Gates Admits Stripped Down Windows Possible 816
ChristTrekker writes "The Financial Times reports that Bill Gates admitted a stripped-down Windows is possible after all." This kinda contradicts a lot of other
stuff he's been saying. There's a few bits in the article worth a read.
Re:duh (Score:2, Informative)
Tom
Re:But if they strip too much... (Score:1, Informative)
Bzzzzzttttt! Wrong Answer. Tell him what he hasn't won Bob.
J
More information here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yea.. (Score:2, Informative)
Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP (Score:0, Informative)
The modularity of their embedded OS has never been questioned, just the desktop OS.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
Am I wrong? Maybe he did say that it couldn't be done.
In any event, the Register has a nice story [theregister.co.uk] about bias of the judge in this case. They point out that this judge has exhibited a significant amount of bias toward MS and the government in this case, and speculate it could be due to two reasons: (1) She is biased (2) She's trying to remove any reason anyone might have in the future for claiming she was biased against MS in a decision against them. I personally don't know. But the crap that MS has been allowed to get away with in this trial has amazed me.
Re:Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So there was ever some doubt? (Score:2, Informative)
Delete those libraries and see what happens.
-----
Re:Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP (Score:3, Informative)
As Gates made very clear in his testimony, Windows XP Embedded is based on the Windows XP code, but without an installer for new applications.
Re:XP Embedded (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft is considered a joke in the embedded world. No important systems use CE,Embedded NT, or whatever they try to offer... the ONLY items that use their "embedded" products are the consumer toys we call PDA's.
Microsoft isnt considered for process control, flight control, elevator control, smart building control, or any REAL embedded systems.. a RealTime DOS or a RT-UNIX is used (Or in the case of aircraft.. a custom application.. NO OS USED)
Microsoft is the joke of the embedded world.. and everything they try outside of gadget-toys flops horribly.. (AutoPC, UltimateTV, WinCD industrial)
Bundling Argument (Score:1, Informative)
Remember IE 3.0? Seemed to work just frickin fine without ActiveDesktop or "push technology" to me!
So the cold facts are that IE doesn't have to be integrated so tightly with explorer. That's a given. BUT... here's what erks me, stupid arguments such as thus:
"The nine litigating states want the software giant to provide a basic version of Windows, without applications such as the browser Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, so that computer makers can install rivals' software."
Really? I have to uninstall IE and WMP before I can install very cool competetive software? OMG!
What OEM (who doesn't have very specific prohibitive contracts with vendors) hasn't been able to install competitive software? Really, who? If they want to add Mozilla as the default browswer they can. In fact the damn thing asks you so when it first runs. And WMP is only there because what the hell else are you gonna use on a fresh install? Install PowerDVD, install DivxPlayer (still DirectShow, I know...), install Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing 2003 - for god sakes, get over it.
If bundling some software with your OS is a crime, then Mandrake and Suse executives are going to prison for 99 consecutive life sentences.
Funding??! (Score:5, Informative)
You should find the following article [cnn.com] from CNN MONEY interesting. It discusses a certain aspect of Microsoft balance sheet.
"No other nonfinancial firm has more liquid money at its disposal, and only a handful of banks do. It's more cash than Ford, ExxonMobil and Wal-Mart have combined, and nearly four times as much as Intel, the tech company with the next largest cash balance.
It is enough to buy the entire airline industry -- twice. Or all the gold in Fort Knox, four times over. It is enough to buy 23 space shuttles or every major professional baseball, basketball, football and hockey team in America. It is an enviable stash. Who wouldn't love to have a bank account like that?"
Some food for thought.
Re:Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP (Score:5, Informative)
I'm developing a Windows XP Embedded based project. Windows XP embedded IS Windows XP -- it IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT based on Windows CE. The individual components and dependencies have been worked out allowing you to choose to install or not to install certain components. Windows XP embedded can run any Windows application and device driver designed for Windows XP or 2000. Windows CE.NET is the next version of Windows CE. Windows XP embedded is the next version of Windows NT embedded and is designed to be fully compatible with all XP software and hardware.
And ofcourse desktop windows is modular, it's built up of many DLLs etc (for fuck's sake). Each new windows OS has been built on previous ones with added functionality. It's just a matter of how fair it is to expect Microsoft to remove vital parts of windows (like IE) from THEIR OS. Windows XP is just as modular as Windows CE. You have DLLs, Drivers etc. It's just that CE was designed to allow the OEM to add/remove certain components (just like Windows XPE).
I can't believe slashbots are still arguing about the modularity of Windows. Noone ever said it technically wasn't. Simply that integration means there are too many dependecies to reasonable remove IE from windows without crippling related subsystems (the help system etc). How can you not understand that software is software, you can remove anything you want. It's just a matter of which components will fail because it relies on it. Redhat Linux wouldn't work as usual if you removed the GTK+ components. Gnome would fail to run etc. But this doesn't mean Linux isn't componentised (I would argue that windows is MORE modular than Linux - windows has proper design for objects (COM) and drivers (WDM)).
Windo$ light (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP (Score:5, Informative)
If you go farther to their Getting Started with Windows XP Embeded [microsoft.com] page, it adds some more interesting notes, such as Based on the same binary files as Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Embedded enables you to rapidly develop reliable and full-featured connected devices. and You can use standard, off-the-shelf x86 hardware components in your Windows XP Embedded designs. In addition, because Windows XP Embedded supports the Microsoft Win32® application programming interface (API), you can use Win32 applications, drivers, or services in your embedded designs with little or no porting required.
