| 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 |
 |
Microsoft: Browser Can't Be Removed | |
|
||
| Time: 22:05 EST/03:05 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
Microsoft Corp.'s chief executive and the top executive involved with its Windows operating system are sticking with a position the company has held since the outset of the four-year antitrust case: They cannot pull the Internet Explorer Web browser out of Windows. Nine states suing Microsoft for antitrust violations want to force the company to offer a version of Windows without the browser and other added features. That would allow computer makers to install competitors' products, if they chose, without taking on the added cost of supporting both products. Currently, Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows has a leg up on competitors vying for the hearts of consumers and software designers. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 265 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
10:03:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/5/2002 8:38:17 PM |
|
Well Java has won as far as education goes. They teach it as an elements CS course where I go to college (University of Texas). But after actually using the technology I am not impressed by java. I will not be using it later on in life. Performance is a big issue for me and that is not a feature of Java. Also cross platform is not something I am interested in either. For my purposes right at this moment in time x86 is the only thing I need.
Of course depending on your company/organization/business your needs will be different and Java may fulfill your needs. But again Java is not known for its performance. Especially in GUI apps. Swing and AWT are crap. |
| #27 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/5/2002 8:39:54 PM |
| So Jerk what exactly are you trying to say? |
| #28 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 8:41:30 PM |
| That even while backpedalling and trying not to tell the truth, the one person who has every reason to FUD like sodablue, can admit that commingling code was foud to be illegal. |
| #29 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 9:15:24 PM |
|
This is brilliant:
Q. Am I correct in understanding that it's totally 4 up to Microsoft whether or not it will distribute products 5 in such a way that they fall within the definition of 6 Microsoft middleware? 7 MR. HOLLEY: Object to the form of the question. 8 Calls for a legal conclusion. 9 A. As part of this document it calls out a technical 10 committee and I'm sure that -- and there are ways to -- if 11 somebody disagrees with that they obviously can have access 12 to what our decisions are, and they can obviously disagree 13 and raise that back to the court as an example. 14 Q. Section 1 of J says the Microsoft middleware 15 means software code that Microsoft distributes separately 16 from a Windows Operating System product to update that 17 Windows Operating System product. Am I correct in 18 understanding that if Microsoft decides not to distribute 19 software code separately from the Windows Operating System 20 product to update that Windows Operating System product it 21 will not be Microsoft middleware for the purposes of this 22 definition? 23 MR. HOLLEY: Are we having a group reading 24 session here? Object to the form of the question. The 25 document speaks for itself. You're asking him to interpret 0091 1 a legal document. 2 I guess he's asking you do those words appear on 3 the page. 4 Q. Do you have my question in mind, sir? 5 A. I think so, and I think the answer is yes. The head technical executive at Microsoft admits that he would interpret the RPFJ to mean that Microsoft can subvert the entire definition of middleware simply by always releasing the middleware code with the system instead of separately. Sound like an affective remedy to you? |
| #30 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 3/5/2002 10:51:42 PM |
| It is definitely monumental and historical! |
| #31 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/5/2002 10:58:36 PM |
|
"Whatever, Caesar, one could argue that Java is only a failure on the Windows platform, and that failure MS is directly responsible for. If you ask IBM, HP, BEA, Sun, Oracle, Borland, and Apple about how Java's doing, they'll say just fine and it's still one of the most popular platforms available. "
Please show me this wealth of software that IBM, HP, BEA, Sun, Oracle, Borland and Apple have written which runs within the JVM of a browser. Show me the wealth of software that these companies have written that even uses a user interface. You can't, because Java has been a failure in that market solely because of it's technical problems. The market you point to with these companies is middle-tier components running on servers. I guess I should have clarified my statements. I didn't realize sodajerk was so monumentally and historically obtuse to not understand that I was speaking in relationship to the user interface given the subject was JVM being included on a desktop OS. |
| #32 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/5/2002 11:01:13 PM |
|
Whatever. sodajerk is obviously obsessed by this issue that he has to take statements out of context to support his case.
