Microsoft Corp. made it official Monday: It has no plans to appeal the antitrust sanctions levied against it by the European Commission. As a result, a stripped-down version of Windows, minus Windows Media Player and related files, is moving forward rapidly.
Microsoft Moves Ahead with XP Reduced Media Edition
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The retail prices of the stripped-down versions will be the same as that of their full Windows XP counterparts.
Thats hilarious! Let’s see feature stripped? or feature rich? for the same price hmmmm.
I don’t think I’d be able to use Media Player Classic anymore. As an end user, a growing number of portable devices are using this app, and (AFAIK) it’s not like you can play windows media formats on Real or Quicktime, so I’d guess this benefits Microsoft’s compeitors more than it does end users.
Why not instead have Microsoft release specs for their Windows media file formats so that anyone could incorporate them into their own apps – now THAT would be good for the consumer.
I love the last line of the article:
” Who would want a version of Windows missing these capabilities? Good question.”
Indeed, especially since the cost will be the same…who doesn’t want something for ‘nothing’ (notice the quotes…). Harddrive space is cheap anyhow.
Unless this version is forced to be cheaper, I don’t see the point in this.
Ummm, you can already do that, you just have to purcahse a license to play wma’s (just like you have to purchase a license to play mp3’s).
There are no ‘specs’ to release. WMA is no more closed (or opened) than mp3 is.
they should have stripped the really bad things, not just one bad thing -> e.g. stripping the kernel or explorer.exe wouldn’t have been a good thing to do
i mean come on, this isn’t gonna change a bit (actually some bytes).. sadly
Because, according to the EU, consumers have no choice if WMP is included (despite WMP being bundled with Windows since Win95).
Why not instead have Microsoft release specs for their Windows media file formats so that anyone could incorporate them into their own apps – now THAT would be good for the consumer.
Yes, it would be better for Microsoft to open the WM[AV] formats, but this is an antitrust case. Microsoft would prefer to keep their standards closed, and all that’s required to comply with the antitrust sanctions is to stop distributing Windows Media Player with Windows. For the case to be resolved the way you want, proprietary formats would have to be illegal, and I doubt that’s ever going to happen.
Once again… WMA is no more closed than MP3 is (both of which are not open formats)
Actually, I believe Microsoft’s format’s are fully documented and available to those who wants them. There may be a contract involved, but I’m not sure about this. Of course, if you want to use the formats in an actual product, you have to pay royalties. Therein lies the rub.
I hope to get my hands on one of these for my windows machine ASAP. No WMP, REalplayer or quicktime. Only BS-player with Media Player Classic and K-litecodecpacks!
I read a few thousand threads from people who can’t get stuff to work. It can’t be that hard to “strip” down windows. Sheeze. What? Delete a registry line?
Perhaps because said applications depend on WMP?
“Perhaps because said applications depend on WMP?”
Ahhh, the really beauty of “integration.” It’s why Microsoft “needs” to have IE tied to the OS at the basic level. I recall MS had to do something similar in the U.S. antitrust case where they had to offer Windows without IE….so they created a version of Windows with IE stripped out. Except it wouldn’t even boot, of course. IE was stripped out, but you think Microsoft went to the expense of rewriting Windows to work without IE?
“There are no ‘specs’ to release. WMA is no more closed (or opened) than mp3 is.”
Thats why many people use Ogg compression. Open, free, and portable to any platform.
Really, it’s nice to not have to create a media player to be able to have the media in your app.
Same with having IE bundled. It’s great that developers can add tons of HTML to their apps (adds lots of functionality). If IE wasn’t there, they would have to create their own rendering engine to do such things.
Windows has no problem booting without IE. In fact, you can use XP Lite, or 2000 Lite, or whatever, and completely remove IE, problem is you go back to a windows95 style interface.
Wow. Can you imagine just installing Windows and not having to add a lot of silly little apps. What a concept for system admins.
“they should have stripped the really bad things, not just one bad thing -> e.g. stripping the kernel or explorer.exe wouldn’t have been a good thing to do
“
Why? what’s wrong with the kernel? care to explain or are you just talking out of your arse?
It’s good that the EU has taken a stand against Microsoft, but one shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this is a case of Microsoft v. Competitors and the competitors, in this case, all promote proprietary formats.
Of these, I’ve only really seen Microsoft licensing the WMA format, as has been pointed out (my Napa DAV326, for example, plays regular CDs, MP3s and WMAs).
It’s a judgement in support of competition, which is good; sends out a signal that the EU will support competition, which is good; but I really don’t see how this will benefit anyone.
“Windows has no problem booting without IE. In fact, you can use XP Lite, or 2000 Lite, or whatever, and completely remove IE, problem is you go back to a windows95 style interface.”
The point is not that old versions of Windows can run without IE. The point is that Microsft, in order to comply with the text of the court order, supplied an IE-less Windows that wouldn’t even boot, then disingenuously claimed, “See, we told you there’s no market demand for Windows Without IE.”
