| 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 |
 |
Windows: The Fix Is Not In | |
|
||
| Time: 14:52 EST/19:52 GMT | News Source: Forbes.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
In court Microsoft fiercely fights being forced to offer modular versions of Windows that would let computer makers offer functions from other vendors. In the real world that stance seems absurd when Microsoft refuses to sell you an integrated version of Windows XP with all known defects corrected. Whether you buy a brand-new computer or a disk in a Microsoft box, the version of Windows XP you get today is the same defect-plagued one that arrived last August. Missing: 12 separate fixes Microsoft calls "critical" (mostly because of security gaffes) and, depending on the machine, a dozen or so more of varying urgency. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:30:10 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/26/2002 3:38:57 PM |
|
Out of curiousity, is there a way to slipstream hotfixes into a Win2k or WinXP install?
If so I could make my own installation CDs, like what I've done with the service packs on Win2k. |
| #2 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/26/2002 4:43:07 PM |
|
Wait, I'm confused. What exactly do they want Microsoft to do? Recall all of the millions of copies of Windows XP from store shelves, destroy the CDs, repress all the CDs, and ship them out again?
For every bug that's discovered after release? Um. No. That's exactly why WinXP tries to update itself right after installation. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 5:08:12 PM |
|
No, why are you guys completely misconstruing the obvious point (although not a substantial one)? MS argues that the only acceptable version of their OS needs to be always provided whole and intact; this guy is just saying that in fact--it's not intact at all--it doesn't contain fixes that MS considers critical to what the OS is. So the question isn't whether others do this or if MS should always toss out CDs and repress--the question is--if the OS is already in pieces and is dependent on internet downloads, why can't the same scenario be applied to modules?
That is his only point, and he is not arguing that MS release intact OS install CDs--he's saying the OS is already piecemeal and is never intact. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 26, 2002 at 17:09. |
| #4 By 1896 (66.20.202.102) at 4/26/2002 5:28:54 PM |
| Sodajerk I often disagree with you but still I think a knowleadgeable person therefore you know very well the differences between a "modular system" or whatever you want to call the thing the States are asking MS to buid and ship and the release of "patches" and or "service packs". |
| #5 By 1896 (66.20.202.102) at 4/26/2002 5:35:45 PM |
| #14 Actually this is exactly what I meant. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 5:36:54 PM |
|
No, I'm not missing the distinction between patches and modules--there are other concerns about modularity... i.e. the development requirements, but I think he is posing this argument to address the claim of those that say: what do I do, I'm going to have an OS that's missing pieces I need, oh no, oh no, the sky is falling, the sky is falling...
Well, he is saying, oh, poor baby, MS installs at this very moment allow you to download critical software that you may wish to install if it is not present when you start up. There's your answer. And if MS is saying that these patches are critical to your OS--that's more critical than whether or not you have Media Player. So there is no need to make the distinction about whether you are slapping on a patch or installing a module--he's just talking about the download/install/upgade mechanism... That this fully accounts for the argument that ALL portions of Windows must be available at startup. |
| #7 By 6253 (64.204.105.166) at 4/26/2002 5:46:47 PM |
|
Anyone who remembers NT4SP6 breaking Lotus Notes, and all the accusations that Microsoft did it on purpose (despite fixing it with SP6a well before 99% of the population ever heard of SP6), knows why MS doesn't just automatically assume that everybody wants every fix. Large organizations need to maintain tight control over the version of everything they run, whether OS or apps, whether MS or non-MS. Even a security fix deemed "critical" may not be so critical to an organization which has put alternate security measures in place. I know one large insurance company which still insists on setting up their new servers with NT4SP5.
#2, see Q249149 and Q296723 in the MS KB for ways you can add hotfixes into a slipstreamed W2K SP2 installation. I burn bootable CDs like this, and have set up dozens of servers this way. The number of reboots required by Compaq SmartStart is more than the number of times I have to reboot for Windows Setup. The toughest part is figuring out the command-line options for different types of patches. The W2K "QFE" type of hotfixes use one set of options for unattended install but IE patches, WMP updates, scripting updates, etc. use varying syntax. |
| #8 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 4/26/2002 6:21:37 PM |
|
#18: The ironic thing about that is that it was Lotus' poor programming that broke it, not MS.
