| 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 |
 |
Opinion: Holdouts Put Microsoft's Feet To Open-Source Fire | |
|
||
| Time: 13:32 EST/18:32 GMT | News Source: NewsFactor | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The nine states that chose to hold out for a fairer proposal -- rather than sign the one offered by both Microsoft and the DOJ -- submitted their own settlement to the U.S. district judge, and it looks like they are putting Microsoft's feet to the open-source fire. Although some of the details behind the states' proposal were made known as early as late Wednesday from news sources quoting individuals close to the case, last Friday's submission reveals even more juicy details. Under the new proposed settlement, Microsoft would be required to offer a version of its operating system without all of the company's "middleware" products such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 167 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:04:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/11/2001 3:40:59 PM |
|
#5. I agree, the option should be there to not install various components. Bundling itself is not a bad thing, but if I have a machine I don't want Messenger installed on I should be able to easily remove it.
#6. There is an option during the WinXP isntall to not install MSN, but there is no option for Messenger. #7. That's not a valid excuse. If it's true that bundling is a bad thing, then it is bad for everybody to do it. Prohibiting Microsoft from including IE, but allowing Mac and Linux to do so creates an unfair competitive marketplace. Purposefully crippling one company from being able to compete is not a valid solution and helps noone. #8. Agreed. If you look at the trial documents, and what was covered and the opinions coming out of the Appeals court, the Microsoft proposed settlement addresses those specific issues. If they wanted to address additional issues, those should have been presented in court. Picking Netscape as the primary issue was just plain stupid because it was Netscape's own fault they lost marketshare. There were a couple of really valid issues that came up, but for some reason the DOJ decided to not focus on them. |
| #2 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 12/11/2001 3:50:08 PM |
|
The great thing about this argument is no more talk of break up. Microsoft will be allowed to innovate no matter which remedy is accepted.
Some of the ideas that these states are coming up with shows their ignorance. If MS creates two OS,(even if the no frills version is $20 less) most (major) companies would only sell the regular version. Try getting a computer from Dell(over the web) without an OS. Also, would it not make it OK for MS to add even more great stuff to the regular OS. The other great idea they came up with is to force MS to write Office for other operating systems. Why would I go out and get a different OS, when I am already happy and used to using windows? Just because they have Office? I don't think so. By the way, I am almost 100% sure this will be overturned if it ever gets pass the current judge. I am not sure what these guys are trying to accomplish, other than getting media attention. |
| #3 By 61 (65.34.111.50) at 12/11/2001 3:57:36 PM |
|
The reason why you don't have a choice to uninstall them is simply b/c these things are platforms. What you see is simply a shell to the platform (or engine). With having these platforms in place, every developer knows that it will be there on every computer running that version of Windows.
Granted, you should be able to choose wich of these "shells" you have installed, but hey, that's life, get over it. Last, basically, it doesn't matter what MS does, they get called anti-competitive... all they are doing is competing... MS would have to literally sit their with it's thumb up it's ass doing nothing at all (that includes developing new/better products) in order to not be accused of being anti-competitive... and even then, the ABMers would jump on MS's back. No matter what MS does, they lose, simply because they have attained the American dream. This post was edited by CPUGuy on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 16:00. |
| #4 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 12/11/2001 4:36:27 PM |
|
To all those who complain about Messenger:
