| 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 |
 |
How modular is Windows? | |
|
||
| Time: 09:35 EST/14:35 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Is a stripped down version of Windows possible? In the Unsettling States' version of the antitrust trial (the full, unexpurgated version, as opposed to the DoJ's Antitrust Lite) Princeton University professor Andrew Appel argued this week that it is, basing his opinion on the existence of Windows XP Embedded. XP Embedded is designed for use in cash registers, slot machines, ticket machines and the like, does not include Internet Explorer, and is described by Microsoft as "modular." From this, Appel extrapolates that XP Embedded's ability to have components removed and Microsoft's description of it as modular means that Windows XP itself must be modular. "I am of the opinion that the code underlying Microsoft's software platform products is most likely written in modular fashion... the modules serving to support Microsoft's middleware should be removable without causing disruption to the functionality of the remaining operating system." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:38:04 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (168.254.225.254) at 4/11/2002 11:05:46 AM |
| Maybe so, but it WILL break the applications. |
| #2 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/11/2002 12:04:44 PM |
|
I don't think that anyone is arguing whether or not Windows is or isn't modular.
The argument is whether a stripped down Windows would be worth anything to a desktop user, and the answer is NO. Almost all the advanced features in Windows XP rely on IE in some fashion or another. Windows Media is built in to many places as well (video and sound are pervasive in Windows XP). |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 1:42:34 PM |
| Yes, thank you #9--why do all of you keep bitching that your Windows are going to be broken and your apps gutted--nobodies saying every version of windows will ship with nothing and you can't install the stuff. The fact remains that even under the proposed remedy just about everyone will have full access to and most likely a full installation of Windows as it is today. Stop crying. Offering a modular windows doesn't break your toy--so that's a pathetic argument to say--"well, I want all the crap; even though I tell people on a daily basis, don't use the app if you don't want to." Which is the other funny part, you all say, uninstall this or don't use that--same freaking thing applies if your box shows up with Real or WinAmp or Netscape, right? Just don't use it or uninstall it. It's that easy; you have choice; no one can force you to do anything... Right, guys? |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 2:08:19 PM |
| little, do you just like to ignore the obvious or don't know how to read--nothing is preventing you from re-initiating a full install of the windows product--so whatever deals an OEM makes with software providers, you will have the full offering of Win software and other 3rd party software. You would clearly have more choice (not chose), not less choice, certainly not no choice.... |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 2:26:26 PM |
|
#14, you did more to talk about Netscape then anybody else (market share numbers--others just listed it as a possible app amongst other apps). Maybe you should get off it. Why does that name concern you so much?
#13, what are you saying? Because one of Windows version (the least successful one) is modular, the most successful version doesn't have to be? Then you say, MS can make a modular windows but say you will listen to and agree with Allchin who says it is impossible. (By the way, Allchin is one of the biggest double talkers in the world, check out his deposition at MS's legal site). |
| #6 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/11/2002 2:48:19 PM |
|
hmm,
but embedded does include Explorer, which uses the same DLL's as internet explorer. so isn't that the whole issue with IE in the first place, you completely(and the key word completely) remove explorer you break even embedded. El. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 2:51:45 PM |
| That's exactly the point, el, and I don't think removing IE in embedded kills the system--my logic: there are tons of embedded implementations that are built specifically to NOT be connected to the net or the web. So, yes, I think that proves the point that MS is full of sh1t, and up to their usual tactics. Anyone else know specifically? |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 3:35:35 PM |
|
That sounds about what I expected... It would seem that if the shell runs, its using the html render engine... And IE is (un)installable.
As for Allchin, did you read the part where he claims to not understand what the attorney means by modular? And then when the attorney starts using both component and modular, he stops him and says there is a differenece between a component and a module. How 'bout the part where he basically refuses to accept ALL the definitions of middleware because he holds to the truer definition of a bridge between sustems that can recrete the API set of the underlying system without the underlying system? How bout when he concedes that he basically has no idea what half the provisions mean, that he just listens to the lawyers, and that he doesn't concern himself with understanding the constrains on code design--even though he is the guy responsible for building windows. Please. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 3:52:25 PM |
|
Yes, it is the reality of the situation, little; this has been stated over and over and over again... They modified the provision from being stripped down alternative to one fully modular installation... and that's why it's worthy of insult--because softies like to ignore the obvious, the plain and clear, the facts. The states have in no way said that MS would be prevented from including their software, simply that it should be allowed to be removed and installed separately.
