| 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 |
 |
Judge Asks for Demonstration of 'Modular' Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 17:25 EST/22:25 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
The federal judge overseeing the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case said on Tuesday that she wants to see a version of the Windows operating system that has removable features. Over the objections of Microsoft, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said she would allow nine states seeking stiff sanctions against the company to have a computer expert demonstrate a version of Windows he had developed that can be customized. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 341 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:01:56 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1868 (141.133.144.204) at 5/7/2002 5:55:16 PM |
| All this so call expert has done is to put Ie6.0 and messenger and movie maker in the add/remove menu. Big freakin deal, but what about the consequences of doing that? And what constiutes middleware? |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/7/2002 6:08:59 PM |
|
They should install Age of Mythology on it! :)
|
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/7/2002 6:16:07 PM |
|
news.com has a better article. I see why Microsoft objected. The states are basically calling in a surprise witness. This testimony should be pretty easy to dispute with a good demo. Hopefully the states are giving the information on what this "expert" did to MS before he actually testifies so they can prepare.
|
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 7:18:17 PM |
|
Maybe MS should have actually put forth some evidence. Instead of saying--this is technically impossible, but we have never tried, never will try it, never even considered it, and we really don't like your experts messign with it either. Such a claim deserves a rebuttal. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, May 07, 2002 at 19:25. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 7:27:05 PM |
| Actually poshelty, you are right: there is evidence of a modular OS which even has dependecies on core APIs, but which still doesn't commingle unrelated code--it's called OS X--and it is viable and offers the same features as Windows. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 7:44:36 PM |
| Oh boy, poshelty, I presume you are trying to give me a hard time--otherwise, you must justy be stupid. Does OS X provide a high level of integration (possibly greater than) XP? Yes. Does it work? Yes. Does it commingle disparate and unshared code in places it shouldn't be such that removing a media player or browser kills the system? No. That's all that needs to be proven. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 8:28:28 PM |
|
poshelty, the anon (#23) points out the answer. As I said, removing any of the programs in the MacOS does not in turn remove API code. MS has been hiding behind these API claims, but why are the APIs tied to an app? Makes no sense--that is obvious. If other apps can tie into the html render API, why can't explorer? Separate the app from the API--this is what the conclusions of the Appeals Case requires as a remedy.
In fact, it appears Apple now has their own html render engine as an API as well considering the new Sherlock 3. Of course, I can still remove this app without destroyiong my system. This is obvious crap, and MS is starting to look pretty pathetic. I wonder if the prospect of rotting in a Taiwanese prison is lighting a fire under Bill and Steve's asses. Anyway, someday they will be forced to behave differently. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 8:39:52 PM |
| poshelty, the case is not nor ever has been just about "IE hurting consumers." Nevermind the fact that I don't know what that means or how that could be proven. MS wouldn't have to rewrite the help system--they would just need to separate the html APIs from the explorer.exe file. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 8:48:27 PM |
| no, poshelty, it's a decent analogy--you're understanding of American antitrust law sucks. There have been very few monopolies ever that did not face some competition--yet they were still brought down whether it was 2%, 10%, or 35% of the market that they didn't control. If I have to go to the boondocks or the shitty side of town just to get a non-MsftBurger whereas there is a MsftDonalds on every street corner--yes it would be an abuse of that market postion to make you buy additional products with your product choice. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 8:50:45 PM |
| poshelty, btw, your claim that everyone looking to buy a burger really wants to get cookies too is about as idiotic as the claim that everyone wants MSN, Moviemaker, and MSIM. It's just friggin laughable. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 9:02:56 PM |
|
Poshelty, no offense and I don't like to do this but--clearly you do not no American law or English well enough to try to tell me what our antitrust laws do and do not say, what a District judge and seven Appeals Court judges have said they do and do not say.
Don't try to argue with me with crap like "I have a surprise for you"--I know what's going on better than you--when you cannot understand my English. |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/7/2002 9:05:43 PM |
|
sodajerk continues to exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the Microsoft Windows OS when he attempts to compare it to Mac OSX and claim they are the same.
What method does OSX use for sharing components? Does it implement COM or CORBA or even Bonobo? Is the OS built up in a fundemantally OOP fashion? If not then how can you possible claim they are the same, or that you know that removing a file on the OS will not break other software? In post #30 he goes on about seperating HTML rendering fro the explorer.exe file. But that's already the case. No, the states contention as demonstrated in the testimony provided last week is that none of the IE APIs should be exposed in the OS. Any object that utilizes these APIs should have the necessary code hard-linked into the resulting executable. We could go on for days here, and sodajerk would still fundamentally not understand OS design, especially as it relates to Windows. Personally I think this is really sad. Not that sodajerk is ignorant, that can't be helped. Rather it is sad that after decades of computing sciences advances, the most advanced OS we have today is Windows and everything else is decades behind in terms of technology. Maybe if people were innovating instead of slapping Monet paintings on top of Unix and calling it a user interface, Microsoft would have some competition. |
| #13 By 5444 (208.180.245.43) at 5/7/2002 9:13:25 PM |
|
Ok, I read these Posts and I wonder about the past.
