| 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 could design stripped-down Windows, expert testifies | |
|
||
| Time: 07:51 EST/12:51 GMT | News Source: USA Today | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The government's technical expert testified Tuesday that Microsoft could create a Windows version stripped of add-on products without breaking the dominant PC operating system. ''Microsoft has already done much of the engineering work necessary,'' said Andrew Appel, a computer science professor at Princeton University. Nine states want a federal judge to make Microsoft produce a stripped-down Windows after an appeals court ruled that the giant illegally protected the near-monopoly software from competition. The company would also have to disclose Windows' code, so rival products work well with the system, among other sanctions. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 343 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:26:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 4/10/2002 8:49:50 AM |
| NO the ingredients are the can. I can tell you the ingredients for Windows if you are interested. Int's, doubles, booleans, control statements etc . . . |
| #2 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/10/2002 9:33:31 AM |
|
"Appel also blasted the settlement because it lets Microsoft refuse to disclose Windows' code that compromises a litany of security features. "
------------------ Sure, give the kiddies more ammo than they already have (and pointers on writing code). ------------------- "Like the 12 previous witnesses, Appel said that deal would be ineffective. It would let PC makers remove access to Microsoft's browser, media player and other features. But since the underlying code would remain, software developers would continue to customize their applications to the Microsoft features, the states say." "Sun Microsystems executive Jonathan Schwartz said the settlement would not stop Microsoft from using Windows to favor its suite of Web services over that of rivals." --------------------------------- Basically the competitors want to remove everything that makes Windows a MICROSOFT PRODUCT, and turn it into the biggest piece of adware ever conceived. Why can't these companies get together and just build a better Linux? |
| #3 By 1989 (32.102.75.112) at 4/10/2002 9:46:30 AM |
| Exactly what do you include in a "stripped down" version of Windows??? Is including notepad a monopoly on text editors??? Just my two cents! |
| #4 By 2201 (194.205.219.2) at 4/10/2002 10:16:10 AM |
| #9 Anonymous: what are you on about? The retail versions are the same as OEM, with maybe very small differences (like OEM can't be used to upgrade, etc.). In past Windows, the retail versions have never been stripped down. |
| #5 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 4/10/2002 10:25:27 AM |
| I think they were joking about how most OEM's litter the hard drive with cruft whenever you buy a new computer... |
| #6 By 6253 (12.237.192.187) at 4/10/2002 10:34:33 AM |
| At one point, Microsoft argued that they could include a ham sandwich in Windows if that's what customers wanted. OF COURSE they "could" design an OS however they want. The key is whether CUSTOMERS (not competitors) want the design. Nobody is ever going to walk into a Jaguar dealership and say, "Give me your wheels and chassis. I'd like to get the rest from Hyundai." |
| #7 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/10/2002 1:14:51 PM |
|
As for notepad - I use ultraedit, it's a shareware program that costs like $30 and is just incredible.
#33 - Yep, that's proof that the consumers are still in control. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.230.230) at 4/10/2002 5:26:56 PM |
|
One of my very best friends just wrote a paper using WordPerfect #47. That makes me think that there are alternatives to Microsoft Word. If indeed that is the case, then those lawyers could, in fact, use an alternative to Microsoft Word.
I happen to know a good deal about the industry and would say that Microsoft has done quite a bit for it. Think on this for a second - which software company has given the consumer more in the last twenty years? On second thought, it's not worth my time arguing with you. Don't bother with a response. |
| #9 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/10/2002 6:49:47 PM |
|
#48 - Do you remember back in the 80's before Microsoft had a monopoly? Before everyone was just using Windows?
Weird, I remember it... It wasn't better, and it won't be better. |
| #10 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 4/10/2002 6:55:04 PM |
|
#29, well that's simply not fair.
In the computing realm, that would damage Microsoft's ability to comepete at all. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/10/2002 7:27:16 PM |
|
CPU, are you still harping on the idea that is unfair to treat a monopolist differently from other companies? Get over it, or write to your Congressional reps to tell them that the punishments for monopolists should be meted out to all competitors as well. Do it, please, I'm sure they appreciate it and write up the new bill right away. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 20:35. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.230.230) at 4/10/2002 9:05:40 PM |
|
#53 My point is that Microsoft wasn't always a monopoly. The subtlety here is that they became a monopoly because consumers bought their products. Competing products have existed and continue to exist, but more often than not, consumers still choose to use Microsoft products.