I believe it was RedAvenger who suggested just stop responding to him a while back. Good idea. I've also got to stop using this login name. It's pathetic to see responses in this thread addressed to Soda and realize it's not me. |
| #33 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/5/2002 11:30:50 PM |
|
I, like Jim Allchin, had a problem with this definition of middleware (not to mention the whole case):
"Microsoft middleware 15 means software code that Microsoft distributes separately 16 from a Windows Operating System product to update that 17 Windows Operating System product." This would also include things such as service packs and patches, yet this can't be considered middleware. This definition doesn't even fit with the most common definition of middleware. |
| #34 By 2332 (165.247.11.173) at 3/6/2002 1:37:32 AM |
|
Wow... this has become quite the pissing match, huh?
Too bad I'm on a stupid modem right now, so I'm checking the net only for e-mail for a week or so, or I would have loved to chime in a bit. The only thing I really have to say, however, is that Allchin is a moron. I've hated that guy for as long as I can remember. He, more than any other person at Microsoft, prevented innovation within the company in an attempt to protect Windows, which was his project. Protecting Windows meant protecting both his ego and his job. Gates isn't much less responsible, but at least he was eventually willing to change (a change that resulted in .NET). Anyway... I'm sure everbody wants to get back to the pissing match. Piss away. |
| #35 By 2138 (62.201.84.225) at 3/6/2002 2:59:04 AM |
|
OK #3, when Microsoft and IBM had a cooperation between the two the only one who had DOS was IBM thus it became known as IBM-DOS when they tried to launch Windows & OS2, Microsoft did not. When the both tried to launch Windows & OS2, that is where the problems started. Thus they broke off the relationship that they developed, thus the creation of MS-DOS & IBM-DOS. IBM holds the patents for DOS not Microsoft. This going way back and many peole just simply forgot about this because it was not such a big thing anyhow.
Maybe I should have been more explanitory. belto... |
| #36 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/6/2002 4:20:53 AM |
|
The OS currently has plenty of standards. If the OS was so hard to develop for as the states and "competitors" would have you think, Microsoft would have only a small fraction of the developers that currently use the system.
You never see John Carmack or Tim Sweeney complaining that MS is keeping their games from running as well as MS' games, or that it's hard to get something running on the platform at all. The only thing keeping the "competitors" from taking advantage of the given platform is their lack of imagination, drive, and/or talent. Remember when Real Networks screwed up their player and rather than checking their code, the first thing they did was blame Microsoft. Truly pathetic (but common). |
| #37 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 3/6/2002 8:38:16 AM |
| The way I look at open source and specifically the GPL is a way of competing with professional coders. These guys couldn't compete selling there stuff and now they just give it away. There is a profound hatred for all things Microsoft from most of the open sourcers, and free software people from my exposure to them. They hate windows not because its inferior. But rather because its made by MS. |
| #38 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 3/6/2002 9:30:04 AM |
| #50 SodaJerk, Yes I would like to see competition return, who would not. But I do not want to see the competition return because the government helped them return. Any competition in any industry should be based on it own merits, not motivated by the government. Why should the government be needed to help the competition? Who helped MS become as big as they are? And also you still say MS has hurt the consumer, but I say, where? When? How? How can they hurt the consumer by providing software that has features added and advancements to help the consumer in every revision of it? I agree with some of your stance, but as far as I am concerned this whole thing is still a waste of my money, what is it going to solve? Does anyone, including these states and the justice department think MS is going to change? They can try and force them to change, but let face it MS has the money and resources to keep this going as long as they deem it necessary. They may change there practices but that is about it. Is this fair, well was it fair that MS be dragged through all this. Where in the long run it will just cost them money. Also look at it this way, we as Americans expect our companies to be cut throat to get ahead and compete and lower costs so we may reap the benefits. Then when they do to much the DOJ says whoa wait a minute. It is a viscous cycle and I for one think it is a waste of the taxpayers money, if those companies want to sue MS let them use there own money, since I have yet to see a consumer complain. |
| #39 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/6/2002 11:34:39 AM |
| OEMs weren't bullied into signing contracts. They wanted to sign the contracts to get a price cut. They could have done like thousands of other system vendors and not signed a contract, or they may have been able to negotiate a better one. It is the OEMs own fault if they didn't read the contracts, or signed them anyway if they had a problem with it. They were simply motivated by greed, and let that control their judgment. They were totally stupid if they expected to be the only ones benefiting from that or any other business deal. |
| #40 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/6/2002 3:18:47 PM |
|
Man is this the all time largest thread or what? This is actually very cool! I think ActiveWin should post less stories on the front page so we can have more active discussions like this one.
