| 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 |
 |
'It's Possible' Expert Hurts MS | |
|
||
| Time: 15:47 EST/20:47 GMT | News Source: Wired | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
A computer scientist testifying for Microsoft may have done the company more harm than good. The states pursuing the world's largest software company managed to get MIT professor Stuart Madnick to contradict some of his earlier statements and acknowledge that a stripped-down version of the Windows operating system may be "technically feasible." One part of the states' 42-page proposed sanctions (PDF) calls for a version of Windows with components such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and HTML help system deleted. One part of the states' 42-page proposed sanctions (PDF) calls for a version of Windows with components such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and HTML help system deleted. Madnick, who teaches information technology, had previously said that the proposal would make Windows crumble like "a house of cards." But under cross-examination from states' attorney Kevin Hodges, Madnick retreated from his prior testimony and conceded that Microsoft should be able to comply with the scheme. "Would it be feasible for Microsoft to separate the code that provides Web browsing capabilities from the code that provides operating system functionalities?" Hodges asked. Madnick hesitated, then replied: "It's possible." Then he attempted to regain some lost ground, reiterating the many interdependencies that exist among components of Windows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 441 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:30:20 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 5/3/2002 4:12:08 PM |
| Once again, MS has NEVER said that it isn't possible... no one, as part of the trial, has EVER said that it isn't possible. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/3/2002 4:14:24 PM |
|
Madnick's testimony has been widely misinterpreted.
I suspect the Judge is a bit more intelligent and unbiased about this than the tech press. |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/3/2002 4:30:34 PM |
| Agreed. Gates himself said it was possible, but basically insane. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/3/2002 4:44:38 PM |
|
Gates said it was infeasible.
Hodges asked, "Would it be feasible for Microsoft to separate the code that provides Web browsing capabilities from the code that provides operating system functionalities?" Madnick replied, "It's possible." |
| #5 By 1896 (208.61.156.110) at 5/3/2002 5:16:21 PM |
| Is it technically speaking possible to build an electric powered truck? Yes it is feasible. Is it economically speaking feasible? No it is not. People should remember that MS is a company on the market to make profits therefore why they should invest in something that would never cover the development costs? MS shareholders would immediately sue the Governament for the losses they would take. MS employees that would loose their jobs would too. Remember that the services the States offer to you are paid by your taxes and the amount you owe is based on your income and not on what are your needs. States ruled economies have always been a disaster, just watch what is happening in France right now. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/3/2002 5:26:58 PM |
|
Hmm, this would be like looking at sodajerk's posting and saying "sodajerk said Microsoft provides functionalities"... that is, if you take every other word ... By golly, yes you can construct a sentence!
Here it is from the transcript. Notice how he points out there may be consequences? 16 Q. Would it be feasible for Microsoft to separate from any 17 files in Windows code for Web browsing functionality from code 18 for operating system functionality? 19 MR. LACOVARA: Your Honor, again, lacks foundation. 20 The witness was asked whether he knew if there were such files. 21 He said he didn't know. 22 THE COURT: I think that was his answer. Can you put 23 it in a different way? 24 MR. HODGES: May I rephrase? 25 THE COURT: Sure. 1 BY MR. HODGES: 2 Q. Assume with me there are such files, Professor. Okay? 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Would it be feasible for Microsoft in that event to 5 separate the code that provides Web browsing functionality from 6 the code that supplies operating system functionality? 7 A. As a general practice, I guess that is possible. 8 Once again, there are enormous numbers of factors 9 involved for how software is constructed, and so without 10 understanding all the implication I would not be able to say 11 whether there are any other consequences. BTW, this is a standard legal trick. The goal is to phrase the questions in such a way that the witnss incriminates themselves. I'm surprised they let him qualify his statements. Q: Have you stopped beating your wife? A: Well, uhh, sir.. I have never... Q: Just answer the question Yes or No. A: Well, uhh... I guess no.... I mean... ARRRGH! *head explodes* |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/3/2002 5:31:33 PM |
| Please, soda, I wasn't trying to create some sort of cutup. I was trying to point out that Gates said it was infeasible so this is exactly the word the states have been using since. That was my only point. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/3/2002 5:38:22 PM |
|
sodajerk - You misquoted him out of context. end of story
BTW for others, all the trial transcripts are here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/nonsettling.asp The May 2nd testimony is the one that talks about the browser, comingling and such. It's really infuriating reading and seems to show that the Lawyers for the states understanding software development about as well as sodajerk. They go on for a long time just arguing about whether or not removing the UI to media player will allow Windows to still play music files. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/3/2002 6:29:28 PM |
|
End of story, my ass! You don't get to tell me what my point is or not.