Open Messenger Click Tools --> Options Choose The Preferences Tab Uncheck "Run this program when windows starts" Now that pre-school is over: "The new proposal also requests that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly order Microsoft to open source its Internet Explorer Web browser. Assuming the most appropriate license is adopted, this too will be a good thing for the computing industry. " Of course this will be a good thing for the computing industry... everybody will have the source code for the most rebust, feature rich browser on the planet. This is nothing but Corporate RAPE! "Although Microsoft most likely would have continued developing its Office software for the Macintosh, anyway, the settlement proposal would not only force Microsoft to continue licensing it to Apple, but also to third-party vendors. When thinking about companies whose businesses would benefit the most from Microsoft's office software, several come to mind. The top two are IBM -- with its new role in the Linux arena -- and Sun Microsystems for Java. " You have such a good product we want other people to be able to sell it... and... look at the code, change it. And it will benefit IBM, SUN (wonder why they are on the band wagon). This, however, does not help anybody else. Now we will have 3 different flavors of office floating around on the other operating systems. So much for compatibility. Besides, Microsoft has invested BILLIONS in researching and developing the Office Suite (yes they bought a couple of the members but they have invested and developed for them as well). Now that they have the crown jewel they have to share with others. "Under the original settlement proposal, Microsoft would merely be inconvienced if it didn't act in accordance with the proposed remedy, but adopting a strategy such as the holdout states proposed would force the company into compliance -- lest it lose its Windows crown jewels. Only a company that originally intended to violate those provisions would be so intent on objecting to them. " WTF does this mean... They don't want that in any settlement because if it is some jackass judge has the ability to open source ALL of Microsoft's software. Bye Bye Microsoft, Hello 300 versions of each Windows. This is sick. And these are our tax dollars at work here. Even Linux users should be pissed that their money is getting wasted on this and social security at the same time. This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 16:36. |
| #5 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 12/11/2001 4:43:30 PM |
|
Disabling Messenger Completely:
Start --> Run Type "mmc" and click "OK" In the Console hit CTRL+M Hit ALT+D Select "Group Policy" from the list and click "Add" Click "Finish" Click "Close" Click "OK" Expand "Console Root"/"Local Computer Policy"/"Administrative Templates"/Windows Components"/"Windows Messenger" Double Click "Do Not Allow Windows Messenger to Be Run" Click Enabled Click OK Double Click "Do Not automatically start Windows Messenger initially" Click Enabled Click OK Reboot I guess (not sure) |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/11/2001 5:12:59 PM |
|
#13. Oh great it's Mr. 134 again...
No, I'm afraid #7 is still not correct, even by your definitions. The Sherman anti-trust concept of bundling deals with "You have to buy this, to get this". An example would be a company claiming that in order for you to buy heating oil from them(since they are the sole supplier) you also have to buy life insurance from them. This was not the case with IE, which is where the DOJ had trouble in court. They couldn't prove that there was an secondary market for web browsers because they'd always been given away for free. Furthermore Microsoft didn't require you to buy IE, they threw it in for free as part of the enhancements to Windows. Maybe if Microsoft had required you to buy Office in order to get Windows there would be a case, but again that never happened. This was the problem the DOJ had... building a supporting case around the bundling claim. This was also the primary argument of the entire case, which is why the decision was so weak. Now the court documents do focus a bit on some other behaviors, which were clearly unethical or questionable. Collusion to split up markets, etc. That's where the appeals court agreed with Jackson. But on your last point... "I don't know why after all this time you are trying to make the same stupid argument MS did; once you are generally accused of applying anti-competitive pressure as a monopoly, a ton of issues can be brought up and addressed." It's called the US Constitution and the protections it affords it's citizens. This was another one of the problems with Jackson's court. He never allowed hearings, but instead tried to ramrod a punishment which didn't fit the case. That's why he was overturned in the appeals court. The DOJ seems to be aware of this, which is why they have accepted a reasonable settlement. I could see a few corrections to it, such as a stronger punishment if the consent decree is not abided to. But trying to tie items that were never discussed in court, or even mentioned in the findings of fact is really pushing the boundaries and guarantees a supreme court ruling against it. Maybe you should the Constitution sometime, along with the court documents. It would sure save me of all the time I have to spend correcting your mistakes. |
| #7 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 12/11/2001 6:55:39 PM |
|
#19...