MS made a change underneath Winsock where no intelligent programmer dabbles. Lotus apparently thought it could write TCP better than Microsoft and decided it would tap underneath Winsock. When MS changed the guts of Winsock to fix a major security hole, Lotus was broke. MS worked with Lotus for them to change their code to work properly, but instead Lotus just took it as a P.R. opportunity and crucified MS in the press (even though it was Lotus' own stupid fault and poor programming). Just goes to show you that many people in the industry are not interested in the right or sensible thing and/or what's right for the consumer, they're only interested in demonizing Microsoft, even when MS does the right thing. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 6:47:42 PM |
|
Anon, I think this is a weakly written article that throws around a few concepts that are getting in the way. I think he's making an argument where it doesn't really matter if the code being downloaded is a patch, a component, a module, a new app whatever...
He is saying that the defense against modularizing the system is that people will startup their new systems and find that they are missing crucial pieces. Yes? From there, MS and softies, say, "Oh no, the world is over! Aaarrrgggh!! My Windows is broken?" He is saying this is the situation now... I startup a new machine--and pieces which MS says are critical to the performance of the computer are missing. Yes? So what do you do now? Do you scream and cry and run away saying your machine is broken, or do you simply download the files and install them or ignore the prompts anyway? In other words, he isn't addressing the feasability of modularizing code; he is addressing the defense that Windows shouldn't be modularized because people will end up not having software they want at startup. This is already the case. And there is already a way to solve that problem. Are there possibly issues with modularizing code? Maybe--they are different arguments certainly--he is only attacking one very weak argument... that you will end up with new systems missing key components and that you will have no way to fix this. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 26, 2002 at 18:50. |
| #10 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 4/26/2002 7:10:46 PM |
| Damn login, I am 24 and 25 now. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 7:22:37 PM |
| mctwin or me or whatever, whether or not it contains functionality doesn't matter.. He's is answering the question who whine that they won't have something on their system. The answer: download it... That's the way it works not. Whether or not you say a patch is crucial to a system doesn't matter--MS says they are critical--hence, they are saying we ourselves will deliver certain pieces of the OS to you via the OS which should be installed but may or may not be. |
| #12 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/26/2002 7:44:04 PM |
|
MS is saying the patches are critical in a security context, not a functionality context. If your computer isn't connected to the net, there is no need for the update in most cases because the only way someone can compromise your security in that situation is by gaining physical access to your computer. This method of obtaining updates is no different than Linux, Apple, or anyone else. In fact, it is easier with MS, because XP can get the updates during installation, or auto update runs shortly after you start the OS for the first time, and continues to check periodicaly for updates. This requires absolutely NO user action to find and download the updates.
This guy's article is simply FUD. This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, April 26, 2002 at 19:48. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 7:56:48 PM |
|
enforcer, whether it's in terms of functionality or security doesn't matter--he is rebutting the claim that that you won't be able to get these pieces of code. You will be able to--as you say, MS already has it set up to check for downloads during the install process.
Whether or not it's a badly written article, doesn't negate the fact that anybody who argues they are going to have unfunctional systms and no access to MS codes are just whining and FUDing. And, by the way, the Apple updater is actually far simpler and far better than the MS version--it does the same things (auto, periodic, or manual--and checks on first or subsequent installs) but much more cleanly. |
| #14 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/26/2002 8:55:44 PM |
|
There is nothing to rebut. That is the point everyone is trying to make. Microsoft's position is that a modular, consumer Windows product is not possible because the NSPR requires them to modularize the product, but not degrade the product's functionality when the MS implementation is removed and replaced with a third-party implementation. This simply cannot be done without keeping the MS implementation installed in the system. But the NSPR calls for the removal of the MS implementation. Differences in implementation can easily translate into differences in expected behavior.