#55 XP takes 1.7 Gigs? Since when? Microsoft must have some great compression software to fit 1.7 Gb onto a 650 Mb CD. |
| #13 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/10/2002 10:17:02 PM |
|
Like TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP, XML, SOAP, WSDL, C#, C++, etc. Currently Sun is one of the few companies trying to maintain proprietary standards (Java). If they were in the top spot, I believe we would be much worse off than we are now.
There is nothing wrong with keeping some things proprietary. There are benefits in some cases. But, currently, MS' main focus has been on using open, standard technology. About the only thing proprietary (other than the codebase to their products) is their file formats. However, many other companies have proprietary products/formats. It's one of the things that allows them to make money from their investments. Opening or licensing their file formats may be good for interop, but it should be at their descretion. Developers (from beginning to advanced) still have easy access to the platform to create whatever software they want as long as they can code it. But they shouldn't be able to piggyback off of someone elses work. In most if not all of the markets MS has entered, they were the underdog, but persisted while the current monopoly holder didn't take them seriously and improve their product. While they stagnated, MS took the lead because people liked the added features or increased usability. This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 22:28. |
| #14 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/10/2002 11:37:36 PM |
|
When MS entered the OS business, they had no monopoly. When entering the Office application business, they had no monopoly on either the OS or productivity software. When they made IE, they had no monopoly. IE took over Netscape before its integration with the OS. When the H/PC and PocketPCs were released, Palm had (and continues to have) a majority share in PDAs and PDA OSes. The XBOX is a competitive product, but it has not taken over the gaming market. If Sony/Nintendo improve their consoles, it (and its successors) will probably never take over. But Sony/Nintendo didn't even start to take XBOX seriously until it was near launch and looked to be a goo seller (A further example of competitor underestimation/cockiness). Microsoft's Smartphone 2002 initiative allows manufactures to produce phones to MS specs, but that doesn't mean MS automatically takes over the cell phone market. They have MSN, but they don't have a majority of internet subscribers. More people prefer Quicken to Money. MS has messenger, but it hasn't taken over the IM market. MS has WMP, yet people still use MusicMatch, Quicktime, Real, WinAMP, etc.
Microsoft's "monopoly" has little to do with their successes/failures in other markets. People continue to buy what they consider to be the better product. In a lot of cases, that turns out to be MS products, because they work to give the customer new features and innovations, and don't just sit stagnant thinking they are untouchable once they have a certain marketshare. This was Netscape's, Sun's, Palm's, and other "competitors" failings. They had majority marketshare, but they didn't offer the consumer any incentive to help them keep it, and they underestimated, and in a lot of cases, laughed at their competition (MS). This was and will continue to be their undoing. The other reason for failure is "competitors" that just follow MS' every move, and try to copy what they are doing, but end up with an inferior product because they lacked and did not understand MS' entire purpose, scope, and vision for the product or technology. This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 23:43. |
| #15 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 4/10/2002 11:38:59 PM |
|
jerk: It may work for other industries, but the software industry is different.
Why should Apple be aloud to ship a TOP OF THE LINE product with their OS, but MS gets in trouble for having something that's pretty much just a starter application? Why should MS not be aloud to add products/features to their OS? If these features were not developed separately in the first place, would their be such an uproar? And what does it matter if Microsoft gains market in an arena that has absolutley NO revenue? |
| #16 By 1989 (32.102.75.178) at 4/11/2002 12:21:44 AM |
|
I use Linux about the same amount that I use Windows 2000.
BUT, the thought keeps coming up about Microsoft. Would any of their products ever been produced if they did not have a monopoly? I mean would any company have the resources or money to dedicate to their product if they didn't dominate their corner of the market? I don't think so. Open source would probably come up with something similar sooner or later but from what I have seen, most open source ("that I have seen") tried to copy or at least build on things Microsoft has done. I know most of beginnings of Microsoft were stolen ideas but who would have thought that Xerox would have turned their "windowed" desktop into what Windows is today. I am just impressed that Microsoft released the source to Windows CE and Wordpad!!! |
| #17 By 1845 (12.254.230.230) at 4/11/2002 12:32:10 AM |
| Amen n4cer! |
| #18 By 1989 (32.102.75.178) at 4/11/2002 12:41:40 AM |
|
too bad the govt doesn't listen to n4cer!!
