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.
Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows Free (Score:4, Interesting)
What difference does it really make? (Score:1, Interesting)
Either way why would you ship an Operating system without a web browser? Sure you could ship Windows with Netscape but isn't competition a good thing? The only reason Netscape 6 is somewhat of a decent product is because IE pushed it into overddrive. The fact that IE is shipped with Windows is no more a point of contention nowadays than X being shipped with any Linux distro. (Okay maybe not all of them... but you get the point)
Anyway I'll probably get modded down since I've dared make a comment that doesn't equate Microsoft to the Antichrist. Oh well sue me. I've still got my Linux box and my Windows XP box running side by side day by day. They seem to get along well enough, so why can't we?
J
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
Kierthos
Re:The Truth (Score:5, Interesting)
Admitting something can be done is redundant. It is technically possible to do almost anything, but that isn't the point. What should and should not be done, or forced upon a company by Tha Man, is the question here. Stripping down Windows may indeed cripple Microsoft and traumatize the computer industry as Microsoft pundits claim. Or it might not. Whichever view is more convincing to a Judge is what matters here, not the almost limitless potential of technology.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:XP Embedded (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, if you look at MS's vision for the PC in 3-4 years time, it approaches a consumer electronic device more than anything else, which competes in the living room with the TV. With that in mind, I wonder who was leading who in this cross-examination.
Just my rather dazed thoughts. I think I need sleep...
Was MS could use this to tjeir advantage (Score:4, Interesting)
But lets not forget MS's past. Suppose they shipped XP Lite (say $30 to the consumer, $15 to OEM's, and other components could be downloded for a price). You put on Mozilla, and set it to be the default app for HTML.
Any bets that MS would simply make their help files - which should be HTML based - so non-HTML standard that Mozilla can't display them correctly? Then they can say on their tech support line "Oh, help files won't display? It's because your computer seller sold you a non-standards compliant browser - buy IE for $5, and next time, only buy a computers from a vendor that isn't trying to rip you off with cheap open source software."
They do the same for media files (excusive contracts with artists, who don't get anything from the RIAA anyway) to make their online music only Windows Media. Or who knows what else - remember the DR DOS issue? They've done t once, and like a fomer priest defrocked priest running a day care, they'll do t again.
The point is MS could make windows modular - and we would still have to watch them like a hawk to keep them from using their old tricks.
Re:XP Embedded (Score:3, Interesting)
What is being overlooked here is software development and support. Think of the number of applications that are out there that currently make calls to "middleware" in Windows OS's. Now, lets say my mother buys a new Dell but Dell has opted to take out IE & MS Media Player. My dear old mother starts to install programs that use IE and MS Media Player and suddenly they do not work. She is not going to understand or care about anything other than either a) her new computer is broken or b)she is not going to repurchase the latest versions of perfectly working programs. Are we going to expect all the other software companies that already have a difficult time competing to go back and re-release fixes for all of thier old applications for free?!?!!? The would go bankrupt!
The reality of it is there are too many dare I say legacy applications out there that will be disabled and create a support nightmare. Aditionally, think of the support problems. Your new girlfriend (or boyfriend) calls and wants some help with his or her computer. Which version do they have? Does it have IE built in or not? Defrag built in or not? Media player, HyperTerminal, or any list of other things.
The really big question is what constitutes "middleware"? Read the description provided by both MS & the 9 states. The concept of this "middleware" is not based on technology but a feeling some lawyers have. In theroy could the entire user interface not be "middleware"? Linux ships without a specific GUI, so could Windows, now we really have a support and programming nightmare.
Like it or not, MS has helped do one thing- provide a simplified base for the consumer . Not us programmers, hacksers, and computer junkies, but for our mothers, brothers and aunts. My mother need only know that she has a really fast Dell Pentium IV with Windows XP Home on it to go get a new program. The support for the enduser will only get worse if the number of different OS's and "modules" grows adinfinum.
IMHO while I do not really like MS, I have to agree a modular WinOS will wreak havoc in the consumer PC market and quite possibly set us back not from a technical standpoint but from a end user support and usablity standpoint.
*shrug*
-JLKRe:Was MS could use this to tjeir advantage (Score:1, Interesting)
As far as the HTML help files are concerned - I'd be interested in knowing whether or not you could view Apples help in a non Apple "browser". If you were a bit more knowledgable about your OS you would know that Apple has embedded their own HTML rendering component for the help system.
Its also funny that you mention selling IE for $5 when for $15 dollars I can purchase an MS addon to Media Player that allows me to rip music directly into MP3 format. This of course diminishes the value of your next point.
I do agree windows could be modular though I'm truly at a loss to see who it would benefit. Keep in mind that most consumers have next to nothing in common with most of the people here and they don't particulary care to install five different browsers, twenty text editors, and fifteen window managers. We may enjoy it - they probably won't.
J
Maintaining performance (Score:2, Interesting)
Mr. Gates has realized that if the bloatware is stripped out two things will happen the will foster a public backlash on MS:
- The OS will WAY faster. This fact will hit the media; people will be pissed that unnecessary bloatware was slowing down their computers (I have no idea yet HOW the media would dumb this down to the average public's ability to understand it, but you know it will happen in some form or another).
