Microsoft to Change OEM Licensing 246
IdleMindUI writes: "According to this article on MSNBC, OEMs will now have the option of adding products to or removing products from the windows desktop. Earlier licensing agreements prohibited OEMs from changing the windows desktop. "Reserving its harshest criticism for this practice, the court said Microsoft used its power to illegally maintain a monopoly by pushing potential competitors off the computer desktop, considered to be the prime real estate of new computers."" Microsoft's press release has more information on what Microsoft will and will not permit OEM's to do.
Re:But can you buy an MS free PC yet? (Score:2)
Smaller OEMs. (Score:2)
I think we where told to do it that harshly because our owners resented microsofts tyrany. They made a deal with a local ISP and got paid for their new users who had one of our machines. I think the whole navigator thing was purely out of spite. Microsoft needs to realize you can ask your OEMs to do anyting, but if you force them, they will turn back on you viciously.
If microsoft is a monopoly, the only way to solve it is to let others make operating systems that can use thier win32 api. Tell the judge to take away the tool that lets Microsoft be a monopoly, to hell with break'n em up! It'll fall faster and harder as one!
Another Coward
Re:Oh yeah (Score:5)
Well, hell yeah... I mean why not pull out comctl32.dll, comdlg32.dll, and gdi32.dll while we are at it! Who needs things like standardized toolbars, menubars, check boxes, radio buttons, printer dialogs, file open dialogs, color picker dialogs, rectangle drawing, etc.
After all, application vendors can just ship whatever dll's they want and install 'em in their "application directory and run it when they need to without touching the rest of the system."
Or better yet, lets just force developers to go back to static linking and programming from the ground up at the interrupt level. I mean really, let's just roll back the past ten years or so of software development and entirely do away with the concept of dynamic linking and uniform shared libraries.
Grab a clue guys, IE is not just about "web browsing". A lot of the individual pieces that make IE work are useful in their own right, often independent of just the "browsing" functionality.
HTML parsing and rendering with support for DOM/DHTML, useful for all sorts of help and presentation files... sort of a glorified form of Rich Text and there is builtin support for RTF in Windows.
HTTP session management, URI/URL parsing, etc. useful for other applications... how 'bout SOAP remote component sessions via XML over HTTP?
Hyperlinking and link management... anyone ever hear of HyperCard? Isn't hypertext a useful concept even outside of the WWW?
Progressive GIF, JPG, PNG rendering. Hey, this can be useful on its own without "web browsing" can't it?
XML parsing... did you know that functionality has been built into the latest versions of IE's libraries?
Scripting engines... hey, these engines for VBScript and JScript/Javascript are useful outside of browsing. Ever hear of Windows Scripting Host?
Why shouldn't there be a uniform standard for many of these things, that developers can RELY upon?
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:2)
Try reading a Napster discussion some time. :)
I'm not talking about tech support calls like "how do I start Netscape?". I'm talking about stuff like my parent poster where you are talking people through troubleshooting a complex problem that requires editing random config files. It is extremely difficult and frustrating for everyone involved because the person on site DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE/SHE IS DOING! (That isn't a bad thing, I don't know how to fix washing machines either.)
The washing machine/car analogy is quite appropriate, I think, for these type of problems because they require specialized knowledge to repair which you cannot communicate through the phone. You might tell them what to do, but you can't necessarily teach all they need to know to solve the problem themselves. Moreover, in all of these situations, an efficient diagnosis requires more sensory input than you can get through the phone.
And yes, they get away with this sort of stuff because no one will die if phone support fails. :)
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:4)
I can't call up Toyota and ask them to walk me through replacing the starter on the car, especially if I don't know what a wrench is. They'll tell me to bring it to the repair shop. I can't demand that Maytag explain to me how to repair a washing machine through the phone, even if it is under warranty!
I suppose that this is because computers are fairly unreliable, and the tech support sort of offsets what would otherwise be a really high failure rate or a massive network of on-site repair people. But still, helping people fix a computer through the phone is a horrible experience.