First people complained about the install for win 95 being to involved requireing everyone to answer questions about items they were not sure if they need or not. And now we have people asking for that to be there again. The single most amazing thing I read, is people that obviously know a litte about their system. Complaining that they can't remove certain features. Yet any of the tweak sites tell you how to do it in a heart beat. Items I have removed from my setup. Win Movie Maker, MSN, Still have media player as I prefer it over Winamp and a couple others. Think it is sill I have to download other DVD programs to use the dvd feater(but then I prefer that program for dvd playing neway) I hope in the demostration that they show some basic Install of the common programs that people use. Intuit Quicken for one. A complete run down of which modules are installed would be nice also. Btw, it just comes to show that you can only please some of the people some of the time and not all the people all the time. El, |
| #14 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/7/2002 9:14:01 PM |
|
It would be more accurate to point out that most everybody expects to get lettuce with their hamburger, similarly to how most everybody expects to get a web browser with their OS. Yes there are a handful of people who do not want lettuce, and that's what this lawsuit is about. Whether the needs of a few outweigh the good of the many.
|
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 9:19:50 PM |
| soda, as was pointed out by your not so brilliant "expert" Midnick, no other OS is tied to a browser so I would say it's highly inaccurate that this is an expectation of all users. |
| #16 By 5444 (208.180.245.43) at 5/7/2002 9:28:26 PM |
|
Soda,
No but after getting any of the linux distributions, I am expecting on my 7 disks from MS. A full OS. Several hundred Games. a Full programming enviroment. media players, support for clustering, Server support, A full database program, and that is just the tip of the Iceburg. Virus scanners, dvd players, etc etc. I believe all of that should be contained in teh MS distribution of the OS. El |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 9:31:23 PM |
|
"What method does OSX use for sharing components? Does it implement COM or CORBA or even Bonobo? Is the OS built up in a fundemantally OOP fashion?"
It uses several methods of sharing components. CORBA can be used. Yes, in fact, it is much more OO than Windows. It's native language (objective-C) is also far more object-oriented than C++. All of its libraries and components are XML. "If not then how can you possible claim they are the same, or that you know that removing a file on the OS will not break other software?" I'm not claiming that removing a file from the OS will not break software, I am saying removing an application will not break software. MS is hiding behind their IP by tying APIs to apps--if they are system-level API's they don't belong inside of apps. "In post #30 he goes on about seperating HTML rendering fro the explorer.exe file. But that's already the case." No, it's not. I consider DLL files associated with an app a part of the app. If you think I was making a mistake or something I clarify, but I don't consider lingering phantom DLLs not a part of an app just because MS has a sloppy architecture. If you remove the Explorer DLLs you break the OS. MS and the Courts acknowledge that their are shell only, IE only, and shared functions in the DLL. This is the problem. "No, the states contention as demonstrated in the testimony provided last week is that none of the IE APIs should be exposed in the OS." They have never claimed this--you are moving towards compulsive liar these days, soda. Or just getting stupider--particularly your post today about the audio issue raised by Averett--don't know what the hell you were reading when you posted that crap. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/7/2002 9:55:26 PM |
|
jerk - Ahh, still trying to misrepresent Madnick, eh? Weird, this is a Rush Limbaugh tactic.
testimony on KDE starts in the AM session of May 1st, right around page 5737. Here's a nice excerpt: 18 Q. If KDE is removed from the Linux operating system, then its 19 Web browsing functionality is also removed; is that correct? 20 A. Well, the Web browsing that's provided through the 21 interface is removed, yes. 22 Q. The Web browsing provided through KDE; correct? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Now, you say that, in paragraph 24 -- it's actually on page 25 12, paragraph 24. I'll read this to you. "One cannot delete 1 the Web browser from KDE without losing the ability to manage 2 files on the user's own hard disk." Do you see that language? 3 A. Yes, I do. 4 Q. Now, isn't it the case that files can be managed by using 5 standard UNIX command in the shell even if KDE is not 6 installed? 7 A. That is correct. 8 The assumption here was we are talking about the user 9 using the system as a modern operating system which requires 10 access to this kind of interface. I love that last quote... At this point the Mr. Hodges is heard to say DOH! under his breath. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 10:05:17 PM |
|
What's your point, soda? That testimony does nothing in my mind to prove that Linux is tied to a browser, that KDE and GNOME are operating systems instead of interfaces, that KDE, GNOME, or any other UI including command lines is TIED to Linux (which would be necessary to say that a browser is tied to KDE which is tied to the OS which is...), or that Limpdick (I mean Midnick) is anything but a complete idiot to try to suggest that this is the case.
