| 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 |
 |
Gates Concedes Customized Windows Already Offered | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates admitted in court on Wednesday that his company already offers a customizable version of Windows, despite his insistence it cannot comply with a similar demand by nine states still suing the software giant. In his third and final day of testimony, the Microsoft co-founder conceded that a commercial version of the operating system, called Windows XP Embedded, lets customers choose different software features, including different versions of its Internet Explorer browser and Windows Media Player. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:49:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/25/2002 3:59:49 AM |
|
What the blurb doesn't say is that WinXP Embedded is a one time deal. It mentions it in the article, however... :
"...did not let a customer load additional software programs" WinXP Embedded is very different from its big brother for many reasons, and using it to try and prove that Windows XP can be diced and sliced is a stupid argument. BUT, I think WinXP *can* be diced and sliced... even though that would pretty much creat carnage and actually do most of the things Gates said it would do. Again: Impossible? Nope. Insane? Yes. |
| #2 By 3339 (64.175.40.99) at 4/25/2002 4:54:57 AM |
|
It is an effective argument actually, but not for the goals that it's being spun as accomplishing... or not. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft still refuses to concede the basic premise that functions can be understood as discrete modules... Microsoft still maintains that it can't fathom a design where functions which are platform APIs wouldn't be bound to a discrete and basic app (the browser), that functions shouldn't be spread throughout the system or buried deep... Or at least I have to assume this is their position because they claim this provides a benefit while claiming they would never be able to discern which functions relate to specific modules or if they are shared, what they are shared by... I am basically certain this is Gates' assertion--he'll elude the production feasibility or exaggerate it out his @ss because it's very much an accomplishable task, but he really is sticking to his guns about having no idea what any sort of distinction is.
Whether or not Embedded can be re-configured is insubstantial when you are faced with the assertion that a platform provider is unaware of which functions relate to discrete modules and what internal and external software they interact with. The demonstration effectively shows that Microsoft can understand these principles and has even applied them when the market forces actually dictate their behavior rather than themselves. |
| #3 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 4/25/2002 8:45:03 AM |
|
#4,
Speaking for MYSELF, I want a modular Windows. I want a small, efficient clean operating system that I can install, and then install whatever software _I_ see fit from whatever developer _I_ see fit. I have exactly one gripe about Windows XP (well, 2 if you include the stupid activation nonsense). It is bloated out with half-ass Microsoft provided applications that I can't get rid of in many cases. Not all of them are useless. WMP is actually pretty good (it's SRS effects are the best I've seen). But some of the other stuff is truly pathetic. TL |
| #4 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/25/2002 8:57:03 AM |
| #5 I as a consumer can install a new browser if someone creates one. MS is not stopping me from doing so. I have Opera on my system and it works fine. I still use IE because I like it as well, but I have Opera for playing with and using if I want. I as a consumer now have a choice and have had one for many years. Now the reason I do not use Opera is because the free version has them damn adds in it. IE and Netscape are free with no adds why do I have to pay for addless Opera. Anyway, my point is I as a consumer can go out and buy, download, install whatever I want, I have been able to for a good number of years. So what is the damn point. |
| #5 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 4/25/2002 10:19:50 AM |
|
#7 (TechLarry)
I too would like to have a modular version of windows. However, the way the states want MS to provide it is simply not doable from a business standpoint. For example, if they (OEM's) removed Internet Explorer HTML rendering must still work correctly. The way the states want them to make it modular would mean millions of hours of coding just to get the current version to comply, not to mention the proposed OEM discounting would make it so OEM's could pay nothing for the OS. This is not a feasible solution to the "problem" (as if there is one). MS would have to invest more time to build and TEST windows then ever before but be forced to sell it at a low or no cost basis. This is not the way any software company or any other company for that matter would do business. They offer Home and Professional, this would make it into something like Linux users must deal with. Which flavor of Windows do you need to download Winzip for. I see the "advantages" to having a modular windows but forcing MS to a) offer