As for your argument that users will use what ever they have on the computer--I agree, but a softie can't argue it both ways. (So do you agree that MS can control what software users can use?) My view is that if OEMs had different configs of software and you are the type to only use what's on the machine, then you want to find the OEM with the install you want. The only thing standing in the way of that is MS. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 16:04. |
| #10 By 4209 (163.192.21.14) at 4/11/2002 5:00:04 PM |
| SodaJerk, but what about the consumer. The average consumer does not know what to choose, which will work better or will not. They haven't a clue as to wheather Media Player or Real Audio is better. All the manufacturers need to really do is be able to install whatever they want on the PC's they sell. Put IE and Netscape on, put WMP and Real on. Let the consumer decide what they want to use. Oh look, that is what the Manufacturers are doing now isn't it. So I don't see what the big deal is, why do they need to remove IE, it is not needed for Netscape to work. MS created and sells the OS that gives them the right to include whatever they legally can. They created IE so why force the consumer to install it, it should be there already as it is part of MS Win whatever. There is nothing stopping OEM's from installing whatever they want except fear of MS and what will happen. I am all for a Gov whatchdog to stop that from happening, but for god sakes you do not need to force a company to remove something they created from something they sell. Everything can coexist together, then let the consumer decide which to use. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 5:34:49 PM |
|
But they can't uninstall some of this stuff at the app level--they need to allow that while still allowing for the APIs to be in the system. Yes, complete removal--none of this bullshit about hiding. You need to be able to remove IE to promote other browsers. As other browser use increase, people begin writing code for those other browsers. Netscape never had the opportunity to build a render engine for other apps to access on the Win platform, but gecko is exactly that--in time, if the browser usage numbers change, maybe things open up so that other apps decide to use the Gecko render engine instead of the Win OS html render engine. Why not? It's faster, more compliant and is a smaller download so it could actually load as part of the app when you install it--now apps aren't dependent on the Win OS API so developers are using competitors technology and not working around a core of MS technology, etc...
When you start your question, "why do they need to remove...." don't you see it's just as easy to ask "why not remove..." It only produces the same "inconveniences that other developers face--it only menas your designs must be more efficient and modular... Everyone benefits. Just because MS develops OSes and apps doesn't mean they get to control the whole package. We all understand that the OS is a platform for many types of software--just because MS makes that platform does mean they have the right to pick and choose the apps that live on that platform. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 5:58:09 PM |
|
Anon, I don't think he codes everything; I don't think he codes ANYthing--but to have these jackasses heading up this company that is feverishly coding 24/7/365, and for their upper management not to have a very clear sense of what is and is not allowed and to be making sure that not only is an email sent out, but the actual development is reflecting this is ridiculous. And to be willing to honestly and openly say that without thinking that makes you look like a complete jackass who is trying to undermine the settlement proposal and throw it out the window is just beyond me. But I guess I'm a much more ethically responsible person.
I know he's talking to a lawyer--I also know he's where he's at for being the primary architect of some of the most pernicious things MS has done from 1996 to 2001. I don't care if he's less an asshole then Gates and Ballmer, I can't imagine that not being the case for any man. But he is nearly directly responsible for the whole Netscape issue in the first place at Gates's instigation. Just because you can sound relatively rational amongst a crowd of nutjobs doesn't negate the fact that you are in a group of nutjobs and are their "lead man" in many ways because you understand them andwork and think that way too. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 6:35:15 PM |
|
Allchin can't do his job without knowing what's going on... If he doesn't know, Brian doesn't know... If Brian doesn't know, his team doesn't know--This crap isn't so arcane that lawyers are the only one's that can understand it, jesus, do you take me and Allchin and everyone else to be idiots? Just think about it: if you were Allchin, and you sat down with a lawyer and you had a few hours to ask (how many do you want? 50? let's say 50) 50 questions..."Can I do this? How bout this? Well we planned to do this? How bout if we did this?" Do you think you'd know at the end what you could and could not do? Or at least have a very good idea so that only when something very miniscule came up would you have to go to the lawyers and say, "I'm not sure about this one... It's kind of like this? But it's kind of like that?"