It was the equivalent of Ford selling the F150 without an engine (at full price) and then saying, “See, there’s no demand for an engineless F150.” Well, duh.
Microsoft tends to play semantics when it comes to court orders. Loopholes are the order of the day, as we are already seeing with this WMP-less EuroWindows.
with my next Wintel PC. If they could remove IE, OE and MSN, it would be even better.
PCs running Windows XP would be a lot more stable and more secure.
You could always give a try to nLite (http://nuhi.msfn.org/)…
So when is the media less Mac OS comming out? What about the different Linux versions that include media players as well? Doesnt including certain media players emphasize those more than others and create an “unfair” situation for those not included?
“Actually, I believe Microsoft’s format’s are fully documented and available to those who wants them. There may be a contract involved, but I’m not sure about this.”
You can download for free from their website a converter to convert to WMA. I dont know of any fees, but I think they want you to display a little Media Player logo on your site.
i think it has been said a thousand times, but let me repeat it for those who still don’t get it:
“microsoft is blamed to use their monopoly in desktop operating systems to create further monopolies”
sure everybody has still the choice to install other products, but it’s all about beeing preeinstalled.
things that are preinstalled automatically do become a monopoly over the time:
microsoft internet explorer (and pages exclusivly depending on it) needed about 4 years.
microsoft media player (and its media format) is coming close, will take another 2 years.
microsoft instant messenger ( and its protocol) is just starting.
preinstalled programs don’t have to be better than their competitors, they don’t have to be easy to install and setup, they don’t have to be slim, they don’t have to be at no charge ( your paying for them by paying for the os).
all they have to be is preinstalled to be used.
imho the best solution for the competitors _and_ the consumers would be prohibit any preinstalled or/and bundled software.
everyone can by an unsoiled pc and by the os and software he wants extra. _that_ would create real competition.
”
So when is the media less Mac OS comming out? What about the different Linux versions that include media players as well? Doesnt including certain media players emphasize those more than others and create an “unfair” situation for those not included?
”
Oh really, and by SUSE bundling Kaffeine what proprietary media format are they promoting? Oh, that’s right, none. Lol, I could see the headlines “SUSE convicted of bundling Kaffeine media player to promote OGG file format used by every other media player invented for Linux”.
Oh, and then add in the fact that most Linux distros come with 5 or 6 different media players and more available as supported add-ons.
Compare apples to apples please and thank you
The MS version had no shell… but here are a few….
http://www.litepc.com/
http://www.litestep.net/
http://www.geoshell.com/index.asp
Linux vendors do not have a monopoly on software for linux, and infact you find many media players in most distros. They are not leveraging their OS monopoly to ensure that their media player is the one that is used, in an attempt to ensure that their format is licensed by content producers. Apple are not in this position either, they are no a monopoly.
It’s the retailers and the OEMs who will decide whether or not to distribute these versions of Windows
Well it’s good to know we don’t have a lock on stupid legislation here in the U.S. No wonder Microsoft isn’t fighting this. It’s completely pointless and ineffective. They know they couldn’t buy better a better ruling.
If the European concern is that Microsoft will unfairly dominate video technology due to it’s OS monopoly, then it should simply have been illegal for Microsoft to distribute Windows Media with the operating system in the EU. Then the choice would have been with the consumer alone to seek out a media player.
‘Forcing’ Microsoft have a version of Windows sans WM ready on the sidelines, while allowing them to continue distributing the object in question on every new machine sold, is just as bad as the U.S. ruling to allow the company ‘self-enforcement’ of a new kinder and gentler policy.
IE4 broke 50% before it was ever bundled with Windows.
The reason IE got the number of users it did was because it was flat out better than Netscape 4, plain and simple.
I don’t really get microsoft. Just don’t crowd out the competition. Apple adds its own browser, Safari. Safari isn’t heralded as built-in to the OS, yet it’s features are available to other Apple apps and third-party developers can use Safari’s features. Besides, these are all available via download. Does microsoft have to have the last word on what I do with MY computer?
>>>By Tudy (IP: —.tikkacom.fi) – Posted on 2005-01-25 21:18:02 – I hope to get my hands on one of these for my windows machine ASAP. No WMP, REalplayer or quicktime. Only BS-player with Media Player Classic and K-litecodecpacks!<<<
I’m going to request microsoft make a trade-in deal, so that I can exchange my XP Pro CD for an XP Pro (sans WMP) CD… I somewhat enjoy my windows experience… but, even installing my preferred media players… WMP still overrides them. The sucky part is… I can’t select my alternative programs and suppress WMP using the “Select Default Applications” utility… because my ‘alternatives’ aren’t listed.
I really like XP… it’s speedy, capable, extensible, and boot quickly. A vast improvement from 9x series…. But i dislike IE…and I dislike WMP. They’re resource hogs, full of exploits… They’re CRAP programs IMHO. I’d like to be able to have an MS Windows… without having to hack away at it with some “LiteXP” utility.
