| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Longhorn Ship Date Muddled | |
|
||
| Time: 10:58 EST/15:58 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Slipping dates for the next major Windows release, code-named Longhorn, have fueled speculation that Microsoft Corp. may be plotting an interim release. But Rogers Weed, corporate vice president in Microsoft's Windows product management group, told Computerworld last week that no such interim release is being discussed by executives in the operating system group. "I can't tell you that there aren't some developers over in a building somewhere discussing it," Weed said. "But in the management meetings I sit in for the Windows business, it's not being discussed." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 446 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:41:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1642 (205.177.133.222) at 10/14/2002 1:12:34 PM |
|
I have no problems waiting for Longhorn.
Maybe they could put together something like a Plus! pack, that included new themes, an update on Movie maker, etc. that could tide users over untill Longhorn shows up. |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/14/2002 3:58:39 PM |
|
sphbecker:
The whole problem is, if Microsoft ships a functional movie maker, then they will be in court yet again. You see, Apple is allowed to ship high-quality applications with the OS that compete with other products that you have to buy, but Microsoft is not allowed to do so. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 4:14:46 PM |
|
CPUGuy, let's get this straight--shipping an app can be fine... TYING an app isn't. If they shipped a standalone app that didn't have dependencies with the OS, which could be installed/uninstalled at the user's leisure, if the product packaging reflected the cost in some way,etc... it would be perfectly fine. Simple.
Apple isn't be excepted from the law by some liberal conspiracy or anything--they just haven't done anything illegal. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 17:37. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 4:21:30 PM |
| Jerk, the only reason "TYING" the app into the OS was considered illegal is because the courts ruled they had a monopoly in OSes. If Apple did the exact same thing - tying some product into their OS, it wouldn't be illegal, since Apple doesn't have an OS monopoly. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 4:34:57 PM |
|
Bob, you miss the point entirely--even if Apple had a monopoly at this point, if the marketshares were flip-flopped--none of what they've done is illegal. All the iApps, QTPlayer, et al. are not tied applications--therefore there is no leverage at play, no matter what their marketshare is.
In other words, I was telling CPUGuy that the only thing preventing MS from developing a better MovieMaker is themselves. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 5:11:23 PM |
|
Okay, since nobody is getting MY point (and despite the fact I get in trouble for this word) here is my point, and my only point: CPUGuy's post was completely freaking moronic... and is a complete bullsh!t excuse for why an MS app sucks.
Apparently, most of you can't see that and we get to be graced by further idiocy like: "It maters not how the software works (at least from the courts point of view), all that matters is that MS does not make their packaged software work better then third party software can." No, that's complete idiocy, sphbecker--the courts aren't involved because they want bundled software to be worse than other software (I only reply to your comment because this is actually more ignorant than CPU's first post--even though you get a lot wrong, I let that go); it is quite specifically how it works that they were concerned with... and the quality would have been a mitigating factor had it actually been better. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 17:14. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 5:53:18 PM |
| I understood your point, jerk. You seem to have missed mine. Had Microsoft not been found to have a monopoly, the IE tying issue wouldn't have been an issue. It was only illegal because they were found to have an OS monopoly. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 6:08:05 PM |
| Bob, do you really want to go back to that? That is an utterly unrelated issue. I was trying to address why MovieMaker sucks and how Windows is going to languish for another 2 to 3 years. Have fun talking to yourself about whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly--some of us understood that years ago. But if you want to go back to that, it wasn't found that tying wasn't illegal either... It took Bush to take care of that issue. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 6:12:27 PM |
| Huh? Tying products is a completely related issue and one, mind you, which you brought up. When you say "Microsoft" and "tying" in the same sentence, you are most likely alluding to the tying of Internet Explorer into Windows. Am I mistaken in this? As to whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly, what do I say to indicate that this was not the case? |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 7:33:04 PM |
|
Tying products isn't related to the issue of what MS is going to do for the next three years though is it?