"microsoft is a monopoly. whatever you want to believe in your own little mind, they were convicted of being a monopoly in a court of law. case over, you have no say whatsoever. " The court of law that decided the case was a biased old fart and a bunch of Money Driven politicians. Anti Trust law has never benefitted consumers and this sure as hell won't. "second, stop talking about netscape vs. ie. netscape does not own the os that is run on 90% of the pc's out there. that is the big difference between the two. ms including ie in the os was meant to do one thing and one thing only, squeeze the competition out of the market. " Netscape started to develope the browser to have it tie directly to their WEB SERVER. Here it is simply MS one at successfully tying its browser to something. Now with that said Microsoft did not win the browser war because it was on 90% of computers. IE 2, 3 were on every windows machine shipped... nobody used it. Netscape was used on the majority of PC's until Internet Explorer 4.01 came out. Now that is simply a case of a better software version. Now if Netscape had continued to provide newer MORE ENHANCED versions of its software, I would have stayed if they had. Instead the immediately went to the Government (before a decent version of IE was bundled in Win98) and cried foul.... Apparently they, instead of competing like you so bold claim they would like to do, decided to use the goverment (noticing a trend here). If Netscape had kept up with the browser "war" they might have won or even held more ground then they have, they are the reason they lost nothing else. "i guess the thing i just dont understand is that why so many of you are silly enough to stand behind this company with such vigor" Not only do I stand behind this company because of its products, I stand behind this company because they are about to be screwed by the government. If they really need a spanking it should be the people that do it. The government has never helped any consumers in anti-trust cases and this will be no different. You look at the fact that they make alot of money as a sign of evil. In any other market or any other company making that kind of money is based off of success at building, marketing, and in this case supporting your product. And punishment is not just when it means releasing the companies trade secrets just because all of their competitors they feel cheated. "but what is wrong with healthy competition?" Could you define this? Does health competition mean that compete with each other but don't pull to far out front because we will knock you down to the bottom again and take all of your assets to use for ourselves? This comment made me laugh. Does healthy competition mean... you use your employees to build a better product and I'll use my lawyers to stop you? For example would you want linux to get ontop by beating microsoft down "legally" by creating a better product? or do you want to take over the market after the giant has been taken down by the government? Sounds to me like you want the wussy way. This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 19:10. |
| #8 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 12/11/2001 6:55:59 PM |
|
"but what is wrong with healthy competition?"
Could you define this? Does health competition mean that compete with each other but don't pull to far out front because we will knock you down to the bottom again and take all of your assets to use for ourselves? This comment made me laugh. Does healthy competition mean... you use your employees to build a better product and I'll use my lawyers to stop you? For example would you want linux to get ontop by beating microsoft down "legally" by creating a better product? or do you want to take over the market after the giant has been taken down by the government? Sounds to me like you want the wussy way. "why are you so willing to blindly give up your right to choose to ms" WTF are you talking about. I CHOOSE MS!!!!!! that is the beautiful thing. And nothing stops you are any other idot from choosing otherwise. You could use a MAC or you can use Linux. The problem is there is no good option other than the MAC and the MAC just does have enough software titles. MS has the market because they don't only take care of the customers but they take care of the developers of the software that makes windows so popular. This is why linux will fail (<linux crap>But its built by the developers, it will own because of this</linux crap><reality> consumers aren't developers and you guys don't program to the world as a whole just to yourselves</reality> andthis is why MAC is failing. I choose to use the OS that supports the most software and hardware in the world. THAT IS MY CHOICE. Oh yea I have a couple of linux boxes too... oops was that another CHOICE! "someone please tell me this, what benefit is there to CONSUMERS to buy software as a service" Not a clue... will I use it... maybe. I'll try it out. Are you scared of change. Do I like the fact I can hire someone and just pay $30 a month for the softare rather than just buying the whole thing. That way if I get rid of that person I'm only out for the number of months * 30. If I can't make over $30/month off of that person using this stuff than I'm a idiot for spending it. I like it as a business man, not so sure about personal. " mean to tell me that for someone like myself who uses word (at my home) maybe four times a month and excel maybe 3 times a year there are benefits to paying a monthly subscription to ms" Sounds like someone needs reevaluate what software you buy. I would use WordPad (OMG ANOTHER BUNDLED PROGGY) Before Word... which I do at home :) . And perhaps you could go to your local library to use Excel :). Man that was a lame argument. "why do i NEED to sign up for passport when i install xp" its not required (even lamer :\ ) "are you people really silly enough to hand over ms all your personal info only to have them sell it back to you in the form of "services" Well I won't but some people might. Personally the idea is better than "Liberty" because with "Liberty" your data will be on a whole bunch of different companies computers. Instead of trusting one person to secure my data I have to worry about 20 or 30... sounds like a plan ;) Do you ever stop and think that you only hate microsoft because they have alot of money? Their software isn't bad... I use it all day every day. Sounds like someone is blindly following the "non mainstream" crowd. I don't have a problem with stuff that is main stream. I try to be open to the good and the bad about everything. I only support MS because the punishment should not center around giving away their assets. They should be restricted from certain business practices not in how they develop software. Plus, MS doesn't do anything that most other businesses do every day. Spent |
| #9 By 3339 (206.216.3.134) at 12/11/2001 7:59:05 PM |
|
What's wrong, Humpty, are you a little constipated?
