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.
duh (Score:0, Insightful)
XP Embedded (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's clear that XP embedded would not be what "the consumers" want for their desktops; but on the other hand, Microsoft clearly CAN engineer an OS on x86 that is modular and customizable for OEMs, as the sanctions seem to be calling for.
I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't WANT to expend the time, effort, and MONEY to develop such an OS; not that it isn't possible. They apparently think integration is their only key to stability.
Explain to me, then, all the various Linux distros for desktops that allow you pick and choose? And much of those components are developed by what Microsoft would consider "amateurs?"
Temper justice with reason (Score:5, Insightful)
"What Windows is loses any meaning," claimed Mr Gates. He said the proposals were "fantasies" that gave his business rivals "everything they ever dreamed of".
Sure, Microsoft needs to lose some power here, but I hope they don't swing the pendulum too far the other way. Are we really any better off if Sun or Oracle are given the power to choose the direction of Windows? I hope the decision makers stick to the principle of "What's good for the consumers," and not just "What's bad for Microsoft."
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Did any of you actually READ the article? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, I beg you. Read the articles before spewing your hatred. It does nothing for your cause.
In other news today . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
In some ways it will, in others it won't. It all depends on how much RAM you have. If you have lots of RAM, you would probably not notice that much of the slowdown the preloading of Internet explorer and such things causes. If you have a less powerful machine, you probably will. The real benefit would be that you won't have to waste disk space having these things installed. Your windows partition could maybe for the first time in some years be less than 1 GB?
Not that HDs are that expensive these days anyway.
The real value on the other hand is that IE, WMP, etc. might not be as much "standard components" as they are today, when not integrated into windows any longer. But still, they would probably be bundled on the installation CD and most people would probably install them anyway.
I wonder if a stripped down version of the Windows OS would yeild better performance with the decreased overhead of the needless features...
That is a trollish statement. Like Windows or not, my Win2K box has not ever gotten a BSOD and only locked up completely (forcing reboot) once in over a year.
Re:Temper justice with reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, the anti-trust laws are in place to protect the users/consumers, not reward MS competition.
Monopoly punishment = losing your monopoly. Duh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, no! Really?! You're telling me that the very people you've pushed around for a decade or so might actually see some benefits when you finally get caught and punished? Wow!
Imagine that, Microsoft's punishment for its unfair stranglehold on the computing industry is a lessening of that stranglehold!
I'm cryin' here...
LIAR! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a second, is there a single slashdot reader who wouldn't agree that writing modular software is a good thing? Is there a single person who passed Computer Science 101 who wouldn't agree that modular software, with clearly defined interfaces isn't easier to debug and maintain?
If Microsoft's software is not modular, it is not for technical reasons. Its monolithic nature is not an attempt to "serve the consumer". The monolithic nature of microsoft software has proven extremely costly to consumers. Gates cites "reasonable business behaviour"? Translation: "Screw the consumer. Hook 'em. Gut 'em. Hang 'em up to dry. And tell them to like it."
Let's examine some of Microsoft's design decisions.
MS-DOS, MS-Windows 3.x, orginal Windows 95, did not initiate a fsck, or its DOS equivalent. How come? I am sure slashdot readers who are old enough have had the same experience that I had back then. Naive computer users who ask for our help, because "they have been hit by a virus". What makes them think they have been hit by a virus? Some of their files have become corrupted, or disappeared. Initiate a scandisk, and what did you find? Dozens or hundreds of file fragments, leftover and never repaired from when Windows crashed on them. How much has all this disk corruption cost consumers? My estimate? At least ten billion dollars.
Or consider macro viruses? People used to ask, "can I get a virus through e-mail?" And we used to be able to tell them "no", unless they chose to open an executable attachment. E-mail macro viruses, Word macro viruses, are only possible due to really stupid design decisions on the part of Microsoft. How costly has that been?
Re: XP Embedded (Score:5, Insightful)
> I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't WANT to expend the time, effort, and MONEY to develop such an OS; not that it isn't possible. They apparently think integration is their only key to stability.
No, they think integration is their only key to keeping other vendors off the playing field.
Which is of course why they're in court to begin with.
Re:XP Embedded (Score:2, Insightful)
"
You make it sound oh-so-simple. Fact is Windows is already a tech-support's nightmare, or dream concidering that it pays their jobs.
The approach of Microsoft has been wrong from the beginning. Their base is nothing but simple. They have built a house of straws and now it's all coming apart.
A computer is not an appliance. It doesn't just have an on and off button. The best we can do now is offer simple solutions from the start. Unfortunally the abundance of Microsoft Windows have ruined much of that already.