As for my point, it wasn't dependent or exclusive to anything about monopoly position in the market--after all, we all know you can have a monopoly and because you don't abuse it, it's ot illegal right? So wasn't I focusing in on the illegal bit, the tying part after they had the monopoly position, to tell CPUGuy that that was a bogus explanation. MovieMaker just sucks. What I was saying was: you weren't telling me anything new, your point didn't discount, controvert, or support my point, and it has nothing to do with this article. So there was no need for your point--it wasn't missed. But is my point clear, and can we maybe get back on the issue. Specker is probably right--substantially improving their media apps would be a good stop gap if we are stuck with XP until 2005. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 19:33. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 7:35:37 PM |
| Funny, I thought I was the one who decided what should and should not be on this board. If I'm not mistaken, you gave me that title yourself. Now you want to take it back? Hmm, I object to that. Again I'll say that there are more who'd rather not see your posts than not see mine. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 7:49:42 PM |
| Maybe so, maybe so... But I take that as a compliment... If we both stopped posting, who do you think would be asked back more frequently/wondered about? I bet it'd be me. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 8:01:40 PM |
| They might ask more about you, because you are more annoying and your absence would be more immediately obvious. They'd rather read me, because i'm more logical. As such, my presense is more subtle, and there wouldn't be such a stark contrast without me. Hmm, Without Me...maybe Eminem and I do have something in common. |
| #14 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/14/2002 11:10:10 PM |
|
Soda, then why were certain people seeking an injunction on WindowsXP before shipment because WMP was in the OS. WMP is not tied to the OS, and can be removed with no problems.
Tying has NOTHING to do with it. The product "packageing" as you put it, should not effect the cost in any way, as when they add a new app to the OS, it's a new feature. When you buy a product upgrade, you aren't buying the old features, you are buying the new ones on top of the old ones. |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 11:28:32 PM |
| I think this issue with WMP and Windows Messenger is that though they aren't tied, per se, they aren't exactly uninstallable either. That is to say, there aren't code dependencies, but you still can't uninstall them. |
| #16 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/14/2002 11:32:10 PM |
|
Sodajerk, why do you think MS licensed the CD Burning engine for XP from Roxio and limited it in its default MS-provided capabilities, rather than ship XP with a custom engine that could do everything Easy CD Creator could? XP's CD burning engine can support more functionality than what is provided by default by MS, but they intentionally did not expose some features to the end user by default so they wouldn't have to deal with possible lawsuits from third party CD Burning application vendors.
The same holds for Windows Movie Maker. MS could have made Movie Maker as functional, or more functional than Adobe Premier (or similar). They did not do this because if they had, they would likely have been sued. It wouldn't matter if the product were fully uninstallable, not installed by default, on a separate disk in the Windows box, or whatever. Third parties in the same market would complain simply because the app is included instead of being marketed separately. In the past, MS provided apps competitive with what was offered by some third parties. Some people, as well as the third parties complained. Now MS provides apps that, while not as functional as some may like, they can spur interest in emerging markets or show people something they can do with their PC they would not have otherwise known about. Some people and third parties still complain. In short, MS is damned no matter what they do. People like me are stopped from gaining extra value from their choice in software simply because the third parties and critics of the platform believe I should pay other people for similar products even if the MS software better fits my needs, or if the third party software is total crap. Yet, even though >90% choose to use Windows as their preferred platform, we are force to cope with higher costs and decreased value simply because of a small percentage that believe they own the platform and think that whatever they want applies to the majority of users as well. Rather than act upon their threats to move to another platform, they stay with Windows and complain that it doesn't do absolutely everything they think it should do. Thus, MS and its main userbase are eternally screwed because everyone listens to the minority retoric about being forced to use a platform, rather than seek the council of the majority who choose to use the platform. Though there was clear evidence to the contrary, I can accept the ruling that MS has a monopoly. What others must accept, however, is that their "monopoly" was gained as a result of user choice. In other words, it was given to them voluntarily by the users, and its maintenance depends solely upon the users. |
| #17 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 11:53:24 PM |
| Amen to that, n. |
| #18 By 3339 (67.116.252.114) at 10/15/2002 1:26:14 AM |
|
Wow, Bob was dead on for a change, congrats, Bob. Also, because providing hooks which would prefer your software over other software when there was no technological need for such preference would also be equivalent to tying as well. Enforcer, MS did that because it was cheaper and they could keep an ISV happy, not because it was illegal. And as I said up above--depending on the (un)installability, hooks/tying, packaging, and pricing--all factors you basically fall back on to support your claim could actually be (shock, amazement) managed legally.