it at a insane discount and b) making sure that even after removing the "middleware" the OS still works the same without degradation is simply ludicrous. What they are asking MS to do will raise the prices of Windows and other MS products to compensate for the extra work in providing a compliant product and testing the thousands of variations of those products, cost developers more in redeveloping old products and developing new products which are aware of the modules missing and providing their own code to compensate, and would make consumers (not the likes of us but think of your grandpa or computer illiterate sibling) confused beyond belief when they go to find a new peice of software for their system. I've read the Nine States remedies and Bill's testimony and from a developer's standpoint it is insane what they are asking and as Bill allude's to, MS will probably just remove windows from the shelves. This is not good for consumers. Not even close. This only help's MS's competitors which (and I don't care what kind of argument others give) does not help consumers one bit. Basically, we and MS are screwed so Sun, AOL, Palm, Oracle can continue to provide over priced under productive software without having to compete against one of the most successful software companies in the world. This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 10:21. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/25/2002 11:31:57 AM |
|
I want to go back to the days when we paid an extra $50 for a memory manager, another $100 for a TCP/IP networking stack. Yeah, that's the ticket. Oh, and I want each one of those TCP/IP networking stacks to be incompatible with one another so that I, as a software developer, have to build 4 different versions of my app so that it at least stands a 1 in 10 chance of running on a customers machine.
Yep, life was sure better back before Windows 95. |
| #7 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/25/2002 12:39:10 PM |
|
Just like they used WordPerfect before that to be compatible. WordPerfect failed to move up to Windows with everyone else, so Microsoft created Word for Windows so that users had a word processing equivalent for Windows. Though WordPerfect was used by most people at that time, it did not stop people from switching to Word. Though there were no standards, there was competition. This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 12:41. |
| #8 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/25/2002 1:21:38 PM |
|
#5 - "If I want to replace the brakes in my car with another brand. They still work. And the mechanics have no problem "supporting" them."
Yup. But your car came with the original breaks, did it not? Would you like the government to force your car manufacturer to produce cars that have no breaks when the come off the assembly line? That would be a better analogy. There is nothing preventing you from replacing the breaks in Windows. What the nine states want to to force Microsoft to make versions of Windows that have none at all. |
| #9 By 116 (66.68.173.16) at 4/25/2002 2:04:51 PM |
| Excellent point RMD... |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/25/2002 2:18:37 PM |
|
#20 - Sigh. God I am so sick of the computer elitists calling normal users stupid.
Users do not use only what comes loaded on their machines. I can assure you of this from spending the past 10 years either supporting systems for business or friends and family. Casual users are a lot more intelligent than you give them credit for, and will install stuff that they are curious about or that they've heard good things about. Look at how many people downloaded and installed Napster for gods sake. BTW, the remedy you suggest is in the DOJ/MS proposal. i.e. Microsoft allows OEMs to delete the icons and install their own crap with no backlash from MS. Weird isn't it? This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 14:19. |
| #11 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/25/2002 4:24:28 PM |
| I also agree #28, my mother-in-law who is a moron when it comes to computers even downloads software to check out and purchases software online to use. She also uses Netscape for e-mail and a browser. because she likes it better, even though she has IE on her PC. I download other software to use as well. I do not like the built in burning crap in XP so I downloaded and purchased Iomega HotBurn for that purpose. The list of software that is not MS on my machines and my families machines goes on and on. |
| #12 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/25/2002 11:00:54 PM |
|
#30 - "How about we take this to the voting polls next election, then everyone can vote to see if they want people, who as consumers want MS broken apart and forced to modularize windows."
Well, first, I would think the turnout would be pretty low. Second, that would be a violation of a key part of our Democratic Republic - The Constitution. The Constitution states that no person (including a company) can have their property taken from them without the due process of law, nor can Congress enact a law that punishes an individual (or company) directly without a trial. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:49:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
