| 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 1 through 25 of 371 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:01:40 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2138 (62.201.85.93) at 3/5/2002 10:17:54 AM |
|
Tell them to really prove it!!! I think that the public will be totally suprised. You can remove IE from Windows. It is a matter of rewriting the code and leaving IE out of the new coding. Micorsoft tried to steal DOS but they lost, thus MS-DOS, now they are trying to steal everything.
Just tell them to PROVE IT!!! belto... |
| #2 By 2138 (62.201.85.93) at 3/5/2002 10:17:58 AM |
|
Tell them to really prove it!!! I think that the public will be totally suprised. You can remove IE from Windows. It is a matter of rewriting the code and leaving IE out of the new coding. Micorsoft tried to steal DOS but they lost, thus MS-DOS, now they are trying to steal everything.
Just tell them to PROVE IT!!! belto... |
| #3 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 3/5/2002 11:38:41 AM |
|
The truth is, MS didn't make IE just to dethrone Netscape. MS saw that HTML was a superior way of formating documents (such as Help, or the Summary screen in Money, etc).
They developed an HTML rendering engine that would save their company millions of dollars in not having to re-write rendering engines in every applications (e.g. not reinventing the wheel). shdocvw.dll is the core HTML rendering engine and is used in just about every application and by almost every facet in Windows. IE is merely a wrapper around shdocvw.dll. Removing IE is trival, but removing all traces of IE would involve removing shdocvw.dll which would completely break Windows. If you don't remove shdocvw.dll, then you might as well not remove IE. The problem with this whole argument is that they want to remove a Consumer's choice. They know that IE is so far superior to anything else out there that consumers will ALWAYS choose IE regardless of it's tie-in with Windows. This is a misguided effort at removing competition, not adding choice. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 12:29:12 PM |
|
Even better, break shdocvw.dll into 3 dlls--MS's own testimony shows that some functions are IE only, some shell only, and some shared. Keep the system only functions in a dll that can't be removed, include the html (shared functions) dll in windows but possibly removable, and install the IE only dll when IE.exe is installed. This is obvious, doable, and possibly could improve performance. Microsoft knows it and they know if they had done it in the first place, this never would have happened.
This is, by the way and in my opinion, the only acceptable solution to something that was found illegal--it's just unfornate lawyers don't understand technology and they get run in circles by MS who say "we can't do it" even though they've done just about everything else in the last 10 years. Can't you hire 30 more guys, Steve, with that 38 Billion in cash? |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 1:47:14 PM |
|
Just because the pointers would change doesn't mean MS couldn't implement a gradual transition to this. I am not saying remove the html/"open platform" functions--they should be in there own dll and they would stay in every system. Why would shell specific functions be this dll? Answer, no reason at all. Removing the IE functions is no big deal either--I would think there'd be very few that aren't in the html.dll--and this would be installed/uninstalled with IE. This isn't the entire html engine, just a dll of functions specific to only IE. I don't see how having three, two of which only containing functions specific to 2 MS apps, would prevent MS from knowing or understanding who was accessing what dll. If anything, it's clearer at the one dll they'd access would be this over-touted "open platform" dll, and the other two would be the functions that aren't utilized by other apps or at least shared by the shell and IE. And do you really think that once MS places a function in a dll that that dll and/or function doesn't move or change ever? I would think it happens all the time and it doesn't break every app in the world.
I don't see how my option destroys the internet or XML; could you explain that one? Nor do I see how OS X has the same system of commingling non-related codes in a bundle of functions. This is the problem: yes, a platform is great, sharing functions is great, but it's not true for all the functions contained in the dll in question. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 2:40:53 PM |
|
#20, that's as idiotic as some of the hyperbole and crying spewing from Ballmer; this wouldn't happen without MS publishing the APIs, this wouldn't happen without consulting with third parties. MS changes its code all the time, they can do it again, let developers know, and either produce an interim system for redirecting those calls or provide a way for other companies to update their software. Big deal--is it a little messy, a bit time consuming, and some work for MS? Yes, but they've been burying these functions for 5 years now--they should have created a modular design in the first place.