This doesn't sound to me like it is impossible to be able to run other software of XP Embeded. In fact, they specifically claim that you can. It should not be too difficult for them to modify it to automatically check dependencies as needed.
One thing to say, that I've been saying all along. (Score:5, Informative)
98Lite.net [98lite.net]
98lite.net shows it's not only possible, but helps improve the speed and reliability of windows.
Is perjury still against the law?
Webster: " the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing"
And for all you disagreeing posters, read the actual 98lite.net pages first before you post back.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:XP Embedded (Score:3, Informative)
Or in the case of aircraft.. a custom application.. NO OS USED
Most avionics envioronmet projects, at least once you get above small prop planes, involve processors running OSs. The most popluar one for the part of market that we deal with still seems to be VxWorks. I've also seen some LynxOS. Linux seems to be still gaining strength in this market, but more where real-time isn't as critical. QNX comes up when you're dealing with Canadian companies, but I haven't heard of it being used that much.
Re:Notes on article. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Funding??! (Score:3, Informative)
In case anyone is interested (without going to the article), the actual figure is something over $40 billion. Not that the long string of comparisons wasn't interesting.
Re:Windows XP Embedded != Windows XP (Score:1, Informative)
Now assuming that MS actually does make manage to make a modular version of windows and some OEM bundles some less the stable software in place of the MS software (like bundling real player instead of Media player) its MS that is going to get all the tech support calls complaining about the problem. MS has finally created about the most stable desktop environments with win2k and winxp (as a desktop they are way more stable then linux, sorry, but its true) and if third parties start bundling in place of the MS applications then all of the work MS did to create a stable os will get flushed down the drain.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
>got thrown in jail in New Mexico
"prison" != "jail". Not by a long shot.
And just being arrested doesn't mean you actually "got thrown in jail", he was more likely taken to the station, booked, and released. I can't find details on what actually happened in a quick 30-second search.
However, he has been arrested more than that one time - in 1975, he was arrested for speeding and driving without a license. The mugshot is from 1977, when he ran a stop sign and again didn't have a license. In 1989 he was arrested in California "on suspicion of drunken driving".
-l
Well, yes. (Score:4, Informative)
They're called API's, folks. Application Programming Interfaces. Win32 is clunky as hell, but undeniably exposes some damn powerful capabilities. Do we really want a federal mandate that developers must not have dependable access to a better way to code?
For all the talk of the browser, I do note that by '98 there wasn't an operating system on the market that shipped without a web browser, except perhaps VxWorks. Windows 98 was one of the last.
--Dan
P.S. I'm a hardcore Linux user, coder, and administrator, and wouldn't mandate Win32 on anyone. It's in that context that I understand the painfulness of MS's position.
Re:Temper justice with reason (Score:3, Informative)
We have proven the Microsoft has a monopoly and the power that goes with it. Now we need to rectify that situation. How do we do this?
Well, a monopoly mans that you can use your power to keep others out of the marketplace unfairly. So we have to force competition back. There are two solutions to this problem: We weaken the monoply (Microsoft) enough that the competition can actually compete, or we strenghen the position of competitors enough that they are able to compete.
The problem with the second solution is that you generally have to pick and choose the companies that you want to set up against the monopoly. For example, how would the federal government effectively help Linux out to compete with Microsoft as a business?
Weakening Microsoft, on the other hand, helps anyone and every compete against them, including competitors who are not even around during this sentencing phase.
The only way that Sun or Oracle will have too much power is if we (the federal government) decide to strengthen them against Microsoft. Weakening MS, on the other hand, will hopefully *increase* competition to the point where no single company will be able to control the market. How will it keep one company from dominating? The remedy to the Microsoft trial should promote competition, and competition is the one thing that will prevent any one company from dominating that market.
I think that Microsoft is going about this all wrong. They are arguing that "If you do this, you will hurt us." Well, boys and girls, that is the point. The governement's solution *is* to hurt MS so as to increase competition. What Microsoft needs to be saying is "This remedy does not work because it will allow another company to simply step in and take our place as a monopoly power."
Unfortunate for Microsoft, no rememdy that has been mentioned thus far has that result.
MS already has a stripped down Windows (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft Financial Pyramid (Score:4, Informative)
Have you read the Microsoft Financial Pyramid [billparish.com], the MS financial fraud analysis from November 1999 by Bill Parish? There's more on Parish's Research and Press Release Archive [billparish.com]. Let me quote few paragraphs:
What do you people think about it?
There's a HUGE difference... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:2, Informative)
I was there--Gates didn't contradict himself (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, he did say that one could use XP Embedded to create a version of XP with the various middleware components removed, but he noted that this doesn't solve the problem at all.
To understand, you need to read Section 1 of the proposed states' remedies. It doesn't simply say that Microsoft must create an unbundled version of Windows. It says that this unbundled version must work as well as the bundled version, with no serious degradation in performance.
Gates said yes, you could use the XP Embedded tools to create an unbundled version of Windows. But all the dependency errors he'd warned about would still occur. In other words, the operating system would indeed run. It's just that dozens, hundreds or thousands of applications programs might not.
And if that isn't a degradation of OS performance, I don't know what is. Gates' so-called "admission" amounted to a restatement of what he's been saying all along.