MS Judge to Allow Demonstration of Modular Windows 672
robkill writes: "U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, over the vigorous objections of Microsoft, will allow the nine dissenting states to demonstrate a modular version of Windows. The software is based on Windows XP Embedded, and was built by computer consultant James Bach. Details can be found here [zdnet.com]"
Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Ya know, a modular version of Windows wouldn't be all that bad. If it had a decent performance, I would use it and recommend it for some processes.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Funny)
I guess that means I can not be MCSE yet or something
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
It might be worth noting that a comparable installation of RedHat 7.3 requires about 1.4 gigs of drive space. Though, obviously, you could easily make it smaller.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
24 megs.
you were saying?
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the only thing really relevent is proving that they lied about what was feasible. Thereby establishing a pattern of behavior. Requiring that Microsoft distribute modular windows wouldn't help anyone much.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft would deliver a base set of Windows with such marginal functionality, then have a nice expensive upgrade you'd have to buy to get anything done
I can hear the conversation now...
Joe: I can't format this floppy.
MS Rep: Oh, no problem, you need to purchase the Format:Floppy Extension, but before you can do that you will need Read:Floppy and Write:Floppy as well. Normally they are $9.95 each, but if you buy all three, it will only cost $24.95.
Joe: Well...I guess I don't have a choice.
MS Rep: Great, we are also having a special on Copy:File this week...
modular windows (Score:2, Funny)
WINDOWS, WINDOWS, WINDOWS!</jan brady>
Uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
Yes! I'll make my serial number 12345, the same as on my luggage.
Windows XP Embedded modularity claim on MS site (Score:4, Interesting)
(emphasis added)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Windows XP Embedded modularity claim on MS site (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows XP Embedded is the componentized version of the leading desktop operating system,
Based on the same binaries as Windows XP Professional
They seem to go out of their way to say that it is the same as the desktop XP.
I never understood M$'s argument anyway. What a load of hokum. Too bad there can't be a tribunal of judges that actually knew something about technology, they'd see just how lame M$'s claims are.
Re:Windows XP Embedded modularity claim on MS site (Score:3, Interesting)
I can easily see however, judges that are well versed in the ways of tech. Hell, if you can have lawyers with so many specialties, why not judges (now don't take that statement to the extreme, I don't think that _everything_ needs specialized judges, though I think that there are definitely areas where a more in depth knowledge is critical to making imformed opinions/judgements).
Of course for M$, I see 8 individuals in black robes and hoods, with BillG on the rack, and (for some odd reason), Mel Brooks in a red robe and hood trying to get him to confess his herecy.
One slight Problem (Score:5, Funny)
One problem I could see with this is that Windows' own bugginess could be misconstrued as the fault of the person who developed this modular windows.
"And if you'll watch as I click here, you'll see that there is no Internet Explor-- Er... one second folks, I have to reboot..."
Microsoft Lawyer: "AH-HA! Innocent I tell you!"
I don't get ... (Score:3, Informative)
Some of you
The real solution is to get Microsoft to open all of their API's so developers can write compatible software (or perhaps replacement software) for Windows and Office components. Enough with the "18,000 different (but modular, ooh!) versions of Windows" arguments... and bring on the more compatible, better software that opening the API's will help to deliver.
Re:I don't get ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The states have countered with "but you have this Windows XP Embedded Thingy which claims to be modular"
It's not that the states want Microsoft to ship XP Embedded on a PC, it's that they want to prove that a modular version of Windows is possible.
Microsoft has conveniently already developed something to make their case for them, which is why they've been fighting vigorously to keep it out of the court.
In legal terms, it's called "hoisted on your own petard". IANAL.
Enjoy,
-- jon
Re:I don't get ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Desktop PC's change much more often and have much much more software and hardware changed out than embedded systems do. So to test XP Embedded and equate it to what can be done with XP desktop is not a fair or accurate comparison and doesn't address issues of support.
Re:I don't get ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is compiled XP Embedded, it's shipped as binaries for the target system.
OEMs are obliged to support Windows Desktop as it is therefore a modular Windows will make precisely zero difference to this relationship.
Any other bits of insight you'd like to share?
Re:I don't get ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't get ... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft claims that to remove components from their current OSes and make it modular is infeasible. (agreed).
However, they have produced WinXP Embedded, supposedly based on WinXP, supposedly modular.
Also, you could look at their X-Box as another example. I have good friends who are X-Box developers, and they love it, because the API's are *identical* between Windows and the X-Box, so they can test their code on a PC (within reason) before putting it onto the X-Box. Clearly, there are modular versions of "Windows" that Microsoft has chosen to create for it's own purpose. The states just want that purpose to be "for everybody".