To say that if MS changes it's code so that it actually is a modular platform, but that developers won't know about it so that it would break all other known software in the world, and, hence, actually furthering MS's monopoly... This is to say that it's impossible for MS to EVER make a change in its code without breaking ALL other software--so how are they able to introduce new code or make changes to existing code? Please, MS can handle what I propose, and it can be transitioned into the marketplace. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 2:55:29 PM |
| #18, what you don't realize is that it is a part of the court record that some functions in the HTML dll do not pertain to html rendering and/or cannot be used by IE. So what I am asking for is that it specifically be its own dll and any functions specifically shell only or IE only be in their own dlls. Very simple, very doable, and even from a good design perspective, it would have been completely avoided if the goal hadn't been to justify saying that Windows cannot work without IE. |
| #8 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 3/5/2002 3:05:38 PM |
| Sodajerk, I am responding to what I wrote yesterday about MS should just close there doors. I am not saying that MS is not a monopoly, what I am saying is that if they closed there doors and gave up, it would be funny, because the PC world would be screwed without a real OS. Yes you could use Linux, but Linux is not ready for the general public to use. I know a lot of people that can barely do Windows, and only now a little about it, these people could not use Linux at the state it is in now. Also MS is never going to lose there monopoly until someone writes an equivalent or better OS, meaning as easy to use and one that has tons of software ported to it. So either way they will still be here. And as far as removing IE from Windows, who would buy it, all they need to do is allow computer manufacturers to install alternative browsers. Which they do now. If you remove IE, a lot of software will have to be re-written, not only by MS but by other vendors as well. And to this day I have not seen MS hurt any consumer, they allow you to use Windows right out of the box with no need to buy anymore software. This in no way hurts the consumer. To be a monopoly you also have to hurt the consumers, by not innovating and not improving your product. AT&T did not ever improve there service and was also not lowering there prices on there service, not until after they were broken up did the market open a little and supposedly helped the consumer. This backfired since splitting them really did not lower the costs and help the consumer, it just gave us choices. Now MS is only a monopoly as far as they are really the only major PC OS maker, this is not really there fault per-se, since anyone that wants can make a better OS anytime they want, as long as they don't cave and sell out to MS. This really is not happening since the alternative is Linux and it is not ready for mainstream yet. They have not hurt any consumer I know of yet, and not consumer has complained, only the competition has complained. Have you seen any witness that has said they were hurt by MS that was a consumer. No... They broke the Sherman Antitrust laws, and hurt the competition, the monopoly is there but is no longer even part of the actual case. There can be monopolies in this world if the competition can't keep up or does not really exist, that is not against the law, antitrust and intentionally trying to hurt the competition and using yoru monopoly is though. teh monopoly will be there even after this case is settled, it will not go away untill someone gets off there lazy ass and writes a better OS. So drop the stupid monopoly shit. And as far as my understanding is that the settlement calls for two OS's one with IE and one without. Which one would you buy? I think everyone would buy the fully functional one, so what is the point in removing it, other than to say they can or can't. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 3:10:31 PM |
| z00ker, why do you have to FUD like that--the calls would be redirectd to the appropriate dlls---I said the html rendering engine and the shell only dll would be included. The only dll which could be removed would be functions specific to IE only. The other two dlls would always be present (core components as you say). I'm not even asking for what some are asking--that MS make it so that other engines can be loaded--this I agree is unworkable because there is specific functionality that only MS provides to its html engine. Fine. But all I've suggested is that functionality which is specific only to IE and is not apart of a rendering engine that can be used by Windows and other apps be isolated in its own dll (as well as the shell only functions) and the sharable functions in their own. The shell dll and the sharable functions would always be included. What is so wrong with that? |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 3:26:59 PM |
|
McTwin, I don't buy the argument that any can compete with Microsoft if they just have the balls to do it approach, they just have way too much power (developers, apps, money, FUD and vaporware, barriers to entry, etc, etc, etc)--and I don't see Linux as the only alternative, and I don't see the problems disappearing only when an OS with equivalent app and developer support exists... I think potentially, with some enforceable and strict remedies, linux and Apple and others can erode MS's marketshare to say 60% which would possibly be enough to change their practices. I also disagree with Nader on almost everything, but I think he hit an interesting issue about whether or not it is legal for MS to sit on such a cash horde without providing dividends (they can buy into any market they choose, they can eliminate almost any competitor they choose), and I think it's interesting that the SEC is investigating them for shifting profits to weak quarters to continue to meet analysts expectations.
