows are going to do it themselves and thus they decide not to bundle other OSes cause it isn’t worth the effort and it’s cheaper not to. Joe blogs isn’t going to switch to linux just casuse it was preinstalled with windows he’ll probably leave it on the hardrive and accidently boot into it form time to time and think “damn I’ve done it again how do I get out out of this” and then press the reset button. He bought his pc to use windows and he probably has enough problems using it let alone strugling with linux or BeOS.
May be your point is right, but I think the choice what to use on the PC is the Joe blogs’s business. By forcing these agreements, Microsoft denies our right to choose what is best for us. The Big Brother knows better what we need.