Nor does that rebutt my many other points. The one you choose to pay attention to, being one of the least significant, tells me you don't have an argument. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/7/2002 10:07:37 PM |
|
sodajerk - "It uses several methods of sharing components. CORBA can be used. Yes, in fact, it is much more OO than Windows. It's native language (objective-C) is also far more object-oriented than C++. All of its libraries and components are XML. "
Really? Are you sure you aren't confusing the User Interface with the OS? The core OS of OSX is FreeBSD, which is most certainly not OO. "If you think I was making a mistake or something I clarify, but I don't consider lingering phantom DLLs not a part of an app just because MS has a sloppy architecture." Oh so now you consider component based development sloppy architecture. I'm sure the CORBA and Java people will appreciate that. "I consider DLL files associated with an app a part of the app." Depends on how the DLL is used. It may be specific to an application, or it may be providing a shared API. "you remove the Explorer DLLs you break the OS." You break the parts of the user interface that make use of these DLLs, and for all intents and purposes with Windows that is the OS. "MS and the Courts acknowledge that their are shell only, IE only, and shared functions in the DLL. This is the problem. " It's only a problem for you because you don't understand component based software architecture. In reply to hard linking HTML rendering code throughout the OS... "They have never claimed this--you are moving towards compulsive liar these days, soda." Really? Page 5994 of the May 2nd AM testimony 1 Q. So the part of your testimony at paragraph 180 when you 2 say, "Duplicating the implicated code for only a modest number 3 of functions would be technically feasible," what do you mean 4 by that? 5 A. That's what I'm trying to explain, sir. 6 There is the issue of impossibility and then there's 7 an issue of what does feasibility mean. So what I meant 8 here -- and this is where it gets a bit tricky -- it is 9 technically feasible if all you're considering is merely the 10 physical act of duplicating that code. 11 The reason why I pause and also said I'm not sure I 12 would want to call that feasible is because the consequences of 13 doing that mechanical act may, in fact, produce an operating 14 system that could be a hundred or a thousand times more 15 bloated, and that gets tricky. 16 Would you consider a system a thousand times more 17 bloated than Windows a viable, technically-feasible system? 18 Well, you can do it. It doesn't make a lot of sense. And I 19 don't know whether making sense should be a criteria for 20 feasibility. 21 Q. If you duplicated the HTML Renderer, would that make the 22 Windows operating system a hundred or a thousand times more 23 bloated? 24 A. That one alone probably is only used in 50 or a hundred 25 different places. But that's one of potentially thousands of 1 cases, all of whom would have to be copied over, possibly. 2 Q. The storage costs for extra code are minimal, aren't they? "Or just getting stupider--particularly your post today about the audio issue raised by Averett--don't know what the hell you were reading when you posted that crap." Now what the hell are you babbling about? |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 10:07:57 PM |
| I think it's funny that you think that was a DOH moment for Hodges. What about when Hodges was asking if KDE or GNOME are Linux or if they are tied to Linux. After all--if a browser is tied to an interface but there are multiple interfaces and many non-interfaces and all of them can be added and removed and interchanged--how is that anyway like tying a browser to a OS? Can you explain that, o brilliant one? |
| #22 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/7/2002 10:14:08 PM |
|
sodajerk - "What's your point, soda? That testimony does nothing in my mind to prove that Linux is tied to a browser, that KDE and GNOME are operating systems instead of interfaces, that KDE, GNOME, or any other UI including command lines is TIED to Linux (which would be necessary to say that a browser is tied to KDE which is tied to the OS which is...), or that Limpdick (I mean Midnick) is anything but a complete idiot to try to suggest that this is the case. "
Ahh, more Rush Limbaugh argumentation. When faced with solid arguments, resort to ad hominem and rationalization. The UI is a fundamental piece of any modern OS. Can I buy a Macintosh without a mouse or the UI installed? You're a big proponent of OSX, is it as beautiful when you are using the command shell to move files around instead of the Monet based UI? |
| #23 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 10:14:35 PM |
| So, you are suggesting that because the MS exec interpreted the question so that every call to an html renderer would require its own html renderer as proof of your point? I consider that the lameness of MS's defense and attempt to FUD the Courts into believing their bullshit. They look like idiots saying that sort of crap. |
| #24 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/7/2002 10:16:15 PM |
|
sodajerk -
8 The assumption here was we are talking about the user 9 using the system as a modern operating system which requires 10 access to this kind of interface. Is the browser tied to the kernel? No. But it is tied to the OS because the GUI is a fundamental feature of a modern operating system. Is the mouse tied to MacOSX? You betcha ken. Why? Because it's a fundamental feature of a modern operating system, and has been a part of the Macintosh for 18 years. |
| #25 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2002 10:17:38 PM |
|
No, I'm not arguing against the person as my argument--I'm saying it's a stupid argument and so is Midnick? Is a browser tied to KDE? Yes. Can you remove KDE? Yes. Does Linux still work? Yes. Can you install alternate UIs and browsers? Yes. Can you remove them? Yes.
You say I'm not allowed to compare Windows with MacOS, but then you think you are creating an equivalency here that is persuasive? Yes, I am laughing my ass off right now. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 341 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:01:56 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