So what if a few apps breaks with a specialized windows? It should give Microsoft a solid kick in the butt and make them start doing things right instead of using tired business practises and hacking on an close to obsolete operating system.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
And why don't perjury charges apply here?
IANAL, but real, practicing attorneys have told me that almost nobody is ever charged with perjury. Every time the cross-examination catches someone in a lie, is it perjury? We'd need new prisons.
OT: Knowing this, the hypocricy of certain elected representatives a few years ago, who of course lie all the time and know very well how exceedingly rare perjury charges are, should be more apparent. Not that their opponents aren't equally hypocritical
Old News (Score:0, Insightful)
OHH, I get it!
It's another chance to put the BORG-GATES on
Anyone?
Borrriinngg.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not perjury, because the answers aren't as simple as yes or no. It can easily be argued that the States are compareing two different things.
Re:XP Embedded (Score:5, Insightful)
Integration (bundling things together, and making them require each other) is a primary method that a corporation can use to differentiate their products from their competitors, to retain control over the product they are selling, to retain their market share, to create barriers to entry of competitors, and to maintain abnormally high prices.
Modularization (breaking things up into little black boxes with well defined interfaces) is a strategy for allowing competition, and is therefore much favored by consumers, in the long run.
Which is not to say that integration is always bad. In a competitive market, integration is a valuable technique for product differentiation, but less valuable as a means to retain product control. In a monopolized market, integration is useless as a product differentiator, but extremely effective for retaining product control.
One of Microsoft's strategies all along has been to pretend they don't have a monopoly, and therefore everything they do must be for the "competitive market" reasons (which are to be encouraged) rather than the "monopolized market" reasons, which earned them their antitrust conviction.
As an example, if you must buy a Ford radio for your Ford car, your choices are more limited than if you can buy any radio, tape player, CD player, etc. and just "plug it in". They can also require you to buy one of their (presumably overpriced) radios with every car they sell, even if you don't need a radio. The example breaks down with software; a Ford truck can't know you've installed a non-Ford radio, and therefore can't demand that you remove it and replace it with a genuine Ford radio. With software, it not only can do this, it can do it by itself.
When Microsoft says they can't create a modular operating system, they just mean it's not in their own interest to do so. The free software community, being built by the consumers of the software, has every incentive to modularize, and little incentive to force integration.
Their embedded product is an example of where they don't yet have a monopoly, in a market that requires a modular product. You bet they have a modular version of Windows to address that market.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except his statement had nothing to do with what you were refuting, he was talking about windows performing better because less gunk was taking up memory/cpu time, you were talking about stability.
totally different issues
Making Lemonade.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember that billion dollar settlement where MSFT was going to "give" a "billion" dollars worth of hardware/software to schools - and just incidentally deliver a crushing blow to Apple in the education market?
How about the requirement for uniform licensing deals to all manufacturers? MSFT has been turning that to their advantage as well (The court says we have to change our sales contract with you - Dude, you're gonna be paying more now).
I have faith (and now I'm not bashing MSFT here) that if MSFT is required to provide a stripped down version of Windows they will find a way to turn that to their advantage. Just as a simple example, consider how much easier it will be for MSFT to produce a reasonably secure OS when they don't have to worry about a default setting in Outlook or IE being a virus/worm/trojan vector. If this does happen. I expect to see MSFT (after taking care of their own problems) suddenly coming out in favor of making software companies legally responsible for damage done by insecure software. (Once again making lemonade)
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cars are to some extent modular.
If I buy a Volvo car, I can put on tyres from another manufacturer, or the windscreen, oil filter, spark plugs, paint, in fact you could change the engine if you wanted. I am not forced to use Volvo tyres, or Volvo spark plugs, paint etc.
I have read that in the early days of the industrial revolution, manufacturers used to do things like vary the treading and size of bolts so that it forced you to buy components from them - you couldn't bolt on parts from other manufacturers because their bolts wouldn't match the threads. Eventually, people realised that this was crazy and these days we have standards for virtually everything in engineering.
Software is still at a more primitive stage. Bill Gates just doesn't want all this bolts to be standardized.
This would be even better... (Score:3, Insightful)
So as long as people are willing to accept whatever their OEM have installed for the lifetime of their machine, this is a perfectly acceptable solution.
However, it does seem that they could develop an installer for XP Embedded--the fact that it currently isn't up to the task is hardly an excuse.