I may not disagree with everything said but its nice to have a place to discuss these issues. |
| #41 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 3/6/2002 3:26:19 PM |
| Well, we can still have discussions like this on days when there are a lot of stories. I'm glad you enjoy using comments - this is what they were designed for. But this thread does prove that intelligent arguments can take place thanks to our knowledegeable visitors. As yes, I think this is the longest thread yet! |
| #42 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 3/6/2002 3:40:50 PM |
|
Anyone know why windows emulators are so unsuccessful? Compaq copied the IBM PC and AMD and others copied the x86 chips. Chip speeds are at the level where this is a possibility.
Personally I would still buy from MS since I don't have a problem with them. I think the other nine states should form a company to write a good windows emulator and stop holding out on the settlement. |
| #43 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/6/2002 4:24:43 PM |
|
To add to #101, one of the main reasons MacOS will keep losing out to Windows is the difference in the platforms on which they run.
Even though the Mac is now largely a low-spec PC, Apple continues to maintain their closed architecture. If you want MacOS, you must buy a Mac from Apple and Apple alone. The systems are generally priced higher than better PCs, and you are limited in the upgrades you can make. Windows runs on PCs that you can get from many vendors, or you can build your own. Once you get an ATX standard case, you can upgrade several times over to the equivalent of a new PC for as long as you want. You can also do it in phases, upgrading only needed components. This saves money. Also, developers can easily obtain such things as processor specs and they, as well as users, can more easily tweak the hardware and software. |
| #44 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 3/6/2002 4:30:22 PM |
| where is sodajerk? ;-) |
| #45 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/6/2002 5:22:49 PM |
|
"...it would be cool if the .NET application I write can be run in the future on both a Mac OS X and Windows XP. I that was possible, I would definently buy a Max OS X. "
It's possible if Apple (or maybe MS' Mac BU) supports the framework. If not, maybe one of the Unix frameworks could be recompiled to run on OS X. |
| #46 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/6/2002 6:25:21 PM |
| Bob, I'd love to participate but I left work last night at around post #70; the 40 or so posts since then go off on so many different tangents I wouldn't know where to begin and would be writing forever (people already complain that I have too much time on my hands to write long posts ;-) ) so instead I've been finishing up the Allchin deposition--boy, I love that guy. Do any of the executive management at MS know what's going on at their company? Anyway, I figure I got the sparks flying the day before the settlement hearings--I'll give the softies a break until something juicy comes out of it. Until then... ;-) |
| #47 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 3/6/2002 8:55:28 PM |
| I'm going to carry this story over one more day so everyone can finish the discussion. Anyone think otherwise? |
| #48 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/6/2002 9:09:37 PM |
| Bob, I think otherwise--at this point, there are too many issues to address and it's going to get more confusing. Tomorrow is another day, and there should be more info out of the settlement hearings so that should spur another discussion. Besides, it's a historic discussion, but why keep dragging it out just for the record books. Five pages (probably more) in 2 days is a good record. But there'll be another story and discussion that breaks the record, and we can look back and say, "Wow, we beat that 'can IE be removed' discussion from the settlement hearings, remember those days?" |
| #49 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/6/2002 9:37:09 PM |
| Even if an interface layer is produced, you still couldn't gaurantee the feature completeness or correctness of rendering for other apps. Most other browsers can't correctly render a lot of webpages, and are behind in feature support. This would be a nightmare if say, the OEM, replaced IE with another browser, and that browser couldn't render most of the OS and applications' dialogs because it lacked needed functionality or that functionality was incorrectly implemented. |
| #50 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/6/2002 9:42:54 PM |
| Also, MS shouldn't be forced to include Java in the OS. Sun wanted it out and they got their wish. Besides that, it is Sun's responsibility to distribute their own software. Macromedia, Wild Tangent, and others aren't hurting or unknown because MS doesn't distribute their wares with the OS. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 265 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
10:03:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
