| 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 |
 |
Group: Windows update snubs settlement | |
|
||
| Time: 05:46 EST/10:46 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
A computer-industry trade group took a shot at Microsoft's credibility Wednesday, alleging that the recently released Windows XP Service Pack 1 violates the software giant's pending antitrust settlement. In a 12-page letter sent to Assistant Attorney General Charles James and to Elliot Spitzer, New York's attorney general, ProComp, a group partially funded by Microsoft competitors, charged the company with "at least six separate and ongoing violations" of one section of the proposed agreement. The timing of the allegation could be important for drawing additional attention to a settlement reached by Microsoft, the Justice Department and nine of 18 states in the company's more than four-year-old antitrust case. Nine other states put forward a stiffer remedy, and both settlement proposals are before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who's expected to rule on them at any time. Any accusation that Microsoft might not be acting in good faith could give the Justice Department pause should Kollar-Kotelly reject the Microsoft-DOJ proposal. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:16:56 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/19/2002 7:19:23 AM |
| I hope she has enough sense to realize that ProComp are a bunch of fools. |
| #2 By 4209 (64.175.184.131) at 9/19/2002 8:41:47 AM |
|
I hope most users are inteligent enough to use the program! I mean come on it is not that hard and it is very self explanatory. You either select all MS programs, no MS Programs or the Custom version which allows you to pick what ones you want. Not a very difficult thing.
Edit: And once again who is complaining, not the consumer as it should be, but a group funded by the competitors.... This post was edited by mctwin2kman on Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 08:42. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/19/2002 12:20:43 PM |
| Users would also receive these updates through the automatic update program, which doesn't use Netscape and they should be nice and happy. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/19/2002 12:56:53 PM |
|
How can this not be viewed as non-compliance? Other developers don't have to comply to this settlement, MS does? So why do developers need to recode apps? Add/Remove automatically detects the exact same programs without being recoded, Windows Update detects which apps I have installed, competitors' products can detect the apps I have installed. So how come most don't show up in this "Compliance Add/Remove"?
Why isn't it prominently available from the Start menu as they said it would be? Why is it only a part of the much, much larger SPs when OEMs aren't likely to install them until 2003? Why can't Netscape users do the install form the proper location, or at least get redirected to where they can? MS said that people would be able to not use IE and use Netscape? Use means full USE, people! There's nothing special about ActiveX that is required for this crap--the only company still using it at all is Microsoft! These may be subtle issues, but hasn't much of the point all along been how MS can claim they are interpreting the law correctly but boldly making it difficult for anyone else to coexist with them? This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 12:58. |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/19/2002 1:32:30 PM |
|
jerk:
Once again you show how much of a troll you truely are. First, the "Set Program Access" control IS right where they said it would be. Start>All Programs, look at the top... of if you are using the old taskbar, it's just right at the top of the start menu. Why is it only part of the SP? Because it's an update to the OS, it needs to be part of the SP. The applications have to be "recoded" because Windows doesn't know that Netscape is a browser, or the AIM is an IM client, etc.... the apps have to identify themselves so they can be detected properly by the control. |
| #6 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 9/19/2002 1:40:43 PM |
|
The reality is that hardly anyone gives a rat's ass about this program anyway. I'm happy without Netscape, etc.
I can only imagine grandma user trying to decide... Keep It Simple Stupid |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/19/2002 1:44:57 PM |
|
CPU, that's idiotic... Have you ever installed Netscape or any of the media players or just about any other software? They seem to know exactly what apps and what kinds of apps to look for... This is the biggest bullsh1t excuse I've ever heard.
And they said it would be at Start, not at Programs. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 14:36. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/19/2002 3:17:35 PM |
|
By the way, if you want proof that this group's allegations are without merit...
"The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's .Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine. " |
| #9 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/19/2002 3:40:37 PM |
|
sj, sj, sj,
The issue is that Add/remove programs do have a set of protocols to be recoginzed by the shell. And it took years for all programs (and still some vendors don't follow that protocol so it doesn't show up in add/remove programs) to move over to that new protocol. And it isn't a catch all, it just changes the code slightly to give a central point to add and remove programs instead of trying to look for the unistall routine in each directory. Now the advantage back then is that if you used any of the standard Install routines to do an istall (Microsoft Installer, Wise, etc etc) Most changed the install routines to do the nec change. So the argument that it shows up in add/remove programs is a bogus one. the installers had to change to do it. for those companies that roll their own or use an older version, it will not show up in Add-remove programs. and I am sorry, it is only about an hours worth of work for them to add the neccesary bit of code to the project, maybe a month or so of testing, and the 3rd party companies have had this for a while. Beyond that, Other programs do depend on IE being installed or they will fail. Quicken just to name one. but that is third party agreements with ms or even netscape when they still existed. El |
| #10 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/19/2002 3:42:51 PM |
|
hmm interesting.