The states's lawyers and I don't understand software development? Well, at least we know KDE and GNOME aren't operating systems unlike MS's software "expert." |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/3/2002 6:38:58 PM |
|
Moreover, soda, you try to do a decent job of misrepresenting the UI/media player issue, don't you? Hodge is asking this "expert" about end user access primarily because this guy refuses to talk about the icon issue, but he does talk about end user access. And the lawyers ask him over and over (yes) if removing the icon (or end user access) to WMP would in any way affect the media-related code that is commingled with Windows. And this "expert" keeps claiming to have no knowledge or no opinion or no udnerstanding of whether or not the icon would affect the illegality of code commingling.
That's what's going on there--and it's Madnick who looks like the great big flaming idiot, not Hodges. Not me. And it's you who are misrepresenting. |
| #11 By 3339 (67.116.252.131) at 5/3/2002 11:17:12 PM |
|
My only and initial point was that the Court cross-examination has always been focused on the word "feasibility, feasible" NOT possible. In other words, there is no semantic escape clause. (Yes, theoretically everything is possible, but is it realistically and financially feasible? That's not an escape because the question has always been about "feasibility.")
If you think I'm diverting from that point or that point has been "smacked down," I wouldn't know how to help you. I stopped defending that point because it is true, and I thought self-evident. I continued to rebut soda's further claims which he let stand for half the day because he knows he was misrepresenting yesterday's testimony. |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/4/2002 1:49:09 AM |
|
sodajerk - Madnic wasn't misrepresenting anything. If you understand how component development works, his responses back where to try to get a better understanding of exactly what the states wanted.
You see there are these things called DLLs... and there are these things called EXEs... and there are these things called LNKs which are links, or icons pointing to the EXEs. The EXEs use the DLLs to perform functions. Now if you remove the LNK, the user can still run the EXE if they know how. If you remove the EXE, the APIs still exist and so other applications can still perform the same functions if you know how because they use the shared DLLs. But now if you remove the DLLs, then you may have issues with other EXEs which happen to use the same DLLs. Oh and I forgot the OCXs. These are UI components embedded in the EXEs which may also call the DLLs, and other EXEs can use those OCXs as well, although they aren't technically an API per se, they do server some similar function. Oh now to make matter worse, the rest of the discussion focused on Hodge suggesting that Microsoft could remove the user interface EXE, and the OCXs and the DLLs... and where other EXEs may call those shared components they could instead cut-n-paste the code and compile it right in. They have to do this because the States don't want any of the APIs exposed, which is what would happen if you left the COM components in place. So then Madnick said that was possible, but you stand the chance of bloating the code pretty bad. Windows could double in size if every utility which used the HTML rendering engine in IE had to be statically linked against said code. I particularly liked it when Hodge started arguing that Windows without Media Player should cost less. Madnick pointed out that his car came with a cigarette lighter that he never uses, and that it's pretty common for products to have features that not everyone uses but enough people have asked for to justify making it standard. Face it, Madnick ripped the state's arguments to shreds. You may not see it, but K-K is not a technically inept dolt like Jackson. I wish I had time to read the entire testimony. I only made it through about 30 pages, but it was really quite funny. I definately have to go back and read Gates testimony. |
| #13 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/4/2002 2:19:21 AM |
|
Well, I've read the whole testimony, and aside from being incredibly boring (I have "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins sitting by my bed - screaming my name - so it was hard to plow through the transcripts), it's fairly clear that Microsoft is cleaning up.
It's kind of funny, actually. In the DOJ trial, Microsoft's witnesses, combined with the Judge, cost them the case. In this trial, it's the still the Microsoft witnesses and the Judge that are the key, but the opposite outcome appears to be happening. Looks like you can teach an old dog new tricks after all. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 441 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:30:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
