| 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 |
 |
Foe: Testing Needed for Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 10:00 EST/15:00 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
If Microsoft Corp. split up its Windows operating system so computer manufacturers could choose which features they wanted, the software company would still have to test every possible configuration, a state official says. The admission, made during a videotaped interview with Microsoft lawyers, matches arguments made by Microsoft earlier in its antitrust remedy hearing. Microsoft has said such testing would be impossible. The nine states still pursuing penalties against the company want to let computer manufacturers remove Microsoft Internet Explorer and other features of Windows and substitute competing software. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 145 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:28:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 5/1/2002 2:33:49 PM |
|
Man, Microsoft sure knows how to complicate something. And I'm sure that is their intent, whether it's complicted or not.
It's simple folks! You ship TWO (not many, or several, or tons, or whatever the hell else exaggeration Gates can come up with next) versions of Windows. One just the way it is for those that want it this way. And another, with all the middleware removed. In this version, you can provide a second install CD that will allow you to install the middleware that YOU, THE CONSUMER want to install. Tada! I should bill Gates (I made a pun!) for consulting services :) TL |
| #2 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/1/2002 9:53:40 PM |
| Plus, with the terms the States are seeking, Microsoft would be required to not ship it's products, but still have the OS work in a non-degraded fashion with third-party replacements. They want MS to support this. So, the only way they could do this is add the third-party combinations to their testing suite. Even then, Microsoft could not guarentee functionality, which is why they are fighting this. It's just bunch of impossibillities drawn up by their "competitors". |
| #3 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/2/2002 7:07:59 AM |
|
If the States' proposed remedy was what they had to follow, they would have no choice but to test every configuration or stop shipping the product. The difference would be an infinitely increased testing routine where any broken functionality in a third-party solution, even if caused by the third-party, could count against Microsoft as a violation, and open them up to even greater pentalties.
The States want them to remove their functionality so that it can be replaced by third-parties while still keeping Windows functioning exactly the same as if the Microsoft functionality were still there. They want Microsoft to support this. This is a technical impossibility. One example I used a while ago (referring to another article) was HTML/XML. Browsers can render differently, even if given the same code, and some browers are less feature complete than others. If a third-party browser component misrendered a help document, or part of the GUI, this could be viewed as a situation in which Windows is degraded functionaly. Even though this would not be Microsoft's fault, they could be held responsible. Another example I used previously was the way DirectX and OpenGL function. Hardware vendors write drivers to accelerate rendering in hardware, but Microsoft also provides a software implementation of the renderer. When an app needs functionality not supported by a third-party, it either doesn't utilize the unsupported feature, or it falls back to the Microsoft-provided renderer. If the Microsoft renderer weren't present, the app would fail. What the States want Microsoft to do regarding Windows would be like forcing them to remove the Microsoft software renderer, yet still, somehow, keep apps that utilize features unsupported by third-parties from failing or incurring any reduced functionality. This simply can't be done. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 145 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:28:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
