| 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 |
 |
Battering down Gates’ defense | |
|
||
| Time: 18:39 EST/23:39 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' argument that a modular version of Windows would "turn back the clock" on software development and damage the computer industry is fundamentally flawed, legal experts said. Gates, in testimony last week, said a remedy proposed by nine states and the District of Columbia in the ongoing antitrust case to compel Microsoft to offer PC makers a customizable version of Windows would lead to fragmentation of the operating system market, in turn destabilizing the personal computer industry. Legal experts and industry analysts said Gates' defense is a one-dimensional portrayal of competition in the personal computer market. They contend the states' plan would actually lead to more competition, more innovation and lower prices. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:26:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6678 (143.166.82.240) at 4/30/2002 7:13:09 PM |
|
I'd like to point out one situation where Microsoft's consolidation and "monopoly" actually created a better product, and fostered competition. I give you DirectX.
Before DirectX, game manufacturers had two choices: write to several hardware drivers that ship with the game, and consequently must be supported by the game manufacturer, or write to some intermediary layer that HOPEFULLY the graphics industry supports (before DirectX, VESA was one of those standards). Often, game manufacturers wrote to BOTH. Along comes Microsoft who proposes a DirectX standard. Sure, the first several iterations were sloppy and slow. Game manufacturers were uneasy about adopting the standard, but they eventually did. As long as the video card manufacturers wrote drivers that included hooks into DirectX, games that ran on them were smooth, fast, and beautiful. Now, the game manufacturers don't have to worry about some esoteric hardware layer interface, the video card manufacturers don't have to worry about maintaining a compatability with their legacy products. If they've architected themselves into a corner, they can throw the design away, and start again. By creating standards, you filter the noise. By creating standards, you free the industry from the minutae that can destroy ideas. By creating standards, you can also create a monopoly. It is possible to stifle innovation because it strays from the standard. The courts have to weight the pros and the cons. |
| #2 By 6253 (64.204.105.166) at 4/30/2002 7:13:29 PM |
|
You don't need technical experts; you only need historians (or people with halfway decent memories) because we've already been down this road with fragmentation of CP/M, Unix, Linux, OS/9, etc. The computing platform industry IS different than the wireless phone industry, because the wireless phones today are narrow in purpose like appliances. Computers are capable of infinite possibilities, but only when you have a uniform platform is it practical to implement many of those possibilities.
|
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/30/2002 9:04:37 PM |
|
I think this portion of the above article needs to be highlighted:
"legal experts said" Ah... legal experts. Yes, they must know all about the complexities of software development and distribution. Well, that solves that. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/30/2002 9:07:43 PM |
|
I read this article and found it quite interesting, and submitted it to AW so they wouldn't miss it.
As a developer, I want consistent APIs. I want to know that if I target Windows XP with my application that I can easily draw some graphics, play a WMA file, write to a CD-R drive and render some HTML in a consistent fashion based on well known APIs. Now that exists today with XP, and I think it's good. But this article mentions something else. Allowing computer manufacturers to differentiate themselves rather than being solely purveyors of commodity equipment. The example they give is perhaps of Gateway building in multimedia software and making their machines sort of like the new Macs. (Although I disagree with their distorted perception of Apple) Honestly, I dont' think this will work because the margins are so slim that OEMs don't seem to do well at making themselves unique, but there's a chance. So here's my recommendation to Microsoft... Build the middleware, and bundle it with the OS. But don't build the UI to utilize the middleware. Instead build these as APIs and document them such that anybody can leverage them in building their own custom solution. Approach it this way, and I think that it'll be easier to sell the developers on board. |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/1/2002 2:28:22 AM |
|
#8 - Netscape and a few other software companies are afraid that if people actually use the Microsoft software, they will find out it is actually better than their own. It's a terrible situation, so the solution Netscape wants is for the government to make installing IE illegal. :)
|
| #6 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/1/2002 10:19:10 PM |
|
IE does not get a speed advantage from loading with the OS. This is easily evidenced by loading IE on NT 4 or lower. It loads just as fast. Also, there are other browsers that load faster than Netscape, even on different platforms, so it isn't just IE and Windows. It's Netscape's code. This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 22:28. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:26:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