Take web browsers as an example. Web developers and some end-users know all to well how different implementations of the same technology can produce different results. Microsoft's OS uses HTML and XML extensively. If Microsoft created an interface that allowed Mozilla or Opera, etc., to take the place of the MS HTML/XML renderers, Microsoft couldn't guarantee the output of those third-party renderers even with totally W3C compliant code. This would open Microsoft to more legal troubles because someone could say the OS functionality has been degraded. Yet, this should not be Microsoft's problem. It should be the third-party's responsibility to test and improve their code until it functionally mirrors Microsoft's . But what is the use in going through all of this trouble when the end result is simply approximate clone of the original Microsoft code? The guy in the article is totally ignorant of the issue he is discussing. As others have stated, removing MS code will break functionality for all apps that are dependent upon it. Replacing that code with someone elses implementation does not guarantee restoration of total functionality. An update system has nothing to do with the real issue. This is not about the availability of functional components provided by Microsoft. It is about certain functionality and the applications and interfaces that depend upon that functionality's presence in the OS being broken as soon as you install a third-party replacement component. The States ("competitors") Microsoft to guarentee that the OS remain functional exactly as if the MS technology had never been removed, but that simply cannot be done without letting the MS functionality remain. This is getting long, so I'll end by suggesting you look at how DirectX or OpenGL work. MS includes a software renderer in the OS. Hardware developers write drivers to accelerate this functionality in hardware. If the hardware does not support a feature, the program either disables that feature totally, or falls back to the software renderer for the functionality. If the Microsoft-provided software renderer were not available, the dependent application would fail. This is similar to what would happen with a modular Windows. When functionality is missing and the Microsoft-provided functionality is not available, the dependent application, component, whatever, would fail. |
| #15 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/27/2002 12:10:05 AM |
|
sodajerk,
And there is also the question of would the States and the Government allow that functionality to be downloaded?? Or would that be a violation of the states laws. What if a upgrade fixes an issue in an API that breaks a 3rd party software. Or if a security issue comes up that needs to be fixed, that causes the 3rd party software to not work. Those are all real issues. and not neccesarily the fault of MS when it comes time to fix them. Now they have to give those fixes to a panel to be judged on the legality of them. at least 60 days before they are released. Oh, Oh, I just thought of the perfect solution. The US government should make all vendors who write software for the windows platform submit their to the panel judge, to verify that if it does replace a module that it doesn't degrade the windows platform of its functionality and look and feel. the Consumer would rejoice because now the US Government would control the platform, and by their (how does lnus put, the penguin sprinkle) seal of approval on the modulear platform and ensure that all software would run flawlessly. Me thinks we are seeing the end of general purpose programming. DMCA, attacks linux, SSSCA attacks the ability for any consumer to build their own platform. Fairly soon all computing devices will just be regulated by the US government. El This post was edited by eldoen on Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 00:17. |
| #16 By 6253 (12.237.192.187) at 4/27/2002 12:17:30 PM |
|
#21, this is exactly what will happen. If you buy a retail copy of Windows 2000 today, you will find an SP2 CD-ROM inside the box. If you can still find a retail copy of NT 4.0, you will find that the Option Pack and SP6a are included in the box. They are not slipstreamed, because you might very well not want SP2 or SP6a. You might be an ISV testing your application to see what SP's you are compatible with.
There's no reason to believe that SP1 won't come inside the XP retail box. But pressing and silk screening physical CD-ROMs, packaging them, amending the printed EULA, notifying distributors so they can answer customer questions due to the contents of a SKU changing (or notifying distributors that the SKU is changing to reflect different contents), filling channel inventory, stocking fulfillment to be able to replace defective discs -- all this takes time. If you look at the toy manufacturers who start getting ready for Christmas in July, you see why it's impractical for Microsoft to include every fix in retail packaging as it comes along. There was once a software manufacturer who did so. WordPerfect used to slipstream fixes in their product, back when they charged much more for a copy of WordPerfect 4.x than Windows XP costs. Eventually, though, they recognized that this practice (among others) was costing a huge amount of overhead, one which made it difficult for them to compete, and they stopped. By that time, nobody really missed it much because the Internet had made updates more accessible. Somebody just needs to explain the Internet thing to Forbes. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:30:10 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