Re:"Get Linux Now!" (Score:3)
The last time I checked, none of the first-tier PC OEMs offered dual-boot Windows/Linux systems. I'm talking about companies like Dell, Compaq, and IBM -- not Joe's PC Clone Shop & Bait Store. The article refers to OEM licensing, which makes Microsoft software available at a deep discount to the majors in exchange for arrangements such as exclusivity and advertising.
The availability of dual-boot and other customized systems is not an issue. Microsoft can't stop clone shops from doing customization. However, clone shops can't offer Dell's or IBM's level of support, either; many purchasers require that level of support before they will consider a system.
Re:"Get Linux Now!" (Score:5)
How about it, Mr. Dell?
Re:Whatever (Score:3)
Now, if they decide to put a control inside their application to handle HTML, etc..., then yes, they probably will use the Microsoft Internet control, which will still be there, since so much uses that now.
workaround (Score:5)
Re:Everyone's brain is already slashdotted (Score:2)
Now if only the end user of retail box Microsoft products could do the same as the OEMs, so that they could avoid having the stuff that they specify that they don't want install itself anyway.
Re:Correction... (Score:2)
something which made them pull 50% of their PC's off the Comdex floor the morning of the show. Hummmm, what was it.... Was it the fact that OS/2 was installed on all those PC's? Bingo!
LoB
Re:Way to go Justice Department! (Score:2)
This will only confuse the user and OEM's aren't going to want this.
Microsoft NEEDs to become a OS company and a application company or the monopoly will persist til the end of time. IMHO
LoB
How can Allchin this with a straight face? (Score:4)
Windows XP is an incredible step forward for end users and partners, unlocking the possibilities of the digital world," said Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms at Microsoft.
It's just insane to say something like this, Windows XP is just a small step in terms of usability. And it's more about locking in the possibilities [for microsoft] than unlocking them...
thad
The story elsewhere... (Score:2)
Re:Kudos to Microsoft? (Score:2)
If I am a thief today, but I stop being a thief tomorrow, it does not mean that I am no longer guilty of crimes I have committed in the past.
You cannot undo past crimes like that.
domc
Its too late... (Score:5)
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
I'm not sure I completely addressed this in my previous post, so I'll just make a quick comment.
I don't think anybody can reasonably agree with forcing Microsoft to remove IE. It's their product, they should be able to include it if they so desire. However, having said that, not providing the ability for a third-party application to take over the functions that IE provides IS a legitimate objection.
--
Re:Oh yeah (Score:5)
Why? Let's say you decide you don't like IE, so you uninstall it.
Then you try and install the latest version of Word. Oops, Word doesn't work without IE - so you have to install. Nor does any component of the Office suite. OK, maybe you can deal without Office - but what about Visual Studio? Oops, VS doesn't work without IE. Plus, without IE, the "standalone" MSDN ceases to function. Or maybe you'd like to install Quicken? Guess again. It requires IE.
In other words, it's an empty, empty promise. The core OS might not need the IE icons or whatever, but they'll be back in force each and every time you install a Microsoft product. Microsoft has spent too much time, money, and energy getting the industry hooked on IE to ever give you the real choice of removing it. Too many of their products depend on IE (whether artificially or not) for them to ever really allow you to dump it.
--
Re:Oh yeah (Score:5)
My "objection" is not that the browser is part of the OS. My objection is that Internet Explorer is the browser.
What's wrong with having a published API so that if a competitor comes along and creates a better browser that obeys the published API, I can replace Microsoft's browser with the competitors? (Answer: that's not in Microsoft's best interest, and therefore they will not provide it to their customers - so much for being consumer-driven.)
Until the day Microsoft affords me the ability to replace - completely replace - Internet Explorer with a third-party browser control, and have that extend to Windows Explorer, Windows help, Visual Studio help (so that when I load up Windows Explorer, that third party browser is in the right-hand pane, not IE), then any offer by Microsoft to add IE to the Add/Remove menu, or the ability to get rid of the icons, is AT BEST a meaningless gesture.
--
Re:Bundles are bad (Score:2)
What M$ must be thinking... (Score:3)
Ok! Let's do it!
WE LISTEN TO CUSTOMERS (Score:2)
A-holes...
