Microsoft's Longhorn Faces Antitrust Scrutiny

benore writes "The Department of Justice will be reviewing Microsoft's Longhorn product as part of the company's antitrust settlement. One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to soften its image to become kinder and gentler. 'They don't want people to hate them anymore. They've learned from their mistakes.' Hmmm."

Not again...

[Richie1984]

One area that DOJ regulators will be looking at, in particular, is a control panel in Longhorn that facilitates use of a browser and media player other than the Microsoft versions that will be pre-built into the system.
Does this mean that the next version of IE will be built directly into the new OS, as with XP, ME etc? I sincerely hope not, as I am not looking forward to further years of routine tech maintenance on my friend's PCs due to this integration.

Whats the point ?

[naden]

All third-party browsers e.g. Firefox and media players e.g. Quicktime ask whether you wish to make them the default when they are opened for the first time. So what is a control panel supposed to achieve ? The effort for the user is in the downloading and installing of the third-party software.

The DOJ should be instead insisting that Microsoft bundle third-party alternatives with the OS not just providing a control panel.

How can the US DOJ ...

[twilight30]

'review' a product that hasn't been released yet?

And why is the Yahoo article writer so keen to get opinions from that twit of an analyst Laura DiDio? I'm sure someone else here will point out her lovely work defending SCO ...

Finally, why the hell do I care about this? Oh yeah, that's it: because every single one of my clients continues to use MS. Arrgh.

Re:Too late, Bill

[TheRaven64]

Windows 98 really was a huge mistake. I was happy using NT 4 when it was released. If they had released a Windows NT 4.5 with proper DirectX (not the two-versions-old, and 3D-acceleration-may-work-but-probably-won't version that NT4 had) and with a more friendly device configuration GUI it would have been far more usable than Windows 98. This was even on the MS roadmaps released before Window 95. '95 and NT4 were due to have a single successor. Eventually this emerged as 2000 (I was using it since NT 5 beta 2, and it's not a bad system). Windows ME was a travesty (why did it even need to exist? Windows 2000 was meant to be the upgrade path for '98 users. Instead it just gave game developers an excuse not to support 2K, forcing people to dual boot if they wanted to play games and do real work), and Windows XP is just a whole string of UI mistakes built on top of security holes (many of which come from the Windows 98 era).

I went to Linux, loathed it, went to FreeBSD, liked it, and finally got a Mac.

i HATE microsoft!

[zahg]

I admit I 'hate' Microsoft even though their products are useful and enjoyable enough to use now. But their aggressive business style and the (successful) way they lock consumers/industries into using only their products as well as forced upgrades, unfriendly software and malware intrusions has now left such a bad taste in my mouth that I've been wanting to turn my back on *anything* Microsoft related for a couple of years now.
Mac mini arriving will allow me to eagerly switch from MS's world to that of Apple Macs and Unix/Linux OSs and tools. Over the next couple of years I plan to seriously limit my MS use to that of 'as and when needed', and will be advocating limiting the use of MS products to anyone who will listen (friends/family/businesses/schools)!
-zahg

they might have learned (something)

[da_matta]

I don't think MS should underestimated about learning from their mistakes, they've done it before (both of them). It's also something FOSS circles should be concerned about, because a more humble MS could reduce the amount of interest in the alternatives.

I believe that the arrogant and hostile attitude of MS has been the number one reason corporations and governments have been looking for alternatives, not for example the arquable quality and price of their products. If we for example look at the EU sanctions concerning Media player, I find it hard to believe that anybody was interested in MS hurting the "media player industry" or that there's something wrong with OS including a media player. More likely the EU just wanted to show that they have the political will to confront MS if they don't get the co-operation they want.

Re:Too late, Bill

[JPriest]

Actually most of XP's security problems with RPC, default services in listening state etc. all came from win2k. 98se was a brick wall (remotely) after you dissabled netbios. You could run "netstat -a" and get 0 results, try that on XP, 2K, or even Linux.

Re:They don't want people to hate them anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is people don't hate MS. It's like OGG - restricted to a small group of geeks who can be bothered caring.