Is this really going to be the new softie excuse? Is MS going to adopt it too? Some of our apps do suck, but we can't help it--if they were any better it'd be illegal! You guys have gotta work on something better. |
| #19 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/15/2002 1:30:42 AM |
| What? Out of 108 posts today, you agree with one of them? Whoa! I guess, under 1% in common isn't too bad. We still have more in common than Linux has desktop market share. |
| #20 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/15/2002 1:38:06 AM |
|
"Also, because providing hooks which would prefer your software over other software when there was no technological need for such preference would also be equivalent to tying as well"
Not sure what you're getting at here. Hooks for preferential treatment? Any user can set specific file types to be opened with the app of choice. Most media apps - WMP, Real, QT - will fight with each other about who gets to open what. I don't see that WMP has any advantage in this case. I'd say that same holds true with all of the archive file types - .zip, .rar. cab, etc. - in the battle between compressed folders and WinZip. |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/15/2002 1:42:11 AM |
| The day isn't over yet. I hit 2000 last night, so it's something over 100 for today. |
| #22 By 3339 (67.116.252.114) at 10/15/2002 1:46:56 AM |
|
I don't think I posted that much, but at least I did it at work. I just got back a little while ago after watching the Giants game from down the street of PacBell, and I started posting. Looks like Bob's been at it since 8am; step away from the computer, Bob.
And, Bob, I was presuming what CPUGuy was talking about with people complaining about WMP and other media capabilties--the best I can think of was the photo services disputes with Kodak over th Photo taskpanes. And I was also thinking about the rare, but sometimes unavoidable instance, where WMP will be selected from within an app without ever having the opportunity to chose a media player, that sort of thing... but anyway--the point was: Microsoft could make MovieMaker better, and accomplish it LEGALLY. |
| #23 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/15/2002 1:50:08 AM |
|
Sodajerk, despite what Mark Andressen may tell you, there are no hooks in Windows that make MS software any better than what others could produce. The fact is that third party software often sucks because rather than doing the smart thing and using the services the OS provides you and following MS guidelines, entities like AOL, Netscape, Mozilla, Sun, Apple, etc. choose to use non-standard, often stupid programming methodologies for no other reason than because they are too stubborn/stupid to follow the prescribed practices. They want to be different. They don't want to use the platform. They try to keep as much of their code as possible non-native. Thus, their apps suck.
RE: Movie Maker There is no way MS could provide the type of app I described unless it was sold separately. Otherwise, pricing would not apply because it would be included with the OS a la Apple's iApps. Installability/Uninstallability is not a factor. The fact is that MS could not do what Apple has done because some company would have a problem with it, and they would sue/claim antitrust. If companies were competitive like they used to be, there would be no problem, but presently it seems that most companies just wait for their chance at bleeding MS if MS decides to release a product that may step on even part of their market. Palm, Netscape, AOL, and Sun are proof of the above. All are companies looking to be given something for nothing. Despite the billions these companies CEOs make, they can't afford to distribute and develop their own products? Pleeeese !!! Shady companies get with a shady judge to severely narrow the scope of a market to get a narrow-minded ruling. If it happened once, it can happen again, and MS doesn't want to take that chance. Simple as that. This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 at 02:03. |
| #24 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/15/2002 1:57:36 AM |
|
I'm working at home jerk, so it isn't too hard to alt+tab over here to post.
As for the crack on WMP, unless the application specifically requests differently, the file extension registery dictates which application opens which file types. I just want to make sure you aren't taking cheap FUD shots at Microsoft. As for MovieMaker, well, I really don't care about MovieMaker. I use WMP almost the entire time my laptop is on. MovieMaker, I've used once, and I think that was on XP RC1. From a legal standpoint, though, I think you're right. The main reason I think you're right is that there is not way Microsoft would ever improve MM such that it was remotely close to something like Adobe Premier. |
| #25 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/15/2002 4:04:30 PM |
|
jerk,
That's not the excuse, and you know it. The excuse only works for built-in apps. Microsoft is only allowed to put basic functionality as part of the OS when it comes to bundling apps with it, plan and simple. Other companies, such as Apple, can create whatever the hell they want to and include it into their OS with no such problems. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 446 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:41:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