>>>>By CPUGuy (IP: —.tampabay.rr.com) – Posted on 2005-01-26 04:05:36 – IE4 broke 50% before it was ever bundled with Windows. The reason IE got the number of users it did was because it was flat out better than Netscape 4, plain and simple.<<<<
That’s not true. IE4 came bundled with shell-integration….and, every subsequent release of Windows 9x… (e.g., ones that included the latest “security patches” etc…) included the shell-integrated IE4. Those releases did not offer an uninstall option.
>>>By Tudy (IP: —.tikkacom.fi) – Posted on 2005-01-25 21:18:02 – I hope to get my hands on one of these for my windows machine ASAP. No WMP, REalplayer or quicktime. Only BS-player with Media Player Classic and K-litecodecpacks!<<<
Sorry, it’s late… i didnt really reply to the above in my last post… so yeah…. here ya go
Tudy, i *TOTALLY* agree with you… MP-Classic and BSplayer are sweet packages…. coupled with the Firefox plug-in, it’s a sweet system….. I’d also install my old WinAMP 2.81… because I prefer simple, powerful apps…
Bloated, swiss-army, “all-in-one” applications are annoying….
Got that right;-).. I guess I’m not the only one who thinks that users can have a perfect multimedia experience on your windows box without the BIG and BLOATED apps from MS, Real and Apple!
>It’s great that developers can add tons of HTML to their apps (adds lots of functionality). If IE wasn’t there, they would have to create their own rendering engine to do such things.
Right, but how come is this case different from resuing a code library distributed with application or shared beetween those? Technically, What makes html rendering technology unable to be put in such form.
I fail to see any reasonable reasons beside rulling out competition.
I just wish the same happen with MacOS X and iTunes…
But well done! Let’s see if this will happen with everyone who deserves in EU…
Some have questioned why Windows gets slammed for software bundling and integration, but OS X and to an extent linux don’t. The simple answer is market share. A convicted monopolist has to take steps to ensure fair competition. Having your media player (tied in with your licensable media formats) installed on 95% of all home computers gives you incredible influence in the media market. Underdogs don’t have this advantage and as such aren’t treated the same.
Example: Acquiring a small third party company is fine, and considered standard business practice. When EA acquires 30 third party companies, however,it hedges on anti-competitive practices.
I think that MS lawers had made a good piece of work. The measure is quite worthless if they are alowed to sell the same version at the same price. Thay should be forbiden to do so. And microsoft knows it. If it were the case I am sure that lots of others companys will make better media players. MPlayer, for example is much better but lacks a GUI for Windoes. When something does not work with WMP I use Mplayer and always works. It is quite surprising who often can fail a software program that can download codecs from the Internet ans can pay royalties for closed codecs. But if MS can sell their SO with free player at the same price competition is quite difficult. Even if almost everything is better than WMP.
However there is some market for lots of offices who do not care aboute media. They may even prefer to have a smaller OS and employees who can’t watch porn videos or movies. Both things can be interesting.
The brigth side is that the documentation of APIs will be avalaible. I see this is the great step to competition. And it is an important issue becouse without compettion there is no investment and we end with old things like explorer full of holes. Thanks to Firefox MS has started some efforts to improve its security but there is a long way to go.
Totally agree, but right now I don’t see Apple in a diferent position in digital music (and probably digital movie) market… I don’t like any of their pratices, but in digital media camp, MS at least license their software; and apple doesn’t… I don’t see any reason to solve a problem and close our eyes to another that could be even worse…
Sure that even licensing stuff don’t pleasure free software people, but it’s not so bad as we won’t even license our formats policy… Well, that topic could just go over and over…
“The reason IE got the number of users it did was because it was flat out better than Netscape 4, plain and simple.”
now thats the biggest pile of poo ever. The reality was that you paid for Netscape and IE came already installed for free. They took turns in being better than each other.
Now virtually every other browser on the planet is light years ahead of IE in all respacts and has that made much difference? Not a lot. Firefox is beginning to grow some market share, opera is too. I don’t trust the percentages dished out about market share that much because i can set opera etc to pretend its IE to get around the crap coding of some websites that can’t code to W3C standards.
@ Mike: yes, it came bundled… Win95 had IE2 in it, OSR2 had IE3 in it (I believe), and still it did not tip the market. IE4 (before it was bundled with Win98 or Win95) was able to capture over 50% of the market.
@ rtfa: No, they really didn’t go back and forth for what was better. IE3 and NS3 were about equal, but IE4 flat out blew NS4 out of the water, to say anything different is completely idiotic.
How do you define “lightyears”? Tabbed browsing? Standards Support? The fact is, at this point in time, IE is a defacto standard on the web, and as such, most HTML coders code to IE and nothing else (not saying this is good or bad, just saying this is what they do).
Also, IE is FAAAAR better than any browser out there for corporate use (administration is much easier, and gives more control, etc…)
I NEVER paid for Netscape (there was only a licensing fee if you were a business).