(oops, sorry, that's bluballs' line.) |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/12/2001 12:53:38 AM |
|
Mr. 134 wrote: "Not true. For one, they had never ALWAYS been given away for free. (Did you learn revisionist history from Gates or Hitler?) Secondly, the Court said that Netscapes profits were built upon the platform -- this market was denied to them. "
I've never paid for a web browser, yet I have been using the web since day 1. Mosaic was most certainly free. Netscape came out and tried to charge $35, then quickly backed down and said it was free for educational and personal use. Besides for most of it's early history they relied solely upon Beta products. Netscape really pushed and introduced the idea of widely available free betas. Now I don't remember about IE. I recall downloading it, but I do recall it being included in the first Win95 Plus! pack. I really wish you would stop trying to reinvent history or misinterpret events. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/12/2001 2:28:39 AM |
|
Mr. 134 also wrote: "the most specific mention of individual consumers is in relation to the Java testimony. MS misguided and injured the developers, their best consumers. "
Now where did you pull that one out of? Microsoft was attempting to help people who develop for Windows utilize Java. Sun had no interest in Java performing better on Windows than on other platforms, and nixed that. If anything Sun harmed developers by creating Java to begin with. :( |
| #12 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 12/12/2001 11:56:14 AM |
|
#33
Please do not use universities as a defacto standard for anything. Universities are the virus of the computing industry. There are so many people who come out thinking they know what they are doing and many of those can barely turn a computer on. Don't get me wrong there are professors who go the extra mile but as a standard universities suck. CS is in the engineering college and there change never really happens. They do not use MS because it is new and because they have some crazy's that think IIS is not secure. On both sides of the security front (both IIS & others) security is totally up to the Admins. In engineering colleges they are flooded with people that know Solaris *nix etc. Their admins know what they are doing... so I would never expect them to move to IIS unless they wanted to broaden their horizons. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/12/2001 10:32:55 PM |
|
#40. Competition is bad? With the release of IE3, Microsoft gained about 20-30% of marketshare compared to Netscape. With the release of IE4 Microsoft hit the 50% mark. It was not until the release of IE5 that Microsoft surpassed Netscape's marketshare and gained the current 80% or so.
Microsoft started bundling IE with version 2. |
| #14 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 12/13/2001 11:37:09 AM |
|
#38
Ok, I'll just let you think that comment made some difference in the argument. #40 "That is when Netscape started losing market share friend" Not so much... They lost a little maybe from sysadmins who used NT for that didn't want to install anything else on their box. Did you ever use IE3? God what a POS. I was using Netscape 3.0 Gold and Downloaded Netscape 4. It wasn't until I used IE 4 at the College Computer Lab (no it wasn't bundled) that I turned to IE 4. I left my computer on all night to download it. Fact of the matter is that is the case for most people. I could give you the names of 20-30 people who downloaded it for the same reason i did. It supported serious DHTML, looked better and rendered faster. The web changed when IE 4 came out. That is when Netscape lost a small amount of market share. Then the bundled version came with Windows 98. Even more enhancements to the Original IE 4 but Netscape was still dominant. Netscape failed to produce new versions and spent their time crying to the government about MS bundling. If netscape had released a new version they would have kept alot of users. They waited so long their loyal users had to get off of Netscape because it was NOT evolving to meet new standards and technologies. For example if Netscape had released Netscape 6 (or another version with some enhancements) companies and users alike would have kept with them. Their reluctancy to provide newer versions caused them to loose by large margins to MS when MS released IE 5. Now they are starting from where MS did. They have to produce a product that people will look at and say... "I want that feature" or "Man this looks cool". |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 167 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:04:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