What I do find funny is the rationale behind supporting MS dominance--there are those that reap the windfall, but there are so many ruined by it--those that are ruined are FUDed into being competitors trying to chew a piece off of MS, but ultimately don't you see a problem with a company that can only view its marketplace as all other technology markets, its competitors as all other companies, and that it's success and innovation are only possible by it being to build every piece of the technology (or buying it), and if it's not allowed to, it doesn't know how to function anymore (well, I'll be) so they have to take their ball and go home. Who wants a company to control all operating systems for all devices, all office software, all developer software, all media content and distribution, all other software in between. Not only do they want this control, they want to be able to take it away from anyone who disagrees with them. This is funny to you; to me, it's exactly the reason why even in a capitalist system it is a good thing to have Antitrust law. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 3:32:56 PM |
|
El, again.... Everybody, again, again, again, there are functions in the dll that are not usable by other programs. It's a part of the Court record, MS knows this, Allchin testified to it, this is the only part that I ask be removed. All other functions can be core system dlls, but should still be broken into two: one to support shared functions, one to support shell only functions. This proposal would only allow removal of functions ONLY used by IE, not functions used by other apps.
I'm not a complete fool about what IE, the browser is, and what html rendering is. I'm not willing to settle for Ballmer's definition of these things when he apparently doesn't know about half this crap anyway. I am not attempting to answer the question of whether other html engines should be installable so why are you so scared by my idea? |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 3:40:19 PM |
|
Trooljerk, what I am proposing would almost be the same thing as justing removing the .exe file; I'm not suggesting removing the whole engine.
[Can you all read plain English?] But what my proposal does is remedy the illegal act of code commingling, and moves toward setting a policy for MS and others on whole to "integrate." If the integration provides benefits and can be used as a platform, go ahead, but there cannot and should not be any functions in this sharable component that are actually only relevent to one of the tied products or cannot be shared. Because it is this act--of inserting code which does not get shared--that is the problem, that makes the system or app not work when removed, which clearly shouldn't be a problem--those functions aren't IE functions, they are system functions... BUT, and this is important, some of them are shell only functions but MS decides to call them a part of IE--Baloney. Break it up into three and the issue of determining whether the integration provides benefit is much clearer. Commingle code, and you get the lame excuse, "We can't! it'll break everything!" |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 3:46:33 PM |
|
Sorry about the can you read thing, trolljerk, your #32 post wasn't up when I wrote that. Why use 3? That's answered by asking the reverse question? Why put them into one when they are actually of three different categories (shell only, IE only, and shared)? The answer to this question is: to justify tying the two, the only explanation for putting a shell only function in an html rendering dll is to be able to declare one won't work without the other.