I couldn't agree more! |
| #19 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/11/2002 1:07:21 AM |
|
#70 - But that's because there really is no "market" for either product. All messaging applications and all music players are already given away for free. So the person who gives you something for free that offers the mostest of the most will win the supposed "market."
The same thing happened with web browsers and so on. |
| #20 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/11/2002 1:27:16 AM |
|
hey a quick question for the Apple folks.
Is Itunes, Iphoto, iwhatever else an Option in the install of osx. or is it just installed?? How about quicktime, is it an option or is it Just installed. Do they give you the option to remove it?? Or as a modern day Multimedia OS. is it expected to be there?? When other companies offer options to replace that technology do they allow you to remove it?? Now on to other thoughts. I actually fault MS on the OS. Especailly in the world of a Multi Media OS. It fails to deliver fully funtioning multimedia extentions to the OS. Further, the competitors want to hamstring the OS to 1990's technology. I am sorry in the 1980's we had bad hardware and we didn't have a multimedia OS. Hell we didn't even really have an OS if call dos that. Hell one of the best OS's at the time was the Amiga OS. Macs just now get a multitasking OS. amiga had it in 1986. People who say a modular OS is going to be cheaper are kidding themselves. It is more expensive to engineer the modules. It is more expensive to develop for. Lets look at it this way. I as a developer have choices in development tools. (and tools are what really drive the industry not the OS) Now I develop a program, that you like, but unfortantly you have a modular setup of the OS. So it is missing features that I find that I need and want to use in my enviroment. Not to mention that I am cash strapped so I petition the tool makers to aid. Ok I will use this tool but what do I get in return type of deal. Now badda bing badda boom. the best browser currently on the market that offers development tools is IE. so you install my software you have to install IE. you uninstall IE the software doesn't run. ok, so now you may be able to remove ie.exe. but I like the rendering engine. Now with side by side. every developer may have different versions of a DLL. So now you have 15, 20 different versions of the explorer renderor running. (maybe some don't update to a later version, perhaps, under the rules that Sun is proposeing the code for IE become readily available so different dlls are made) The same goes for other programs. WMV, RM(at least WMV specs re available on the MSDN web site, try to find RM's) Within a month of releaseing a modular OS you have what was the OS before. EXCEPT ALOT larger, alot more fragile. and alot less functional. It will also be alot more expensive. RM is already going to a subscription based program. Winamp is thinking about it. Hell if this happens to MS and windows. I may even move over to apple to get some functionality back. But isn't that what the competitors want. for you to have to spend money on thier products and not allow MS the option to provide it. How long will it take for MS to release such a beast. Will it have to reprogram, the win 9x branch. (or should they just let it die and concentrate on one code tree, personally from a business stand point MS would drop the wn 9x code tree, and work only on one code tree) In all of this I do agree that you should have the option of uninstalling the software you don't find useful. But you do not want a modular OS. el |
| #21 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/11/2002 3:08:55 AM |
|
#67 "No company can create a browser that is going to be more popular than the browser created by the creator of the OS, and used by the operating system"
IE was not an integral part of the OS when it overtook Netscape, and a majority of people used Netscape for years before switching to IE. They switched because IE became the better browser and Netscape neglected their product. Some people still use Netscape and others use Mozilla, Opera and others. Netscape is also still installable on the OS with no problems caused by MS as it always has been. More people don't use it over IE because IE has consistantly better quality, timely releases, is faster, and offers better support. "I guarantee Messager and WMP will take over the market (just like IE). It is inevitable" I personally wouldn't mind if they did because I often use them, however, I believe you are also wrong on this point. While Windows Media could eventually take over as a format because of its obvious advantages, people will always prefer different players, and many other players support Windows Media format. Messenger will not take over the market because of the mass of people on AOL, people using *nix, and those that prefer other IM clients. An IM communication standard is almost ready, and you will soon be able to use whatever messenger you desire to communicate with others as long as it adheres to the standard. Currently, most major vendors except AOL are working on the standard. |
| #22 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/11/2002 3:09:26 AM |
|