Microbob
Re:Kudos to Microsoft? (Score:3)
change, I think its something Microsoft should
be congratulated on for taking a step in the
right direction. This doesn't mean we should
love them. It means we should send them a sign
that says "That's a start, now keep going."
Congratulate? I didn't get convicted for murder today, can I have cookie too? No one should be congratulated or rewarded for something they are supposed to do anyway.
Not very important at this point. (Score:4)
Don't get me wrong, I used to work for a small computer OEM and we chafed under Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics to control how we set up the computers we sold. So much so that we tried to subvert them at every opportunity until MS finally sued us (we won the court battle).
However, I don't think that Microsoft's decision will really change anything at this point. I mean, IE is integrated into the Windows, who cares if it has an icon on the desktop, or if the icon is replaced with a Netscape/Mozilla/Opera icon? A lot of IE code starts up whether you want to run IE or not. This makes running any other browser a waste of resources. For instance, Mozilla can't beat IE's start up time unless they use the IE tactic of cheating by using the "turbo" mode. But who wants to have two browsers loaded at start up?
I think the only solution for this is for MS to completely publish the interface IE uses to talk to the rest of windows, so other software makers can reimpliment it. Then OEMs must be allowed to pull out IE and replace it with a third part browser or rendering engine.
This would actually be a design more along the lines of the Unix philosophy, where we have many small, specialized components that work together to do a job, but where there may be any number of replacements for a particular component, each with its own strengths.
I don't see this sort of thing happening without intervention by the court. Used on a wider scale, though, I think this type of solution would be better then simply breaking up MS. I believe the FSF proposed something along these lines, but I can't find a link.
--------------------------
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
Re:"Get Linux Now!" (Score:2)
Although extensive consumer studies have
shown that system stability may be (positively)
affected, with the Tux icon, consumers will
have the option of removing windows itself
from the desktop.
Removing Internet Explorer (Score:4)
Didn't Microsoft executives swear in open court under oath that removing IE would break Windows? Is this perjury, or will every Windows user receive a patch to "fix" Windows with IE removed? :) Inquiring minds (with functional memories) want to know!
But can you buy an MS free PC yet? (Score:2)
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:2)
Also the person making the call may well not describe the fault correctly in the first place.
Re:it's an AP story, not an MSNBC story (Score:3)
Unfortunately, this is what passes for reporting these days, with the disclaimer that "other names may be trademarks of other companies" at the bottom. I highly recommend " Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the PR Industry " in case you're interested: it's a great book, and at least makes you think.
Re:Very nice for Mozilla and Netscape. (Score:3)
After 6.0, I think I'll let you go first....
/.
Re:Oh yeah (Score:3)
"Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the Internet Explorer components of the operating system. Microsoft has always made it easy for consumers to delete the icons for Internet Explorer, but will now offer consumers this additional option in Windows XP."
Adding IE to the Add-Remove Programs feature sort of infers that you would be able to uninstall the entire program, wouldn't it? Kind of shoots holes in their argument that IE is "essential" to the OS.
Re:"Get Linux Now!" (Score:2)
Re:Its too late... (Score:2)
you gotta admit, this is good (Score:3)
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
It will be interesting to test out exactly what gets removed and how much disk space is freed up. I'm going to guess it's a lot less than you'd naively expect from "removing IE".
[TMB]
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
--Mike--
Bundles are bad (Score:3)
If they insist on moving the help, etc.. to HTML format then they should make sure it works in the browsers that are available.
Allowing competition into the market will allow (gasp) innovation to be present, possibly forcing M$ to do something new for a change, like make a better product.
--Mike--
Re:"Get Linux Now!" (Score:2)
You know, it's a really sad state of affairs when this seems like a major breakthrough. Anyone should have the right to sell dual-boot systems.
---
"Get Linux Now!" (Score:5)
---
Re:Brilliant! (Score:3)
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
That's the problem... Microsoft has used, oh say, Office's Dependency on parts of IE as an excuse to install all of IE and let it take over the system (take win95 or example which definitely does NOT come with IE).
The only thing stopping Microsoft from installing those components needed to get the job at hand finished and nothing more is Microsoft.