Because this is a technological defense, not a legal one--and apparently the judges and lawyers are afraid to set the legal precedent for it, I want the technological justification to be removed. Is this possible? Certainly, yes, but the lawyers and judges don't know it. I want the issue to be clear. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 3:58:07 PM |
| El, what I am referring to is Microsoft's strategy, what makes them most happy, things they continue to say today--for example, that they are not a monopoly because they compete with Palm, Nokia, Sun, Oracle, Apple, linux, etc, etc... No, MS those are distinct markets that you are jealous of--you don't make phones (yet). And also, what the softies want, encourage, and say is only right. They joke that Microsoft should pull its products and go home, or they should kill this or that company, or buy them. I could go on and on about this; I am not suggesting they have the saturation that they believe in, but that is the only way they know how to manage themselves. There isn't a single technology or product that MS will say, "Wow, they do that right, we shouldn't compete with them, instead we should adopt their technology, promote it and grow thru its added value." Instead they say, "Sh1t, someone figured out something we don't know about, let's figure out how to reengineer it, make it better, or simply tie it to a future product, they must be dead in two years! Steve, you have however many men and how much money you need to do it." I do not think anything will change this philosophy but forty years wandering the desert of lawsuits and/or an effective remedy. We probably won't get the effective remedy so get ready for the forty years of lawsuits. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 4:09:13 PM |
|
z00ker, I am saying that functions used by other apps would be in the shared dll which would always be included in the system.
Until you pay attention to it, I can rebut what you are saying. I am saying that their are functions which are specific to IE the app, not IE the nebulous built-in MS defense that sometimes include the dll, sometimes doesn't, sometimes just includes the html rendering enine functions, sometimes doesn't. Which ones? Since MS only recently made this a part of the evidence no one knows, but when repeatedly asked Allchin could not state that all the functions could be used by other apps or the system. Their own literature details functions as shell only, IE only, and shared. So they are not all shared. Again, since this is apparently too difficult for you, if the function can be used by the system or another app it can stay in. But it may be moved to either a shared dll or a shell only dll. If the function is only used by IE, it is removable. All usable functions would be included in the system so no apps would be broken but they may require some redirection. A small issue to contend with considering shifts in software like Windows, Windows NT, and now XP. This can even be timed to coincide with the nxt major shift if it makes you happy. |
| #16 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/5/2002 4:20:05 PM |
|
Sodajerk, as has been said before, the application known as IE is simply a small exe. Its functionality comes from dlls that also provide that functionality plus other functionality to the OS. The most visible evidence of this is the GUI, especially in Windows ME and up. Open Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs, Help, Search, the MMC, explorer, the welcome screen, and even the desktop, and you are using the same functionality IE uses to render web pages. Use any Microsoft Office application, Windows Media Player, AOL, Quicken, even some other web browsers, and you are using the same functionality the Iexplore.exe uses. It can't be separated from the OS because it is the OS. You can remove the exe, but the functionality must remain. Even if parts of the dll can't be used by other programs, they may be used by the OS. If the OS depends on both the functionality that can be used by other applications and functionality the only the OS and possibly some other components use, then that functionality can't simply be removed without breaking the OS, applications, and other components that depend upon its presence.
This OS is a developer and end-user services platform. If MS removes core, expected functionality, it would be like Apple having to sell a command-line only version of MacOS X in addition to full OS X, and expecting apps that run on full OS X to run on command-line OS X simply because both OSes have the same name. The OS, like many other things sold today, is a package that must have a guaranteed base level of functionality. As time progresses, the requirements for basic functionality go up. This is how things work in pretty much all industries. If you don't like this, you may as well go back to DOS where you basically had to write your own code for any functionality and device support for you application. |
| #17 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 3/5/2002 5:05:52 PM |
| SodaJerk, what you have to understand is that any change would require any software vendors to re-write there software. This costs money for them to do and in turn will be passed on to the consumer. So the consumer has to spend money top update there software just because the government wants MS to change. And as far as another OS is concerned, even if the proposed was to happen, it would not eliminate MS's market share and would not bring Linux to the consumer as an easy to use OS any sooner. Nothing would change and MS would still be a monopoly and still control the desktop market. And Apple and Linux controlling more market share would take a miracle and years to even notice. It would be at least 5 if not 10 years before we saw a change that was significant. So far your changes would cause the consumer to spend more money as well as the software developers to spend more money, as well as MS. This is unnaceptable to me as a consumer and as an IT person. Also, note that companies are supposed to go forward with there products, not backwards. Why should MS cripple there OS, because the competition can not keep up with them. They all started from the same point, an idea, just because MS has advanced on there idea should not mean they be punished. Yes they should be punished for pushing vendors to use there product and no one elses, and they have corrected that for the most part. But they should not be punished for acting like a company. All companies advance and try to out do there competition, if they did not it would be un-competitive. Phone companies better there service, car manufacturers better there product, computer manufacturers better there product, should I go on. Yes the diference is that they have real competition, but they do what they can to squash it out. Look at what Intel does, and there only competition is AMD. They are a monopoly and force board makers to use there chipsets or they up the price. How is that any diferent than MS, well because they have some competition. |
| #18 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 3/5/2002 5:06:26 PM |
|
Continuation of last post!!