Most people know about MS, know they use their software, some geeks are rabidly anti-MS... and the rest of the world couldn't care less.

Re:than they had better mend their ways

[TheRaven64]

Since the 2.6 kernel and better USB support

Oh, this made me laugh. We have a room full of SuSE Linux machines here, and since they were upgraded to 2.6 kernels USB pen drives haven't worked.

Re:Whats the point ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current version of the control panel doesn't block anything. It just removes start menu shortcuts.

Why a half-assed control panel when an uninstaller is what everyone wants? Would you be satisfied if the uninstallers that come with other programs just "blocked access", but left the program itself, its file associations, shell extensions, etc. in place?

Just fucking remove IE from the default install already, and make it an option at install time.

Then, I wouldn't mind if they still included a basic HTML engine for use with help systems and third-party apps, as long as it didn't automatically have internet access, potential security holes (positioning text and images should NOT be a risk), or a "browser" frontend.

Oh, and "multi-user"? Hah!

Microsoft has done nothing to encourage developers to make their apps multi-user friendly, and much of the consumer-level software works just as it did when designed for Win 95/98.

Unless you are only using high-end/corporate type software, Windows' multiple user types are useless.

Re:Too late, Bill

[l3v1]

You could run "netstat -a" and get 0 results, try that on XP, 2K, or even Linux.

Oh well, just another ignorant reference, and amateur trial of useless comparison with Linux. You obviously never heard of xinetd, did you.

There are many thousands of Linux boxes out there which run dozens of services internally or intranet-ally which you couldn't ever access or even know they are available on that remote box.

That said, you're right.

Re:One or t'other...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to know:
Is Microsoft working with hardware and computer manufacturers to make PC's "unfriendly to Linux"?

Or is this just a case of someone who can't get his favorite linux distros to recognize all of his hardware, and thinks Microsoft has conspired to make the "unfriendly to Linux" item a possibility?

I have a Dell PC, and of course it comes preloaded with XP. In trying a bunch of live CD linux distros, only SuSE 9.2 Live Eval will recognize my Sound Card. I'm running XFLD now, and no sound.

You know what

[Phantasmo]

Here's what I'd have liked to see:
Windows XP Professional, at the Home price, shipping with SP2 preinstalled. The product also includes MS Antispyware and MS Antivirus with free updates for the life of Windows XP.
The default install comes locked down - firewall on, IE security cranked up to High, Messenger and other unnecessary services turned off, user accounts are by default Users and not Administrators.
There is no nagging about associating your Windows account with your Passport, and IE will cleanly uninstall with no complaints. Explorer does not treat you like an idiot and lets you navigate into any folder you choose without having to opt in.

Then I would say that Windows is OKAY. So, maybe these antitrust guys can keep Microsoft on its toes and get them to produce an OKAY Windows.

Great insurance against future antitrust stuff: port Office to .Net. Then just say, "Look, our stuff runs on OS X and that Linux thing! Mono!" At least they'll still be selling copies of Office.

Re:i HATE microsoft!

[zahg]

Sorry i didn't mean the Mac mini would enable me to switch to Linux, I meant it would enable me to switch to a Mac OSX/Unix platform.
I have only dabbled in Linux a few times over the years and admit that I'm not knowledgable enough nor have the time to learn about what is required to get an equivalent to my WinXP system up and running, would love to be able to - but for me its just too high a learning curve for a clunky unelegant desktop (sorry not tried latest improved flavours).
Mac hardware and OSX has me drooling in terms of quality, artistic detail, intuitiveness, eye candy (quite a big deal to me) and its whole elegantly executed philosphy of switch on - work/play/create - switch off.

Re:Open source fanaticism at its finest...

[cronius]

Well come to think about it, you use your software under the mercy of MS. If they chose to release a new Windows and make something you use in windows incompatible with the old version, you're forced to spending money on upgrading, eventhough what you have is currently working just fine.

You might be forced into buying some program you use in a new version, since the software developers aren't supporting the old one for the old windows, in addition to buying a new windows. Ofcourse, your old computer isn't capable of using the new windows, so there goes a new computer as well.

This is how it works with properitary software, you really are a much more free man with free software.