Now, either Microsoft is lying to the court, or lying in their marketing. You choose.
PS: I don't give a flying duck about this BTW, the only remedy I want to see from Microsoft is to be forced to publish every single file-format (Word) and protocol (Exchange) that they use, and keep those documents up to date.
Re:I don't get ... (Score:5, Informative)
Windows IS modular, their claims notwithstanding. What microsoft has consistently tried to do is add APIs and then to insist that this is part of the operating system. This is how they "embrace and extend." It is only true to the extent that they can get ISVs to start using these APIs. This is why IE suddenly replaced Netscape in Quicken 2000 -- they got Quicken to swallow the new web integration APIs (and, IMHO they simultaneously screwed up and slowed to a crawl one of the best Windows apps out there).
These claims depend on what your definition of "Windows" and "Operating System" are.
All of that said, I don't think a modular Windows will do a bit of good in restraining Microsoft's outright criminal manipulation of the marketplace. I actually agree with the original breakup plan because I do not think the state should have a right to sieze intellectual property (force open APIs or source code). I think they should just keep financially and structurally beating up Microsoft until they finally decide it is not worth it to remain in defiance of the law. I am a big believer in property rights, given that they back both MS and the GPL.
Re:I don't get ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure it wouldn't take much to flip the "allow installations" bit back on. XP Embedded is basically Windows XP with some components removed and that bit off.
will anyone buy a stripped-down version of Windows?
I'll be first in line! I want to get rid of most of the useless crap I'm currently stuck with on my current XP install.
Give me the choice of what I want to install... don't make the choice for me.
Re:I don't get ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Proof of concept (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get why no one has latched on to the fact that you can't install products after the computer is delivered [com.com] in Windows XP Embedded. The author of the linked article (which can be found in the sidebar of the article linked in this story) makes a really good case as to why a system based on Windows XP Embedded won't fly in the consumer marketplace.
You're right, but are those problems relevant yet? MS seems to be going for a quick win on this point by making it an either/or question. As I read it, the argument boils down to:
Or to put it another way, MS is arguing that it can't be done and Bach shouldn't be allowed to show otherwise because the States didn't follow procedure; Judge CKK correctly thinks that Bach's testimony is relevant regardless of the "tactical" timing. MS screwed up; trying to prove a negative is hard, and all it takes is one counter-example to tip your "proof" into /dev/null.
Outcome: Bach will show his system, which will work about as well as Windows usually does, probably better. It doesn't have to be wonderful, it just has to work as a proof-of-concept. MS will backtrack, and then we'll get into the question of how useful/maintainable a modular Windows could be. That'll be a long fight.
Hopefully the Court's final opinion will have an appendix listing all the different times MS has changed a story after a collision with reality. :)
Re:I don't get ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get ... (Score:2)
Re:Undocumented API's? (Score:3, Insightful)
But look at the wine mailling lists (or even the weekly summaries [winehq.com]). There are plenty of posts along the lines of "app X isn't working because abc.dll makes undocumented call def(ghi, jkl)". Why do you think that Wine still hasn't finished? They have to spend so much time reverse-engineering that actually getting to write the code is far from the hard part.
Information on Bach (Score:5, Informative)
His Company [satisfice.com]
He Travels Too Much [wiki.net]
He's part of the Cutter Consortium [cutter.com]
He is a big believer in software that is just good enough. You would think he would work for Microsoft.
Re:Information on Bach (Score:2)
I don't think he'll get any more contracts from Microsoft after this little dog and pony show, do you?
Re:Information on Bach (Score:2)
Re:Information on Bach (Score:4, Interesting)
Weird. Who changed it?
Wristwatch using Windows Embedded... (Score:4, Funny)
embedded... (Score:2)
but what the states want is a version where EVERYTHING is stripped out, but i can still install REAL media player and it will work fine.
obviously real is dependant on graphics and audio libraries that were probably ripped out in that modularized version... so it is really a catch 22.
the states want a version of windows that will run any windows application, but doesn't come with any, but still works... DON'T WE ALL!?!?!?
basically the states are asking for what i have wanted all along. its not going to happen.
Re:embedded... (Score:2)
but what the states want is a version where EVERYTHING is stripped out, but i can still install REAL media player and it will work fine.