MS's only downfall is that they lack the competition. At no other time in our countries history has the gevernment wasted our money and tried to knock a company down a notch just to please the companies that compete with them. Especially when it did not hurt the consumer at all. If you can name a consumer that was truly hurt by MS bundling or having a monopoly then I will shut up. And I mean a consumer, Joe Blow user, and how did it hurt them. How is any consumer hurt by MS making it so that that consumer that just bought a $1000+ computer, and did not have to go and spend more money on software to make it work. Do you think the Internet would be as big as it is today, if the consumer had to go out and buy a seperate browser to use it, instead of the one that came with his computer. Do you want MS to put Opera and Netscape on there installation CD's? MS sells a product and they do not need to or should not need to put someone elses software on their CD. We do not make Chrylser put Ford parts in there cars. That is a simple analogy I can go on more comparing other products. So they don't put a browser in and I buy there newest OS. I install it and have no browser, so now I need to go out and spend more money to get one, because without a browser I can't go out on the internet and download a free one, so now I need to spend more money. This leads me to not wanting another MS product because it is not whole and what I am used to as a consumer. Now I need to find a new OS, but I do not want Linux because I am used to simple GUI installs and configuration. So now as a consumer I am lost and still must use MS products. They maintain there market share and I as the consumer lose out, cause I need to spend more money. That sucks and now I just don't use my computer anymore since it has lost its functionality. Or I as an Admin at a company must now budget more money for upgrades cause now because of SodaJerk and the US Gov, I have to update all my mission critical apps because MS pulled out IE and all my apps depend on it. Thanks Soda and teh Gov, you have made companies that drive this country have to spend more money. And MS still wins, because it is the defacto standard that %90 of the people in the world are used to so they will go back and spend more money making them even bigger. |
| #19 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 3/5/2002 5:06:38 PM |
|
Continuation of last post!!
MS's only downfall is that they lack the competition. At no other time in our countries history has the gevernment wasted our money and tried to knock a company down a notch just to please the companies that compete with them. Especially when it did not hurt the consumer at all. If you can name a consumer that was truly hurt by MS bundling or having a monopoly then I will shut up. And I mean a consumer, Joe Blow user, and how did it hurt them. How is any consumer hurt by MS making it so that that consumer that just bought a $1000+ computer, and did not have to go and spend more money on software to make it work. Do you think the Internet would be as big as it is today, if the consumer had to go out and buy a seperate browser to use it, instead of the one that came with his computer. Do you want MS to put Opera and Netscape on there installation CD's? MS sells a product and they do not need to or should not need to put someone elses software on their CD. We do not make Chrylser put Ford parts in there cars. That is a simple analogy I can go on more comparing other products. So they don't put a browser in and I buy there newest OS. I install it and have no browser, so now I need to go out and spend more money to get one, because without a browser I can't go out on the internet and download a free one, so now I need to spend more money. This leads me to not wanting another MS product because it is not whole and what I am used to as a consumer. Now I need to find a new OS, but I do not want Linux because I am used to simple GUI installs and configuration. So now as a consumer I am lost and still must use MS products. They maintain there market share and I as the consumer lose out, cause I need to spend more money. That sucks and now I just don't use my computer anymore since it has lost its functionality. Or I as an Admin at a company must now budget more money for upgrades cause now because of SodaJerk and the US Gov, I have to update all my mission critical apps because MS pulled out IE and all my apps depend on it. Thanks Soda and teh Gov, you have made companies that drive this country have to spend more money. And MS still wins, because it is the defacto standard that %90 of the people in the world are used to so they will go back and spend more money making them even bigger. |
| #20 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 3/5/2002 5:06:43 PM |
|
Continuation of last post!!