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:2)
They're two entirely different products and, trust me, if it was possible for people to repair their Maytag washers over the phone and Maytag had thought of it, we'd have Maytag phone support already. The simple reason for this is the fact that phone support is so much cheaper than bringing the washer in or sending in a repair person. The other big difference is that a poorly repaired washing machine can KILL and cause serious damage while the damage from someone clicking on the wrong icon is never nearly that serious.
Re:WE LISTEN TO CUSTOMERS (Score:2)
Yup, that's right. The vast majority of Microsoft's consumers don't care whether IE is bundled into the OS or not. It's only the folks at Netscape that cared. So yes, Microsoft does listen to its consumers, just not to the government and their competitors.
Re:Kudos to Microsoft? (Score:2)
They have decided, through user studies, that too many desktop icons are confusing. So, the default installation only installs 1 (one). Software developers are required NOT to install icons automatically on the desktop in order to pass the Windows compliance testing. Now they change the OEM license to reflect their change of opinion.
The reason they are making an announcement out of this, is to get public support and 'kudos' for supposedly making a positive step towards resolution of the law suit.
This is neither a good or a bad thing. It is really a non-issue which they deserve neither praise or admonishment for.
GXW is watching you.
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
Read carefully what they're stating... "end-user access" IS the icons. They never say they're giving you the ability to remove IE from the system.
--
Re:Its too late... (Score:3)
It's brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
Netscape is dead, but now Microsoft is the good guy, and there's no way that their monopolizing tactics of the past are going to be punished because they've got halos over their head now.
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:2)
I live in a retirement community in southern california ... A buddy of mine works at the sears out here, and the computer department has *EXACTLY* this problem. The department has been losing money since it opened because the elderly buy computers, can't work them or do something stupid -- then take them back ... They've been loosing money hand over fist but aren't allowed to close the department because sears requires them to have one.
A true story about the kind of customers they get: "Hey son, that computer you sold me last week is broke, Im gonna bring it back." "Well sir, whats wrong with it?" "The screen is half taken up by this grey thing!" "Does the grey thing happen to say 'start'" "Yes it does!!" ...
Re:How can Allchin this with a straight face? (Score:4)
ah ha! you've wandered onto one of MS's sneakiest tactics ... *Purposley* making shitty software so they can claim to have "improved" it in newer versins ... What you SHOULD be thinking is "Gee, WinME has shitty multi-tasking" not "Gee, XP has good multitasking" ...
Immagine how much money they could make if they made a copy of Word where objects didn't jump around everytime you inserted text
Re:Very nice for Mozilla and Netscape. (Score:2)
Big Deal! (Score:4)
How gracious of them. Note how this does not say that OEMs can actually *remove* the IE software itself. Proof that this isn't just an oversight in the phrasing comes in another benefit where "consumers will have the option to remove the IE program using Add/Remove Programs."
Oh, and won't it be grand to have the desktop icons as added revenue for OEMs. I'm gonna hold out for the Gateway "HornyGuy 3000" which comes with a desktop full of 31337 pr0n link icons.
Big deal! bah.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:2)
Re:Big Deal! (Score:2)
Re:First IBM, now M$ (Score:2)
-= rei =-
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:5)
I blame this on Microsoft
There used to be a time when to use a computer meant you had to go through some sort of training. But Microsoft has brainwashed the masses that computers are really simple to use and training is not needed. You see this in all their propaganda as to how they brought computing to the average user. I'm not saying only geeks should have access to computers by any means.
But we have to stop living under the delusion that they are really simple to use. They aren't. Maybe they will be one day but today they aren't. That includes any flavour of Windoze you choose. At least Linux is honest about the fact that you have to RTFM. I have installed Windows from 95-Win2K on a clean machine and sometimes its a piece of cake and sometimes I curse Bill and his merry gang of thieves. Same with Linux (Red Hat) sometimes it's easy other times ... lets not go there.
But once you have people believing computers are simple to use and fix then it's natural that they will expect to be able to fix problems through the phone.
Funny thing is the same people who won't open the hood of their car think they can install hardware without knowing an IRQ from a hole in the wall.