~=Keelor
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill not only wants you to buy the nuts and bolts (word and excel) from him, but the tools also (VB.net, C#.net, etc). If he can get everything sufficently tied together, then you will have no option to install those non-Microsoft wipers on you Microsoft Modular Car (get it MMC). It will be modular, as long as it is a Microsoft module that you are installing. You can't possibly replace the speedometer with the OSX version that looks nicer, nor the fuel injectors with the Linux version that gets better fuel economy, nor can you replace the tires with Java tires so that you can run on roads built by Sun Microsystems, IBM, and many others.
Do you trust your entire life to the folks that want to know what you watch on TV (remember Web-TV)?
Re:XP Embedded (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way having to figure out if a program is there or not (and deal with it) is more complex than (the current situation of) having to figure out which version is installed (and deal with it)???
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the States case is still flawed. (Score:2, Insightful)
How much smaller could you make Linux if you were only running on something like an XBOW or ATM machine? I am pretty damn sure you could chuck a significant portion.
The key problem with the States proposed solution is they don't know what they are asking for, let alone know dick about technology. To be so stupid as to label Office as "middleware" should throw red-flags up for everyone!.
I enjoy being able to write CDRs with XP, but that would most likely be ripped from a streamlined system as the definition of "middleware" that the states has is "vaporous" at best.
Gates was right, it is "technically" possible. Anything with is mostly "technically" possible, the question is, is it "marketable"?
I doubt it.
Have some rationality here, truthsearch (Score:4, Insightful)
> poorly designed without fearing loss of
> customers.
The Linux kernel has made similar comprimises, and Torvalds has admitted as much in debates about monolithic vs. micro kernels. Linux's monolithic design is not as flexible as it could be (when compiled), but the design increases execution speed and ease-of-coding. The HURD was designed to be aggressively modular, with very cool, very fine-grained things you can do with services that would be the exclusive domain of the superuser on other kernels. It was designed this way because the FSF is lead by a visionary, uncomprimising, probably somewhat mad Coder. Linux was designed initially to be a quick fix for GNU (see Torvalds' 1991 post to comp.os.minix announcing Linux -- "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu"). So the Linux kernel design comprimised modularity for expediency. This was a good thing, just as the continuing work on the HURD is a good thing. They have different goals, and will succeed in different ways.
G-tes, although he probably doesn't realize it, is pointing out the same phenomenon in the codebase of his Spawn. The ol' NT codebase wasn't designed to be modular (to the extent it was, it didn't stay that way long). The non-modularity was for expediency (like Linux) and to promote an inescapable software monoculture (ALSO LIKE LINUX!
Compare This (Score:2, Insightful)
(I just mention cereal because I am eating some now.
Depends on the Dealer (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are the dealers in the PC world? Dell, Gateway, HP. In each case, MS mandates that they cannnot make such deals with their customers. There was a time when Dell offered Netscape instead of IE. IBM offers Norton Antivirus, not McAffee scan. But if you don't like it, nothing prevents you from doing so. But to replace IE is to reduce the functionality of explorer.exe!
Re:The Truth (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many models of the standard 4-door family mover are there in the U.S.A.: GM has a few, Ford has a few, Chrysler has a few, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Daewoo, VW, BMW, Volvo, Saab, Mercedes, and more I can't remember.
How many models of consumer-grade operating systems are there: Microsoft has a few (>85% share), Apple has a couple (<15% share) ,
Consumer to Microsoft salesperson, "You won't come down in price?? Well, okay, who do I make the check out to?"
Also, no one is forced to buy a new car. A technically-inclined person can go scavenge a junk yard and rebuild a classic. The laws work so that he can get by with older technology, too, with just a few restrictions.
The car-road interface has been standardized well enough, that we don't have to worry about suddenly having to drive on rails or fly on tethers. In software, however, Microsoft wants to own the roads and dictate that only Microsoft tires can achieve traction on those roads. They want us to be under their control.
A nightmare for developers. (Score:2, Insightful)
As a developer, I already have huge problems writing code that uses various functions that are only supported on particular versions of Windows.
E.g. InterlockedCompareExchange is a function that is useful for performing low-level synchronization in situations where standard Mutex's, etc. don't really cut it for one reason or another.
Looking at the documentation, though, I find that it's only available on Win98 or later. If I want to write an app or driver that will work on Win95 too, I can't use this function.
Now, apparently the states want to attach the following addendum to practically every major component in the system: "Might or might not work on any particular machine, depending on what the OEM decided to strip out."
So much for trying to use HTML help. The web browsing services might be removed.
Ack! Please don't do this. There must be better ways to punish Microsoft and encourage competition.