MS's only downfall is that they lack the competition. At no other time in our countries history has the gevernment wasted our money and tried to knock a company down a notch just to please the companies that compete with them. Especially when it did not hurt the consumer at all. If you can name a consumer that was truly hurt by MS bundling or having a monopoly then I will shut up. And I mean a consumer, Joe Blow user, and how did it hurt them. How is any consumer hurt by MS making it so that that consumer that just bought a $1000+ computer, and did not have to go and spend more money on software to make it work. Do you think the Internet would be as big as it is today, if the consumer had to go out and buy a seperate browser to use it, instead of the one that came with his computer. Do you want MS to put Opera and Netscape on there installation CD's? MS sells a product and they do not need to or should not need to put someone elses software on their CD. We do not make Chrylser put Ford parts in there cars. That is a simple analogy I can go on more comparing other products. So they don't put a browser in and I buy there newest OS. I install it and have no browser, so now I need to go out and spend more money to get one, because without a browser I can't go out on the internet and download a free one, so now I need to spend more money. This leads me to not wanting another MS product because it is not whole and what I am used to as a consumer. Now I need to find a new OS, but I do not want Linux because I am used to simple GUI installs and configuration. So now as a consumer I am lost and still must use MS products. They maintain there market share and I as the consumer lose out, cause I need to spend more money. That sucks and now I just don't use my computer anymore since it has lost its functionality. Or I as an Admin at a company must now budget more money for upgrades cause now because of SodaJerk and the US Gov, I have to update all my mission critical apps because MS pulled out IE and all my apps depend on it. Thanks Soda and teh Gov, you have made companies that drive this country have to spend more money. And MS still wins, because it is the defacto standard that %90 of the people in the world are used to so they will go back and spend more money making them even bigger. |
| #21 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 3/5/2002 5:09:24 PM |
| 46 and 47 can be ignored I can not edit them to take the content out and for some reason this thing posted even though it said there was an error in my web browser, must be MS getting back at me......lol |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 5:20:17 PM |
|
Enforcer, I agree with you, but I am particularly taking exception to those functions which can't be used by other apps or the shell. In which case, they can and should be isolated.
The anon above you tries to make an analogy with a C library, but he knows that those unutilized functions can be utilized by other apps, but in this case, we know that there are iexplorer.exe specific functions which cannot be utilized by the core system or other apps. I just want those removed to remove the "it's impossible" argument. The argument is w/o ie the browser the system doesn't work. This isn't true if you define the system as including the functions that it or other apps use. If you define it that way there will still be some remaining fucntions only used by IE the app, the browser. Those should install and be removeable on the own. If you want another analogy, OS X has Quicktime built in; it's used by the system and other apps. Can I remvoe Quicktime the app without breaking my system? Yes. Can the systema nd other apps still use it? Yes. Microsoft should adjust its design to allow the same. They have purposefully included some functions specific to IE in one bundle and they insist on removing that whole bundle when asked to remove IE. As for the technological work required of MS and developers, I agree with how 42 describes it for the most part and that doesn't seem insanely unreasonable. It seems far less arduous then this Court case. And how is this any different from when Microsft changes any of their code?; developers have to go thru the same hoops. As for cost, pass it on to Microsoft--they can handle the bill. And admittedly my knowledge is insufficient: is there really no way to do it on the system end--contain the old dll and the new ones for an interim period, and use redirects if appropriate on the software side? Anyway, even if it is passed on to develoeprs, this isn't astronomy here people--you are talking maybe 5,000 apps tops (after all the dll that is the platform could remain as it is (so the number of functions moving would be small) and maybe not require change for the bulk of the apps), most of which developed by completely independent developers only addressing their own software. I don't see how this even gets close to the Euro rollout or Y2K. |
| #23 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 5:35:10 PM |
|