Sorry, no. What the non-settling states want is a version of Windows where everything (or some approximation thereof) is replaceable. This way, if an OEM wants to replace WMP with RealPlayer, then you can remove the WMP component and install a "RealPlayer component". This component would have the same APIs as the WMP component (hence a need for API disclosure), and would therefore be indistinguishable from WMP (from a developer's perspective). Under the non-settling states' proposal, a consumer buying a PC from an OEM would still get all of the functionality of Windows; some of it would just be supplied by a non-Microsoft development team.
DMCA violation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Will the court be sued by MS after the trial for hacking windows? I'm sure there are lawyers licking their lips in anticipation of years of fees...
Break up MSFT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Kollar-Kotelly not a pushover (Score:5, Funny)
Here's an amazing thing from the article: Bach will testify that his modular version of Windows was "robust and reliable," Kollar-Kotelly said, citing the states' submission. Bach will accomplish a goal that's eluded the best programmers in MS for decades. The man's a miracle worker of Scotty's caliber!
An interesting turn of phrase.... (Score:3, Funny)
I've said before - should the happy day that a just verdict comes down, and Microsoft is punished for what they've already been convicted of (violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman anti-trust act), while some geeks may drink and some may dance, I shall be trying to find a good Rock radio station in the Redmond area that takes phone requests, and will be making the following "long distance dedications" to BillG:
Does anybody out there know of such a radio station? And does anybody have any other suggestions? I would love to
(but please, not the Free Software Song - I love Free Software, but I'd rather castrate myself with Cat5 than cause that to be played)
Re:An interesting turn of phrase.... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, for format similarity, you'd probably be best going with 99.9 KISW [kisw.com] (Consistency? They've got it! This station has been playing the top 40 from 1968-1975 over and over since I was a tyke on a trike back in the early 70s).
For true poetic justice, check out the community-supported, Paul Allen-invested 90.3 KEXP [kexp.org].
(editorial opinion: In spite of their rather dubious sources of cash, KEXP is far and away the cooler station).
Good luck!
j.
The MSLawyer translator: (Score:3, Funny)
Read: Microsoft says the states should have mentioned Bach in their initial case so they could buy him out or sabatoge his work or make sure he 'mysterously' disappeared.
Kollar-Kotelly agreed in part. She said the states' attorneys hired Bach in February, but had made a "tactical decision" not to call him earlier in the case.
Read: The states knew that Microsoft would try to buy out Bach so they delayed their announcement.
Bach will testify that his modular version of Windows was "robust and reliable," Kollar-Kotelly said, citing the states' submission.
Read: As robust and reliable as any Microsoft product could be, in fact, it will probably be MORE reliable without all the bloat.
Overall: Microsoft is throwing a hissyfit and is trying to find a way to keep the experts testimony out of the court so they don't get caught in a lie (not that Microsoft ever lies).
What's the cost for Windows Embedded? (Score:3, Interesting)
What stops people from going ahead and reselling a specialized stripped down version of XP Embedded with all the Microfluff removed?
I mean...I know the Embedded dev kit is like $1999 but how much do you have to pay for each copy of the OS? Is there a requirement that it must be run from FlashRAM/ROM?
Why can't I get a copy of this modular windows. I'd still be paying Microsoft (something) but I'd almost rather pay the same price as a regular copy of Windows XP just to get the option to remove all the crap and get my system configured exactly how I want it (will they let me get rid of that stupid C:\System Volume Information indexing crap?)
- JoeShmoe
.
I don't know what to think (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, knowing Microsoft's outstanding record for software quality, there is no way in hell I believe there OS is capable of scaling to the degree the States are looking for.
So I'm drawn between my desire to see Microsoft be proven wrong, and my strong believe in the poor quality of Windows. It sucks so much, they might not be lying after all!
Re:I don't know what to think (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd expect that someone on the States' side tried this out beforehand.
Remember, the States only have to demo that it's possible...they don't have to make it practical or usable. That it is possible -- and demonstrated -- is good enough since any remaining glitches could be chalked up as bugs that MS would be obliged to fix anyway for XP Embedded.
Perjury? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Perjury? (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a minute...
A modular windows will not be good for consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
This will not be it. This would be a disaster of monstrous proportions. The primary reason this would be a disaster is that it's a business solution to a technical problem -- MS is a master at wiggling out of things like this. MS WILL create a disastrous modular marketplace where consumers will rush back into their all encompassing embrace. That's exactly what they are good at.