Re:Compare This (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Microsoft, about six years ago they were in the middle of a case about bundling Explorer with the OS. This must have been about when they CHOSE to change the OS design to make it much harder to separate Explorer from Win 98. It's a problem of their own creation, and they did it when they knew that legally they probably shouldn't.
Let's say someone is caught littering, and the judge sentences him to pick up trash. So he shoots off his toe and asks to be let off of the sentence since it's hard to walk. Would you go for that?
This is not a troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Automible industry is REGULATED. (Score:3, Insightful)
But *I* for one don't want the computer industry regulated like the car industry. I don't want to be 16 to drive, i don't want my computer prices to jump up because the government body assuming responsibility/liability is having to do crash testing.
The computer industry has excelled beyond anyones imagination. With or without microsoft THINGS HAPPEN.
I don't want DellXP, CompaqXP, MSXP, GatewayXP. I don't want a stripped down car either. I don't want to go to the VW dealer and tell them i want a small block ford engine instead of a vw motor. What is the point?
It isn't about stealing a product and emulating it either. Windows *IS* microsoft's product.
It Isn't a matter of "what choice of windows do you want today" but "What choice of operating system do you want today"
Don't let this choice BS get to your head. The government can't dictate our choice just like microsoft can't, so i don't know what the big deal about stripping down windows is. Windows is CHEAP, Affordable and RUNS JUST FINE. I don't know about you but i HATED The days when i had to buy Stacker for 99 bucks, QEMM for 69.00 bucks and DESQview for 199 bucks just to run my Wildcat BBS program that cost 399 bucks. I'm pretty happy that a 199.00 product does all of that and more, and i'm SORRY, but that *IS* innovation.
Just like my 500.00 coffee table that lifts up with ease and turns into a desk. Its just an ordinary coffee table that costs alot to everyone else but me who knows the innovation behind it, and yes, adding fatures, functionality, dependablility and useability IS INNOVATION.
This isn't about Microsoft Owning the roads, they *DO* own them. You can CHOOSE YOUR OWN GODDAMN ROAD THOUGH. If you don't like taking the toll road then take the free country road.
Just remember you do get what you pay for, and you don't get something for nothing.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. -- what warranty? (Score:2, Insightful)
Specifically if you install aftermarket parts or if you install them yourself the manufacturer will (probably) consider your warranty void. So Of course, we'd expect that modular windows will not be covered under the MS limite warranty
To be serious, if you document and keep receipts auto manufacturers allow that you can do your own basic maintenance without losing warranty coverage.
Just as others have pointed out I can (and do) save myself a lot of money on my vehicles buying only used cars and doing my own work.
What I like in microsoft's argument is the assertions that letting 3rd parties 'under the hood' will destroy windows and make it less reliable. I actually find it hard to imagine that independent groups who will ultimately be judged by the market on whether they add value for their customers don't stand a pretty good chance of assembling a more reliable system that MS has so far managed to do.
Also on the automotive theme, note that auto makers get most of their profit from selling *parts*, not vehicles. The auto itself is mostly sold at cost.
By the same token I *think* (no solid numbers here) that the industry of *supporting* MS windows is much larger than MS's business of selling the code itself. MS mostly plays in this arena in (pricy) corporate support and in enticing lusers and strongarming enterprises into the continuous upgrade model.
$0.02 us
Re:Funding??! (Score:4, Insightful)
Investors determine stock prices based on the return that they receive on the stock. This return is in the form of dividends, that is, money paid to the owners of a stock as a reward for assuming the risk of owning the stock. The reason that Microsoft's stock value is high is that there is an expectation that dividends will be paid in the future. Using the past as a model for the future, it is my conclusion that Microsoft will continue to not pay dividends. Because of that, the value of Microsoft stock should be zero.
Re:Automible industry is REGULATED. (Score:4, Insightful)
With Microsoft, they choose what you want and what color it comes in.
But *I* for one don't want the computer industry regulated like the car industry.
This isn't about regulation. It's about competition.
I don't want DellXP, CompaqXP, MSXP, GatewayXP. I don't want a stripped down car either.
Many other people do. Having options makes some decisions harder, but our lives are better as a result. I'd rather have 10 models to choose from than one. Let the companies scramble for my business, and let me put them in their place. This is what happens when the free market is in good health.
Don't let this choice BS get to your head.
Without choice, is my life worth living?
Windows is CHEAP, Affordable and RUNS JUST FINE.