mctwin, I still don't get what you are saying; you say a competitor should beat MS on their own, but then say, "And MS still wins, because it is the defacto standard that %90 of the people in the world are used to so they will go back and spend more money making them even bigger." It almost sounds as if you occasionally do feel the pain of dependency on MS. As if you would like to see competition return, but not want it motivated by the government. When it appears from your own thoughts, that there isn't going to be anythign to do that. I've watched this fight happen over 10 YEARS, I've seen MS do many things designed just to hurt competitors or consumers with no justified benefit (the recent MSN lockout of Mozilla and Opera is one that I find particularly relevent because there's nothing to stop them from doing this whenever they want to and they continue to show they will do this). What I am proposing is that, they are going to continue to get suited AND they will have certain restrictions on them which will prevent SOME of these actions again, and also promote other technologies (Java, the states re-wrote it so Sun takes the cost--can you except this? I think that's a great idea, not because I think any company should ever have that imposed but because MS so successfully warped and confused a product that they were promoting themselves and were envious of... I don't see what's wrong if Sun takes the cost and both options are available--it's just an attempt to promote a technology that was beaten down by MS, after they loved it and copied it)... So they are still getting sued, have these retrictions and attempts to promote other technology, and most companies don't want to trust MS to do business... Will MS still have a monopoly? Yes, but it won't be easy to protect and extend it, and so what, some cost is generated, and 10 years go by before competition.
I'm ready for this, and that's exactly why I think this is a monumental and historical case. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 7:25:11 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.
How is including Java determining who wins or loses? All it does is grant access. Is access to Java so scary that you go up in arms about it, when Sun would pay, and it's a part of a criminal penalty. Please. As for you el, I only mentioned Java in passing to discuss the larger affects with mctwin--if you think it has utterly failed in the marketplace, that's bully for you. But I really don't have much interest in discussing this over with you because you think specifying some of their technology is too invasive, but then you want to completely open source them. I don't know why you bother to mention your other suggestions after that since the company would largely be over after step 1. As to this theory that using 3 dlls would amount to another y2k, euro, or complete rewriting of the windows operating system from top to bottom, I still assert that that is ridiculous. 25,000 apps, how many use the html render engine? Let's say 10,000. Ho many are Microsoft? To be nice, we'll just subtract 1,000 (after all they should be able to deal with their own mess), so we have 9,000. How many of these apps are developed by different companies? 5,000. So, say on average, maybe 5,000 companies will have to address some new issues relating to 9,000 applications. This doesn't sound at all like rewriting an OS, or rolling out the euro, or y2k. All issues that were dealt with fine, even helped the economy, AND we get to hold MS responsible for it, they get to pay. For all of you people, who keep saying I'm a programmer and that would be impossible, what do you do now when MS relaunches Windows (let's say 2000) that changes how your app's code would access system APIs? |
| #25 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 8:38:04 PM |
|
this is for soda straight from Jimmy Allchin:
Q. You are aware, are you not, that one of the 12 practices that the Court of Appeals found to be illegal was 13 commingling of code? 14 MR. HOLLEY: Object to the form of the question. 15 Asked and answered. Calls for a legal conclusion. 16 A. Well, again, it's a little unclear to me. I 17 thought they also said that integration was good if there 18 was benefits. The way I would interpret it as a layperson 19 is that obviously if you deliberately put code in a place 20 that didn't make any logical sense to do it from a 21 separation perspective, then that would be bad, but that's 22 just a layperson's. 23 Q. All right. As the group vice-president at 24 Microsoft responsible for the operating system products, did 25 you endeavor to come to some understanding about what it was 0041 1 that the Court of Appeals found to be anticompetitive about 2 commingling of code? 3 MR. HOLLEY: Object to the form of the question. 4 A. Yes. And I think what I just described is my 5 layperson's view of that. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 371 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:01:40 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