- Spyware will be harder/impossible. Windows Update is too obvious a chioce, and too closely and easily watched. With a stripped down distro, and chatter becomes highly suspicious. How will they do their "marketing"?
Fault by design (Score:2, Interesting)
Gates: It'll break Windows if we remove IE.
Me: Innovate, Mntherfncker! INNOVATE!
Why does no one mention in the case that Windows is this way because they made it this way. They can unmake it. Of course they can... everyone here knows this. Seems like they're hiding under a technical excuse; they really, really don't want to take IE out. The 'heart' of the system? Puh-leeze. What about the kernal?
I also still think it's odd that IE for Mac doesn't get mentioned, too. There's your completely independent 'application' in action. Remove it by dragging the big shiny icon to the trash.
When you talk about bringing down Microsoft... (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it objectively here for a second: Microsoft started as a tiny corporation, and for no other reason than they anticipated user demand and repeatedly delivered software to meet it they became hugely successful.
This is good. They are an example of a company running well. The fact that bill gates has that much money is evidence of the success of the capitalist system. He is a genius who worked hard to bring software to people at a time when not many other people were doing it. He deserves to be rewarded for this hard work more than a cashier who can't see beyond their menial work, and can't apply their brain to any sort of progress, does. He values his mind over anything else, obviously, and has applied it to a variety of problems, quite effectively.
Now, to say that it is just or moral for the government to step in and say: "Hmmm. Sorry. Too successful. This is capitalism, but, you know, it just doesn't feel right, you having all this money and other people not having as much money. After all, we are all people, and we all deserve what you have as well." Then you are talking about cannibalism. Horrible, afwul, communist style cannibalism that threatens the very foundation that your country was built on.
People are individuals. To imagine, and then enforce, the doctrine that any given person deserves the same compensation for sitting around their house all day as Bill Gates does for relentlessly pursuing a goal and achieving it is immoral.
Think about this: imagine Linux becomes wildly successful, captures 98% of the desktop market because Microsoft has been subdued and thoroughly kicked in the teeth for what they do so well. Now, imagine if the government came in and said: "No more. No more open source. Move it all to private companies. Lots of them. This is not benefitting the public, your definition of free enterprise, and you have to stop. Releasing source code is now illegal, and, by the way, you support too many different things too well, so dumb some of them down a shade, and have it crash every once in a while. Other people deserve to capture the same market as you, even though they can't do this as well as you. After all, we are all human."
A disgusting thought? Very.
Careful when you turn the law and the government against a competitor. Learn to compete against them on moral terms or don't bother. Next you'll want the government to change your diapers too.
Window belongs to Microsoft. Windows should be able to do anything they can make it do, and no cannibal should be allowed to make it do anything less. If you want to curtail their profits, to make them fail, you have the right to do that: don't buy their products, develop better products. Anything else is uncivilized.
Re:And in other news.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's important because Gates had not yielded the point in the first round of cross-examination.
Gates was reminded that an earlier witness for the States had testified that it would be possible to put together a stripped-down version (some CS prof who was given access to the source in order to prepare his testimony).
Gates said the earlier witness was wrong.
Gates was asked if the court should really be expected to believe him rather than the witness. Gates answered to the effect that "I know the Windows product
Now the attorney for the states has apparently brought up XP Embedded explictly and Gates was forced to yield.
The attorney for the states has been attacking the credibility of Gates's answers on several issues, for instance his claim that MicroSoft will withdraw Windows from the market if the states prevail.
So the point isn't the unsurprising (to software engineers) point that Windows XP could be modularized (given that it has already been modularized).
The point is that the attorney for the states has destroyed the credibility of Gates earlier testimony on this issue.
Which may well undermine the credibility of much of the rest of Gates testimony.
The attorney for the states has also been quite successful in undermining the credibility of several other witnesses for Microsoft.
The effect of diminishing the credibility of Gates and other MS witnesses might be huge when the Judge considers her ruling.
Or it might not
Re:Yea.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:XP Embedded (Score:5, Interesting)
You're kind of making my point yourself. The only way Microsoft could really catch up with Netscape was by giving away a product for free. Sure, they were competing on price - they had to, to survive. The price was zero. Now, imagine they had to do that with all their products. They wouldn't survive long.
Why don't Dell, HP, Compaq etc. put StarOffice as default on their PCs? I'm sure Sun would love that. Many customers would probably love it too. But Microsoft will do whatever they can to prevent PC manufacturers from doing this. Why? Because otherwise, the decision Joe User has to make is, do I want to keep using StarOffice that came or free on my PC, or do I want to pay $500 to get Microsoft office? You'd quickly find lots of small companies and individual users using StarOffice, and it would begin to take off. That kind of thing must absolutely scare the pants off Microsoft. You can't compete on price when things come for free with a new PC - that's why Microsoft must control that and not the PC manufacturers. Otherwise, MS are fucked.