There's a surprise (Score:2)
While this is a small victory I guess, the question is how many OEM's are actually going to bother doing this? I mean they've bitched and moaned about MS, but how many are actually going to take advantage of this?
---
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
/Brian
Ain't no Fry's in Massachusetts... (Score:2)
The fact is that you can't buy a bare system at Best Buy or Circuit City. Gateway Country can't, and I get the sense they get their fair share of requests for it. It's only the mom-and-pop operations that slip through the cracks and the places with a heavily geek audience (like Fry's) that will cater to that need. Everyone else is being kept in the corral.
/Brian
Re:Holy crap... (Score:2)
But *you* are missing the point completely. The issue here has nothing to do with convenience; it's all about clout. *Yes*, I can fdisk Windows out of existence when I first get the computer -- nobody is disputing that. And no, it's not all that difficult. (And yes, I can find bare PCs in Massachusetts; it's not especially easy, but I happen to know one or two places that will do it happily).
The issue is that if I buy a name-brand PC I have no choice but Windows. That's just the way it is, because Microsoft Said So. That's the problem here.
/Brian
Re:Holy crap... (Score:2)
*slap*
Microsoft doesn't have the *right* to compel preloads, but damn straight they have the clout to. You're apparently just not listening to me -- since most consumer outfits can't sell them, most people *don't* *even* *know* they can't buy them.
Oh, well. IHBT. IHL. HAND.
/Brian
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:2)
For most Americans, a running car is a necessity while the computer is a hobby.
Cars are mostly more expensive than cars.
A botched car repair might kill folks.
Now, that doesn't give the computer novice the right to complain if his "repair" disables his sound card. But I can see how a guy could get there.
CNNFNs story. (Score:2)
Quick link [cnn.com] to CNNFNs story.
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:3)
____
Europe (Score:2)
Good for them.
Re:Good first step (Score:2)
Wine [winehq.com]'s job is difficult because they have to reimplement the API - meaning rewrite all the Windows functions from scratch.
If there are any undocumented functions in Windows anymore, they are very likely obsolete functions that have since been replaced by something better. This doesn't help a project like Wine, which would like to run any software written for Windows - if there are older programs that make calls to obsolete functions, Wine somehow needs to know about these. Still, that in no way prevents you from writing competitive software for Windows.
I once argued with Jeremy Allison(lead Samba programmer) about this back when there was still an undocumented feature of Windows - single sign-on. Single sign-on was the only example Allison was able to give of undocumented functions. However, even this is now documented and anyone can write programs that use built in Windows authentication to authenticate their own programs.
Since that has been taken care of, I don't think there are any hidden functions in Windows. MS says there aren't and there are about 1,000 universities/companies who have the Windows source code who could come forth and refute this, but they haven't.
Re:Oh yeah (Score:4)
Since the integration of IE with windows, it has been very integral to my system. A browser makes an ideal way to access the contents of your computer. Hyperlinks are an ideal way to link related documents.
Exactly what is wrong with having the browser be part of the OS? It does OS-like things in a very natural way, and you have the advantage of using the same tool to browse the internet that you use to browse your hard drive.
Why should Microsoft be forced to remove IE from Windows? That to me seems the weakest of the antitrust arguments, because it is clear to me that IE is not just "bundled" but an integral part of the system.
If someone has a clear refutation of the above, I'd be very interested to hear it.
Re:Can they change it to Windowmaker (Score:2)
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
Re:Very nice for Mozilla and Netscape. (Score:2)
Ok, that -turbo option is VERY cool, that was exactly the feature I've been waiting for to allow me to finally dump IE as my primary browser (can't kill it completely, web programming yadda yadda).
Thanks for the tip!
---
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Comment removed (Score:5)
In case of slashdot, read this... (Score:2)
market research (Score:2)
Re:Oh yeah (Score:3)
Unfortunately, nobody ever slapped Microsoft with the fact that a HTML component does not a web browser make.
Can they change it to Windowmaker (Score:2)
Can my OEM do that??
Brilliant! (Score:3)
Of course, the problem with this used to be that Microsoft put advertisements for MSN (and other ISPs that paid MS) directly on the desktop.