Windows is not cheap, and it is a kludge. It does not run fine. In fact, it's behavior is so inconsistent sometimes that I want to punch my monitor.
You can CHOOSE YOUR OWN GODDAMN ROAD THOUGH.
Not when all roads lead to Microsoft.
Just remember you do get what you pay for, and you don't get something for nothing.
When what I'm buying is selling for its true market value. Operating systems used to be expensive, but the market has spoken. Other companies have accepted this fact. For example, I can get Solaris, RedHat Linux, and OpenBSD media for less than $50 (one of these used to be really expensive).
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
But most cars also have various options to choose from a the dealership. You can get a cassette deck or a CD player. You can get a single CD player in the dash, possibly a milti-CD changer in the dash, or a CD changer in the trunk. You can get it with or without a sunroof. You can get black, green, blue, erd, or some other color paint. You can get an automatic or manual transmission. You can get electric power locks or windows, or not. My Honda Civic is a DX model that came with a CD player, but did not have the supposedly fancier V-tech engine, the EX model also can have a CD player but does have the V-tech engine. Or you can get the EX model with V-tech with a cassette player instead of CD. You can get a coupe/2-door or a 4-door sedan version, with some years also offering a hatchback version. While Honda may call it a Civic model, there's a large number of things that can be different from someone else's Honda Civic. Some have spoilers, mine does not... Comparing the possibility/impossibility of modularizing Windows to a car and saying all Honda Civics (or whatever your brand/model is) isn't a good comparison. As while my car came with a CD player, I've seriusly thought of changing it to a cassette deck, as my revious car had that and now all my driving music is on tape, not CD. Don't know about you, but my car is modular enough to allow me to remove the CD player and put a tape deck in its place.
Internet explorer in consumer-choice-friendly theory should allow me to remove it and put something else in its place if I like (just like my car allows me to change out the CD player for a tape deck), but MS says that's "impossible".
If it's impossible for them to make an OS without a browser that cannot be removed, how did Windows 3.x/95 exist before MSIE was bundled into them??
Re:Have some rationality here, user #21766 (Score:3, Insightful)
"You can't remove IE without crippling Windows!!"
That is complete bullshit and is not comparable to anything Linux/hurd/solaris/... have ever done.
t.
Re:There's a HUGE difference... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is already a tool (IEradicator [98lite.net]) that can remove IE from any version of Windows older than Win2Ksp2. Having Microsoft admit this is possible, is just another step forward,
Re:Automible industry is REGULATED. (Score:3, Insightful)
Others may have argued for regulating Microsoft, I have not. I simply want more options for consumers. The DOJ may find that regulations are a way to achieve this, but there are other emerging market forces, such as GNOME and KDE, that may do this for me.
You do have 10 models to choose from. You have FreeBSD, OS2, Linux, Solaris X86, FreeDos, DOS, CP/M, Netware, Darwin and tons of other OS's to choose from.
The original argument concerned consumer-grade operating systems, such as Windows and MacOS. UNIX and its derivatives, for example, are excellent operating systems, but they are simply not intended for Mr. and Mrs. Average Consumer. For these people, there is still only one dominating choice: Windows. MacOS is still a small player. Other promising consumer-grade options, such as OS/2 and BeOS, were simply crushed by the market dominance of Windows.
I can't take the spark plugs out of my rx-7 and fit them in my tiburon.
The point is that Microsoft wants to own the roads themselves. This is much more fundamental than whether certain components are interchangable, this is an issue of whether different people can even share basic information without Microsoft software intervening.
you have problems if your going to commit suicide because of windows
If Bill Gates is able to fufill his visions, then we will basically be living in an information dictatorship--one that I will certainly be looking for a way out of if it occurs. This doesn't imply suicide; rather, I may just stop using computers and change professions.
Prove to me how windows is a Kludge?
Why is my Windows 2000 installation directory nearly 900MB in size? Why is it comprised of 40 million lines of source code? How many tens of thousands of known bugs are there? How many hundreds of thousands of unknown bugs are there? How many thousands of security holes are there? Why can I not uninstall the software I don't want? What is that in the registry? What's with the multi-rooted file system?
From a software engineering standpoint, this is a kludge, where the complexity is simply not justified. There is no way I would use Windows in an application where someone's life depended on it. It's hard enough to see my family and friends trust their important information with it.
It is wrong for microsoft to give away internet explorer but it is fundamentally right for people to give away an entire OS for free?
Microsoft crossed the line, where they used IE to dominate a market. Others package things or give some things away for free as a matter of survival in a competitive marketplace. There really is a difference between "value added" and "value mandated".