| 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: Modular Windows a Testing Nightmare | |
|
||
| Time: 06:12 EST/11:12 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
In a break for Microsoft, California assistant attorney general Tom Greene said in court during a videotaped interview that if Microsoft were to allow PC makers to choose the software features they wanted, the company would be forced to test every potential software configuration. Greene's admission confirmed what Microsoft argued earlier in its remedy hearing -- that such testing would be implausible due to its potential volume. The software company has said it does not now test every possible Windows configuration. But the nine holdout states have asked the court to compel Microsoft to issue a stripped-down version of Windows, claiming that what would be left of the operating system could still function properly. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:30:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 5/2/2002 1:41:05 PM |
|
#6,
Many of us already own programs that are far more powerful than will ever come with Windows, and thus there is no additional expense. If anything, we may be able to save a little by buying a slightly cheaper version of Windows. Those that want the mini-apps can certainly buy the full version that includes them. TL |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/2/2002 2:09:34 PM |
|
3rd parties will be responsible for their own software--it's ridiculous to believe that MS will be responsible for all software. 3rd parties will have to test their software and they will have to account for whether or not they are dependent on software which is or is not present... This happens all the time--how many programs do you have that will install or reinstall ODBC drivers, or associated media drivers, etc...
For those who see no incentive for a stripped version, don't buy it. I love that the MIT prof's argument was that windows is a "House of Cards" which will collapse if others can install the software of their choice. Isn't that the point? And is that such a strong defense that that's how you want your product characterized? Jesus! |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/2/2002 3:02:17 PM |
| brer, actually they have (regarding #3)--this whole issue is about the barrier created by development focusing on MS tech and API's. Because of MS's control of middleware, they are preventing other middleware apps from coming to market, or at least market penetration, and it also denies the dev community motivation to develop/program for alternative technologies. The goal of a monopoly remedy would be to change this barrier. This has all been thoroughly discussed and has less to do with end-user app choice than it does have to do with the directions and ecosystem of application/middleware development. |
| #4 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/2/2002 3:29:50 PM |
| #14 - Exactly. :-) |
| #5 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 5/2/2002 4:23:54 PM |
|
JeffChapnett,
We definetely think alike on this one :) TL |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/2/2002 4:28:48 PM |
|
#7 - It is extremely doubtful the stripped down version of Windows will not cost the consumer any less than the full version of Windows. Especially considering it would cost Microsoft extra to produce this, would only be available to OEMs, and the OEMs would be bundling additional applications on top of that.
In fact it would very likely cost more, just because of the OEMs bundling deals. That's one of the benefits of Microsoft's monopoly... lower prices #8 - You wouldn't get your choice on those, the choice would be left up to the OEM. Chances are you would get Real Jukebox One or whatever, and AOL Instant Messenger. P.S. I still think Nero sucks. Worst UI I've ever seen. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/2/2002 4:45:38 PM |
| soda, the remedy proposal specifically mentions that the unbundled version would need to be provided at a lesser price--it's not up to MS to say that it cost them more to develop so they are passing the cost to that version. MS takes the cost, determines an appropriate price for the full version, and then is mandated to charge a lesser price for the unbundled version. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/2/2002 4:53:28 PM |
|
brer, your attempts to divert the issues are pointless. This are in fact the issues--it's not just about whether or not it is possible an end user can use another program. It is about promoting developers to use non-MS APIs and technology. Just because I use Gates' term, I'm a hippy? Get your head out of your @ss.
And your last little scenario is typical junk--how do you get an OS to 90% penetration without a huge developer community and a high availability of programs for the platform? These are two goals of the remedy phase. And they are not accomplished simply by hiding icons. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/2/2002 6:22:42 PM |
|
brer, no, you don't touch a nerve because you are a fool, and I hate hippies--as I said, I only used ecosystem because Gates' does. You are very ignorant if you do not think the original suit and the unsettling states are aiming to change the state of the entire industry--the goal is to lessen or dissipate Microsoft's monopoly of the OS market. To do this, you have to also loosen their control of the developer community and some key application markets. This has always been their rationale, not whether or not an AOL icon could or could not be on a screen at the same time. (Come on, do you really think these issues should be limited to icons and not actually address what is really the underlying susbstance? Come on, does anyone really buy that crap?)
The argument I have presented has always been the argument against hiding icons. This is why the softy argument--of all that matters is consumers, and consumers can install whatever they want--is a complete joke. The goal of a remedy is actually to break the monopoly--you on the other hand are too focused on Microsoft and their lame arguments that you think I am coming up with novel ideas, or ideas not inherent to the case, or ideas that are not shared by the prosecutors. Well, guess what, this is exactly what they are arguing. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/2/2002 7:04:24 PM |
|
sodajerk - Ok, so MS charges 50 cents less... whoop
Still you bypassed the point that this unbound version is only available to OEMs, and it is reasonable to assume then that they would be licensing other middleware components to put on top of it, and that these components would not be the choice of the consumer. Regardless, the unbound version will cost more than the bound version, as far as the consumer is concerned. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/2/2002 7:05:51 PM |
|
sodajerk - "The goal of a remedy is actually to break the monopoly"
BTW, that's wrong. The goal of the remedy is to provide a playing field where competition can exist. That's very different from your "We take everything from MS and give it to Sun, and now MS doesn't have a monopoly" remedy. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/2/2002 7:07:13 PM |
|
z00ker - Well at least Epson will be happy, since once again people will buy Epson compatible MX-80 printers, instead of being able to pick and choose from Canon, HP, etc. :-)
|
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/2/2002 7:35:57 PM |
| soda, you just love to read my comments which ever way you want, don't you? By breaking the monopoly, I am not saying take everything--I am saying, allow competition to occur, same as you. And again, hiding icons doesn't do that. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/2/2002 8:05:14 PM |
| and soda, you're pricing logic is a joke. I think the oversight of implementing these provisions would require more than a penny difference. The cost of bundling other apps doesn't get wrapped into the cost of windows. Think about the bundling that occurs now--the OEMs still pay extra for this bundling and they pay the price of the full version. If they bundle 3rd party apps with a cheaper version of Windows, it's cheaper. You can make up your math for the cost of Windows as much as you want--the stripped version will still be cheaper. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/2/2002 9:09:23 PM |
|
Exactly how does hiding icons not allow competition to occur? Maybe you should explain what kind of competition you are looking for, exactly.
As to your second point... this argument you are making nullifies your first argument. You are now claiming that competition already exists. Come on, you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Are OEMs bundling 3rd party apps with Windows now, or aren't they? If they are, then why is the situation unfair to them? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:30:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