However, with the release of XP, they've embedded this marketing into the OS itself, so changing the desktop isn't a problem anymore
An example of this is their Photo-Editing software, which automatically will send your digital photographs to a choice of developers: all of which then much pay Microsoft a fee for the reference.
The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software (Score:2)
Richard Stallman -- The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software [linuxtoday.com]
---
Re:How can Allchin this with a straight face? (Score:3)
I've never been a MS fan. I'm a Mac user. I find Windows to be combersome and painful to use. It's a BIG glitzy piece of annoy ware. I do own a PC (and two Macs). I use it a fancy mp3 player combined with streamsicle...
Anyhow, I have used WinXP RC1. I can say the following about it....It's multitasking is far superior to WinME's, both in responsivness and speed. The IE shell used for browsing the harddrive actually gives more useful features. The individual control panels are far superior, GUI wise (most specifically the Networking setup). IE's tool is customizable in better ways... In general is a vast improvement over ME. It's still not a Mac, but's it better...
Now this doesn't mean the XP is any less nefarious...
Whatever (Score:4)
Having control of the desktop is bigger than some icons. If IE, WMP, and other such things are still bundled with Windows, icon or no icon, developers will ASSUME they are there and when you need to connect to the web while interacting with an app, you know what that app is going to call up...IE....
This doesn't even mention thier bullying of Intel, Apple, Compaq, and others...
Re:MS responds to consumer complaints (Score:2)
I agree with you on the OEM efforts - Compaq and Packard Bell shipped some shells that gave WinBOB a run for its money. Shudder...
IE is easy to get rid of... (Score:2)
--
Clean? (Score:3)
For most people who run computers with a default manufacturer's install of any Windows OS, the desktop is always bloated whether it comes with the icon's on the desktop or not. The level of expertise for that average user isn't high enough to know of any directory other than c:\windows\desktop, to which they are under the impression is their root directory if you notice Windows filesystem hierarchy. Having seen one too many home user's systems, I understand that even windows can be too complicated for some people. They save everything onto the desktop! I've seen some people whose desktop's were so full icons they started pouring off the screen!
Why Microsoft would want to ship their desktop "clean" is beyond me, they should already know that "clean" isn't going to stay that way for very long.
AOL-Linux (Score:3)
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:2)
So many computer problems are conflicts or user error that every effort to avoid having it sent back more than pays for itself. It is under warranty, and charging customers penalties for non-hardware related issues would lose their business and the business of everyone they know. Bad PR is the kiss of death in a commodity market, when all you really have to sell is your company.
I do feel sorry for the poor folks who have to suffer for this- taking people whose VCRs are still blinking 12:00 and trying to get something constructive done is brutal. I can't even talk someone through configuring a box when I'm in the room with them.
"You know, the golf course is the only place he isn't handicapped."
Re:Oh yeah (Score:3)
A feature that is vital for every other app that M$ writes belongs in... the operating system, not the damn web browser! That is where your OS-wide uniform standards that developers can RELY upon should be placed. Did you actually read your comment before submitting it? You seem to mean that M$ is doing the best thing here, but none of your arguments support that.
"You know, the golf course is the only place he isn't handicapped."
Re:Way to go Justice Department! (Score:2)
___
Re:There's a surprise (Score:3)
The article states
While trumpeting last week's "victory" in the Court of Appeals, Microsoft executives would do well to recall the words of King Pyrrhus after his famous battle with the Romans: "One more such victory and we are lost."
and
when the court addressed the charge of monopolization of the operating-system market, which was the core of the case, the news was all bad for Microsoft.
Re:it's an AP story, not an MSNBC story (Score:2)
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?SLUG=MICROSOFT %2dLICENSING [ap.org]
Re:it's an AP story, not an MSNBC story (Score:2)
MS, CNET On 7-Day Messenger Outage [slashdot.org]--Slashdot misidentifies a ZDNet story as a CNet story, and misdentifies a ZDNet-written story posted on MSNBC as an MSNBC story.