Leave it up to the lawyers? What the hell do the lawyers know about the code? Far, far less than what you could teach the programmers about the legal requirements. And who is ultimately going to be responsible for this? It's exactly the guys like Jim and Brian. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 7:21:04 PM |
| No, I'm not saying that. You are saying that the lawyers will tell the developers what to code... I think that's ridiculous. I think Allchin decides what the developers will code or the developers code stuff and run it up to Brian or Jim. So Jim and Brian need to know if what they want their employees to build is legal. They all (lawyers/coders) can communicate and dialogue, but I am saying there's a necessity for these people to understand what they can and cannot do--they can't wait for the lawyers to tell them after the fact and the lawyers can't be running product development. That's obvious to me--if it's not to you, oh well, I don't need to argue this silly side note when I was just trying to say that Allchin is a microsoft weasel as much as anyone else is. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 8:05:06 PM |
| #30, but it's Microsoft's claim that they are 100% in compliance with the RPFJ in regards to contracts and relationships and supposedly, there will be a new service pack that accounts for the changes in the RPFJ. (Yes, I think it's pathetic and supid that MS is acting like it's a done deal, but that they are...) So Allchin is claiming that they are implementing the code changes made necessary by the RPFJ at this moment--it's not that he's waiting for it to happen before he gets briefed by the lawyers. And I am not talking about him running thru the legalese--I'm saying that when the lawyer ask him--Do you know if you will have to disclose this or that to third parties--he should know by now. Not because he should be up on the law, but because MS claims to be going forward... |
| #16 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 4/12/2002 11:18:34 AM |
|
SodaJerk, so what you want is more of a basic Windows, one that by default does not install all the Apps. One that installs the OS and lets the installer say, well I want IE as well. That I would go for. But in that sense I want the same from OEM's. I hate all the crap that installs with the OS, and wish MS would let the installer chose what to install by default. But the OEM's are just as bad, they install all this crap say when you buy a Dell laptop, that I as the IT person needs to remove when I put it in service or buy one for home. But I do agree there that if MS could keep Win whatever still functional without all the candy, then so be it. But then they get into that stupid area of stepping back in there next OS instead of forward. Maybe the average home user does not know how to add MS apps to there OS? Then the consumer blames MS that they spent all that money and got less of an App or OS. Then the DOJ sues them for some other stupid thing because there new Apps and OS are less than the old but still cost the same. Consumer leave and so on and so forth, causing one of the biggest companies in the world to tank. Killing our Economy and then bringing innovation in the PC to a screeching halt. I know it would not happen most likely but it could. I guess it all depends on how it is marketed and sold. This post was edited by mctwin2kman on Friday, April 12, 2002 at 11:19. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 2:02:24 PM |
| mctwin, I'm not sure where to go with your doomsday scenario. It's tough enough having to argue in both directions (some softies say it's easy enough for any consumer to install their own apps and delete what they don't use; the others argue they are complete idiots and can't do anything without MS holding their dick... I'm not suggesting you or any one person are arguing both ways--I'm saying it's a convenient smokescreen for the MS community.) But this doomsday scenario... what basis would the DOJ have for suing them AGAIN? This is just FUD. And you do know who is in office now, right? But anyway, if allowing the uninstallation of MS software and installation of other software causes "the biggest companies in the world to tank", isn't that a strong indication that they are a monopoly? That they are a house of cards built on controlling the tech industry? Even your bizarro FUD theory sounds like an argument to suggest that something needs to be done. But it's funny--sounds worse then doomsday Y2K scenarios... worse even than the Simpsons Y2K episode. If you uninstall IE, MS will evaporate, the US economy will melt down, the world economy will screatch to a halt, PCs will cease functioning, traffic signals will shoot red and green laser beams, airplanes will fall from the sky, my coffeemachine will attack me in my sleep, aHHHHHH! |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 2:33:31 PM |
| By the way, your Dell argument: you can uninstall the Dell bundled apps, right? If uninstalling these apps is so uncompelling to you, you can purchase your boxes from someone besides Dell, can't you? If you say that because of the quality of the boxes, service and cost you would still select Dell despite the bundleed apps, then you are waying the pros and cons of that product, determining that it's not that significant a problem, and still making the choice to select that vendor for your PCs. |
| #19 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/13/2002 5:47:29 AM |
|
37, depends on the OEM.
el |
| #20 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/13/2002 6:07:45 AM |
|
#38,
That would be a sad day. that will lead to the days of the *nixes that were not compatable with each other. You have that now in Linux. some programs run in Redhat that don't run on debian for example. Mono btw will help alot with this. (and why Sun is afraid of the .net movement) One the system.windows.winforms will have stubs to use for the class libraries. that using a switch in the configureation of mono (depending if you are running KDE or gnome) will allow a program to be written once and the proper libraries called at compile time. Or if you like the look and feel of GTK, you can get the libraries for gtk# and use them directly:) But the issue becomes what is available. Will I as a developer be forced to load aspects of the Windows SDK API to ensure that I have features that I need to make my program run. Are you willing to let app vendors be the deciding factor of the look and feel?? (not that the MS office crew don't go on a look and feel change every version of Office they put out) I am waiting to see what the new ms scripting engine looks like. the one based on .net It will be a very powerful scripting engine if it has full access to the .net framework. it would also be safer than the current version as the framework will enforce some security features. IOW if IE and OE are both framework based apps next release (which btw would complete solve the other issues as that would mean that both are not useing the embedded com componet and seperate it from the OS. :) Any script that is made for OE.net would be tied to the framework. and would only execute from in a closed box. or not execute at all. So trustred scripts that do nice things like fixing the address book and the like would still work at the trusted level. but a Internet based script wouldn't have access to it. Time will tell be if all the base langauges become scripting langauges. you could basically script windows to your liking. It would be as powerful as the Arexx scripts in amiga days. but will have to see how far they take it. And with that, and the .net framework embedded in Windows. ANY devleoper can make a UI or other choice for themselves. if they are good enough programmers;) El BTW, So far AOL, SUN, and about 4 other developers all sueing MS now have historically shown that they are not good enough programmers, or are not willing to pay the resources to attract them. As I have said, when I find out that AOL software is loaded on a system I instantaneous charge a higher service fee. to fix the System over steps that they continueally want to do. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:38:04 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