JVM and the Runtime are not equivalents. runtime doesn't run JVM materials for one. and the framework is about a 1000 times ahead of the JVM in functionality. El |
| #11 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/19/2002 4:03:54 PM |
|
sodajerk:
What the hell are you talking about... what is "they".... the operating system doesn't know anything about the application at all unless you go in and manually change the associations, and even then, it just knows that you want to use product A to open up files with extention xyz. Simply, the applications have to identify themselves as a media player, or an inet browser... I don't care weather or not you accept that or not as you are truely a troll, and by definition, trolls can't think for themselves. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/19/2002 4:12:23 PM |
|
ProComps allegation - Microsoft mad the service pack so large (30 Mgs), users wouldn't download it
Reality - That is on the small side for a Microsoft service pack. Most NT4 service packs were at least 50. Allegation - Microsoft is charging for the SP CD if users won't download it. This potentially will generate tens of millions in revenue for Microsoft. Reality - Microsoft has always charged to order service pack CDs Allegation - SP is too difficult to deploy that is why OEMs are holding off on deployment Reality - Several OEM have agreed to deploy it soon. There is always a gab between availability of an SP and an OEM using it. Allegation - You can only get the service pack via Windows Update using IE 5 or above. Reality - Windows Update has been an IE only site for a long time. All service packs are available via Microsoft downloads, regardless of the browser. Links to SP1 are available on the windows homepage, technet, and microsoft's on homepage. Allegation - Alternative middleware is not recognized in set program access defaults Reality - Microsoft has created new API's for this. They made 3rd part vendors aware of it. There will be SP1 compliant patches to those 3rd party products soon. Allegation - Set program access defaults is not in an intuitive location Reality - Add/Remove programs is where you add and remove programs and features in windows. This has been the case since windows 95/ windows NT 4. Allegation - "The letter also states that there is essentially no end-user access to the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). " Reality - Um, what end user access does a JVM require? It is java programs that require it and they know where to find it. I just don't get this problem. My source for ProComps allegations is http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=37499 |
| #13 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/19/2002 5:05:44 PM |
|
the recent pdf of the news sent to the Justice department.
In particuliar. The Set Program Access and Defaults must include a choice to disable Microsoft's Common Language Runtime. Microsoft has been very vocal about its development of the .NET Frameworks's Common Language Runtime as an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine. The .NET Framework's Common Language Runtime should be included in the Set Program Access and Default, pursuant to Sections III. H. and VI. K. of the SRPFJ. This definition was clearly intended to include "similar" technologies not available at the time of the Settlement. The .NET Framework's Common Language Runtime was released after the entering of the SRPFJ. Pursuant to definition VI. K. 2. b, the Common Language Runtime meets the three-prong test: It is "functionality provided by Microsoft that - i. is or in the year preceding the commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft from a Windows Operating System Product; ii, Is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and iii. is "trademarked." In this light. the MSCRT.exe the VBRT(some version number). the Visual foxpro runtime Would all meet those critiria, (except I don't think that the mscrt may not be Trademarked) They all provide the capability to run a language, that is similar to the JVM. Except that the CLR can't run true 1.4 Java Code (due to an earlier court case limiting MS to a certain version of Java) the JVM cannot run Visual Basic code, the MSCRT can't run Java code and the JVM can't run MSCRT targeted code. So I would like to know the similarities. If those three Runtimes are not classified as being similar. Remember the JVM doesn't JIT its code and runs in interpretive mode why the CLR does. Is it the intermediary of the MSIL that makes it similiar. IOW. the JVM doesn't in anyway provide the same functinality as the CLR. It doesn't interpret C# or Visual Basic or even Managed C++. It doesn't Just In Time compile the code to machine level. it doesn't provide a Common Language feature, it is only a Java machine. Thanks for your time and enlightment in this regard. el just sent this off to ProComp will see if they respond or not. |
| #14 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/19/2002 5:56:39 PM |
| Disabling the CLR in Windows would make as much sense as disabling COM. Also, the CLR is an open standard, so what's the big deal? |
| #15 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/19/2002 6:30:05 PM |
|
Bob,
Exactly my point or deisableing JVM when you need to run Java aps or disableing vbruntime when you need to run visual basic aps. or vfprun when you need ot run foxpro aps. El |
| #16 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/19/2002 7:51:46 PM |
|
One of my biggest annoyances when I was working in the corporate sector rather than in the small business sector, is that people that didn't have a clue about technology made technology decisions. The folks at ProCom fall into the category of those who don't have a clue about technology.
Also, the CLR doesn't currently ship with Windows. A consumer has to download it if they want it. Either that, or they have to load it from a CD when the install .NET software. It seems to me that the consumer already has choice in the matter. Finally, .NET was annouced at PDC 2000 in June, I believe. The DOJ settlement was in Nov 2001. Was there any body not aware that Microsoft was developing .NET and "betting the company" on it. If the settlement wanted to apply to .NET in some way, it had every opportunity to do so. I am so tired of technology ignorant people making technology decisions. I'm even more tired of technology ignorant people trying to make technology decisions for others. |
| #17 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/19/2002 7:52:26 PM |
| Yeah, El. You are right on the money with your analysis. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 9/19/2002 11:03:48 PM |
|
BobSmith - "I am so tired of technology ignorant people making technology decisions."
I hear ya! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:16:56 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