Or from last week, MSNBC on Slashdot, [slashdot.org] where Slashdot mistakes an Inside.com story for an MSNBC story.
I'm not asking for perfection, just a genuine effort--Slashdot doesn't even seem to try to get this stuff right. And by the way, I do make sure to let other news sources know when they make mistakes. You should, too.
it's an AP story, not an MSNBC story (Score:3)
It is my hope and dream that one day Slashdot will start properly attributing news stories to the organizations that originally produced them. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Re:Boy, this is gona suck (Score:2)
Thats what I think most new users find so frustrating about computers, you can't use the so called playstation mentality for fixing problems. (If you put a game into a playstation and it doesn't work, then you put another game into the playstation. If that game doesn't work then you know its the playstation that is broken. If the 2nd game does work then you know its the 1st game thats broken) This kind of problem solving simply doesn't work for PC's.
How deep does it goes? (Score:2)
Hello? What will it do, remove iexplorer.exe file? ( 61,952Bytes )
You can't remove IE from Windows, too much will break without it.
What this will do is to take out the easy way to get to it. (Removing icons & shortcuts etc and maybe the executable itself (which doesn't do much, most of IE is in COM components)
This is like saying, that you can remove KDE from the system, by running GNOME.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
A lot of parts that come with IE are required for programs (MS and third party) to work.
Practically any Windows application with builtin browser need IE to function.
What they remove is the ability to run IE.
I don't see a reason to do it, at best, it will take a MB or two off your HD, the bulk of what makes IE is still there.
And can't be removed, even if MS wanted to.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Re:Oh yeah (Score:2)
That would make a *lot* more than just Office, MSDN, VS & Quicken stop functioning.
The Windows Help, the file browser, the desktop, etc, are been done with IE.
What you get when you uninstall IE is the in-ability to run IE directly. That is *all*!
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Re:Oh yeah (Score:3)
Neither would Star Office or Opera (for that matter).
Cross platform applications has little use of IE, because they would need to integrate a browser anyway on non-Windows machines, and it makes sense to do it in a cross platform and use it on Windows as well.
But a *lot* of programs are using IE's DLL.
Macromedia is a company, not an application.
As for WinAmp, it MiniBrowser uses IE.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Boy, this is gona suck (Score:3)
Re:Oh yeah (Score:3)
Fantastic - I was having problems with this. Being a netscape guy, I uninstalled IE from my work machine. Then I got passed a copy of Office2000 professional. During Install, I chose not to install IE. However, after installation - huh? whats that on my desktop? Yep. It had gone right on ahead and installed IE. Then I uninstalled IE again, and installed some components from disk 2 of Office2000 (which (supposedly) doesnt contain IE). You guessed it. After that, IE was back again, like a little lost flea-ridden dog.
Please excuse my bad analogy and random ramblings, but this really wound me up.
Anyways, this all stinks of coporatations trying to force their products on you. I wouldnt mind windows if it wasnt so intrusive. Adverts on the desktop anyone?
I dont think this shift in policy will make alot of difference to the consumer: It will just be someone else's products being forced down your neck. However, it is probably a good idea for business, stopping monopolies etc.
They're still a Monopoly... (Score:3)
This may please the Justice Dept, but won't please the techies. Microsoft will continue to push their products as bundles by forcing dependicies between their products. They will continue to embrace&extend other technologies the same as they always have in recent years. They will continue to swipe the little guy's idea and make it theirs, leaving the little guy out in the cold.
But this may be a step in the right direction. If enough lawyers out there realize the effects of these other practices, they can use this case as a basis. If Microsoft claims they are unable to untie certain dependicies, the lawyers can argue back that Microsoft first said that IE and Windows were inseparable, yet today they made them able to separate.
Kudos to Microsoft? (Score:3)
If we continue bashing people when they take steps towards openness, no one will ever see a benefit for moving in that direction. No, Microsoft isn't perfect, and no I don't plan on willingly using Microsoft products more than I have to. However, this does make me hate them less. Just a little bit. A tiny bit.
Then again, this is Slashdot. Not bashing Microsoft whenever possible is a good way to destroy your karma I guess. Ah well...its just Karma.
---