"The gaming platforms have an equal playing field. People don't have to choose the XBOX to be competitive. There is no need for people to standardize on one system. They do not exchange data back and forth. Office software (which people have to standardize on) runs on Windows. That is how/why Microsoft have a monopoly. " The gaming platforms are not on equal playing fields. Sony/Nintendo currently have the lead (though I'm not totally sure about Nintendo). Sony came in and killed off Sega as a competitor, and probably would've killed Nintendo if not for the support from the Gameboy and Pokemon franchises. The platforms' hardware is not equal. If gamers desired the best overall value (in terms of featureset), the XBOX would win every time. But gamers, especially young ones, develop brand loyalties, and often stay with one product no matter what comes later. But, if one company doesn't diliver what is expected enough times (could be even one time), they could lose their customer base. This is another place where exclusive contracts are the norm. One company can lock the others out of a particular segment, or make them produce their own content for that segment. Also, as I have mentioned before, Nintendo has been known in the past to bully retailers and lock the competition out of certain retailers. They were also guilty of price fixing. They are also known to treat developers badly. "I agree with this. But the whole issue people are concerned about is the software industry." I said, "Microsoft's "monopoly" has little to do with their successes/failures in other markets." But before that I also noted that MS did not also have a monopoly in the software market (I contend that they still don't, but whatever). Microsoft did not start their business with a monopoly. And they did not gain their customerbase as a result of that monopoly. Their was massive competition in all markets they entered, but they won because people liked their products. I mention many examples in my previous pertaining to their popularity or lack thereof in certain software markets. One example given was that greater numbers of consumers preferred Quicken to MS Money. Money continues to gain features Quicken lacks however, so this could change. But this is a natural phenomenon resulting from a thing called competition. It has nothing to do with monopoly power. |
| #23 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/11/2002 3:09:47 AM |
|
As you (or, at least others) can see from these posts, Microsoft is a highly sucessful software company, however, that success was earned through competition, drive, and vision. Something this industry needs more of. Some good examples of how Microsoft dosen't stifle innovation, and, in fact, drives it, are Windows Media, Mira, Freestyle, TabletPC, and PocketPC. Not to mention the many projects at MS Research.
Take PocketPC for example. In the beginning there was Apple. Apple produced the Newton, which was a pretty cool PDA for its time, and is still in use by some today. Steve Jobs killed it. Palm took the market with their PDAs, and third-party PDAs (most better than Palm's) that used Palm's OS. Palm had the market majority, yet they got complacent. Instead of offering real innovations, they produced celebrety-branded Palms (I think one was the Claudia Schiffer Palm). So Microsoft comes in and says they think people want to actually get some work/play done with their PDAs, and they need handwriting/speech recognition, color screens, a fairly fast processor and a useable amount of memory to do it. Palm laughed and said Microsoft was crazy, and that they knew their customers/potential customers better than MS. MS came into the market with a line of Windows CE devices. At first, they didn't do that well. Palm continued to do little/nothing to improve their product (much like Netscape). Microsoft finally got it right with the PocketPC and scared Palm to death. They now had to actually work or die. MS revived a still market, and they continue to drive themselves, Palm, and others by releasing new, improved products with features important to their customers/potential customers. MS also innovated with .NET, but "competitors" don't want to use it simply because it originated from MS. Forget that it's as much a standard as C++, and leagues ahead of Java, which many use, but don't want to admit to it's shortcommings -- one being that it is a proprietary Sun-controlled technology. As long as the "competitors" ignore things that can be of direct benefit to them, they will continue to fail. |
| #24 By 3339 (64.175.40.89) at 4/11/2002 3:27:15 AM |
| way too much to respond to, but I will say your only using what is convenient for your argument, enforcer... I know it's not fair to leave it at that, but with 2 pages of long posts it's too difficult to begin... and I'll answer el's questions: when you install OS X you can do full, standard, or custom installation. You can can easily add and remove all the apps post installation: simply drag them to the trash--now, with OS X, applications are packages that contain their associated files (preferences, etc); some apps will have libraries, etc... stored elsewhere, but there is also an install/uninstall app to handle this. Quicktime is now at the core of the OS--the technology and API although in OS 9, yes, you are asked if you want to install it. You can still remove the player app just as simply. Even though QT is a core component of the OS, it would still be very easy to remove it by removing the appropriate libraries and associated files. Shocking isn't it? Simply amazing how can build something the way you would logically expect it be--even if you are an EVIL 17 Billion dollar MONOPOLY with 3% of the PC marketshare as some of you think. |
| #25 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/11/2002 3:37:42 AM |
| 3% of the PC market, but 100% of the Mac/MacOS market that was taken from OEMs. :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 343 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:26:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