Re:Windows Free (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it wouldn't help Windows succeed in the server market. But trust me, it would kill Linux on the desktop.
Re:Hmm.... interesting. (Score:1, Interesting)
OT - NT ATMs (Score:3, Interesting)
interesting.... well, I hope you realize that you'll probably never know what OS the equipment used on you uses, much the same as you don't notice on bank machines (which hardly ever crash, btw)
True enough, but the one time I did have one crash on me (while I was getting it to do the intensive task of checking the balance in my current account) I was faced with the message "Windows NT is Restarting" and could only watch helplessly through the reboot as it kept hold of my card (and my one source of getting money). I've made it a point ever since to avoid ATMs with pretty displays just in case they're running NT. Green screens just feel safer, somehow.
Re:The Truth (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, but like dentistry and teeth, the truth can be painful in the extracting. Too often there's more effort put into the whining, pissing and moaning about why the tooth shouldn't be pulled, how bad it hurts to pull it, but little on how well off everyone concerned is once it's out in the open. (My wisdom tooth experience a perfect example, life's much better without impacted wisdom teeth, thank you very much, but took a while and considerable suffering to actually get me into the chair.)
Now that painful truth has been brought out, don't believe for a moment Microsoft hasn't already devoted a lot of effort to strategizing how to make the most of it (i.e. by violating the published API they could still make their expansion packs work more smoothly than third party products) to continue domination of the market.
In the interest of idly exploring possible releases...
WindowsLite: Minimum OS, no Explorer, no plugins, no bloat. Platform to build upon servers, print managers, development, etc.
WindowsBusiness: OS with all the API junk for Office apps and networking
WindowsGamer: Essentially WindowsLite worked for best interaction with Video cards, sound cards, game controllers
WindowsDeluxe: The full heap, bloat, security holes and all
WindowsPersonal: Geared for home use, budget minded user, can be configured with buyer selection of browser, mail client, media tools, etc.
Re: Competition in the auto industry vs. software (Score:3, Interesting)
With computers, we've got the infrastructure standardized (I refer to the Internet and TCP/IP here.), but after you buy your computer - you not only select an operating system, but also all the software that runs on top of it.
I think people often forget that only 10 years ago or so, we had all sorts of operating system choices - but people did nothing but complain about it, and demanded standardization. (That game is really cool on your Commodore 64 computer, but it won't run on my Atari, or on my buddy's TRS-80.) Back then, your computer and your operating system were truly tied together, since the OS was usually in firmware.
When IBM compatibles started gaining popularity (with MS-DOS as the operating system standard), it only really happened after they offered enough compelling software titles to pull everyone else away from their non PC compatible systems.
In other words, the software applications/games/utilities themselves drive people's operating system (and therefore, computer) buying decisions. Since Microsoft lucked into owning the OS (DOS) that ended up rising to the top back then, they've had the head start and the money to hang onto that position ever since.
New companies could write consumer operating systems left and right, but it won't make any difference unless compelling new software is developed that only runs on those new operating systems. Right now, except for Linux people who attempt this largely because they just want to do something to force Microsoft out, there's not much of a business reason to develop code for anything but Microsoft products. (Most game programmers, for example, are tied up developing compelling new titles for dedicated gaming systems like Playstation 2 -- not for some yet unheard-of OS for a new computer.)
Re:What system would that be? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the system of laws. The one that says you can't break the law, and if you do, you are punished. The one that says that you cannot lie to a judge. The one in which you cannot falsify evidence.
Or is the fantasy, PC liberalized reality that our world has become where the giggest monopoly on the planet cannot compete and there for spends half a billion dollars in it's own name and in the names of others lobbying and buying off politicals to ensure a company who has acted aggressively in the market, leading it to new heights of consumer satisfaction while at the same time pricing and licensing small companies out of business or inline with only their product (questionable and illegal if done wrong, which MS did in some cases), is challenged by bought of attorneys from the state level no less (and who barely understand the materials in front of them, let alone the computers they generate the mountains of paper on that they live and breath by while suffacating buisness and the individual alike in a swarmy and broken justice system)?
...What the hell? Are you asking a question here?
I think anyone who bribes elected officials should go to jail, no questions asked, I think that the fact that the judges aren't programmers doesn't have any bearing in the legal behaviour of the company, and I think you should reconsider your paragraph structure.
Get real asshole... the issue is not bundling... that's a liberal and political back scratching issue of the competitors who can't compete directly acting to cut out the best company. MS has some big problems and committed some illegal acts, but it wasn't by building an OS to their specs and advertizing/selling as such. When you can prove that other competitors products do not work under MS code, then you have a case. Jackass.
You are just an idiot, aren't you? I'm talking about a man who is toying with the legal system by constantly lying and showing contempt(and often finding interesting(but legal) ways to ignore)for his punishments. If I cared about bundling, I would have mentioned it. Jackass.
You're almost as bad as he is! I say he should be thrown in jail because he's a liar, a crook, and a criminal, and you go off on some rant on how MS shouldn't be held accountable for bribing the federal government?