The remedies that have been proposed by commenters on
Such as:
mandatory open APIs
open file formats
rational pricing
no "comprehensive" licensing
mandatory list pricing of OS for computer sales (my own contribution)
And here's how to enforce that (Score:3, Insightful)
Let M$ deifne what's OS and what's apps. Release the source *of the OS only* free of charge (but not for use to avoid licensing) at the same time as the binary release. Then anyone can see what the APIs actually are. Anyone could also compile the source to see that it matches the actual release.
Require source release of file validators, which validate files as complying with the published formats. Anyone could check their files; if it fails, bingo! -- fine M$.
So simple. It solves most of the forced upgrade problems, it eliminates any oversight committees, etc. Not perfect, but a pretty good start.
Also, these published APis and file format checkers can be used by ANYONE without licensing of any sort. The OS itself can't be compiled and used. They can still inflict audits on people.
Re:A modular windows will not be good for consumer (Score:5, Insightful)
A modular windows is great for embedded applications but a nightmare for consumers. Even Linux is headed twards some sort of standardization for consumers. Your example of KDE is a good one. KDEs file manager uses the built in Konquer engine. If you completely removed Konq from a KDE install then the file manager is crippled or completely non functional. So even if you hate Konq and want to use mozilla on KDE you still need Konq (Or atleast it's rendering engine) installed. Same with IE. Allow manufactuerers to install Netscape if they want, but Leave IE intact!
microsoft showing its colors (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, when it comes down to it, this is about money. Has anyone thought of trying to show Microsoft a way that it can make *more* money by building (or rather, allowing people to take advantage of) a modular Windows? I don't expect there to be too many responses, since I'm sure (well, not that sure) that MS has put some thought into this. But just looking to generate some discussion.
Really, dealing with MS is like dealing with a spoiled 5 year old. At this, I'm just trying to think of ways that one might "reason" with such a child.
-Captain Abstraction
Microsoft lawyer gets promotion! (Score:5, Funny)
"Well, a modular version of Windows is impossible. What the heck, let him testify."
He has since been given a promotion to the Microsoft head office in Afghanistan.
-
And this proves what for Joe Consumer? (Score:2)
Are we there yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue here is not browsers, since removing IE is a just a stupid idea, its forcing MS to disclose its hiddens API's and file formats.
Chopping XP into pieces will only harm the consumer. But for example, if Open Office had access to the complete office file specs we could start to see some real change.
Also how about publishing the AD specs so Samba can be dropped in without any problems.
I really think that if these two steps are implemented, and MS is forced to deal with OEMs in a fair way, we will all be the better for it.
What sucks is, the possibility of this happening doesn't even seem to be on the roadmap.
As an aside I also think the judges and many of the people involved don't even understand the technology which for me is scary. How can you make judgements on something you don't even understand? I know that's a simplistic point of view but seriously, you can't tell me that if the judge was poor and couldn't afford to buy MS Office he wouldn't be pissed that Open Office mangles his word docs because MS is so tightassed about the specs. Having a judge who knows both nix and windows well might produce bias, but at least he would know what he was talking about when he made his ruling. Right now there is a 50/50 chance that because he doesn't understand technology he might rule that "yeah MS not disclosing the API's for security makes sense to me...a lay person".
Re:Are we there yet? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, but they do. If not from GM itself, then Chilton has a nice comprehensive series. If you think the prices for genuine GM parts is exhorbitant, your local auto parts store most likely has something that will fit and is much more reasonable, almost certainly NOT made by Ford.
what about the games? (Score:2, Funny)
ship the Kernel (Score:2)
Of course they should also be forced to offer an additional licenses to the bare minimum functional Windows desktop / File manager / Graphics libraries / Audio libraries / etc.
Lastly they should offer an optional license which includes all the extra middleware crap (IE, Media player, etc.) that is at issue here.
If these "distributors" can resell what they license then we could have options in the marketplace that range from "MS Windows" just as it is today, to "Windows Lite" which is the bare minimums, to "AOL Windows with the Real Media Player and Netscape".
Modular Windows (Score:2, Funny)
States: Yes it can, and we can prove it!
Microsoft: Damn!
Strategy (Score:2)
make a big fight on windows, so that everything is focused there. Meanwhile develop behind the scene all kinds of other stuff so that they can have control
what kind of stuff?
I don't know, maybe like the patent on the Digital Rights Management Operating system, which if tied into the various legal messes, would mandate MS software as a legal requirement through out the USA.
There are other possibilities as well.
The Office module (Score:2, Insightful)
Who does MS get to charge tech support... (Score:2, Insightful)
Scenario 2 is someone has windows without the internet module installed and calls in asking "how do I get online, windows is supposed to do that" and ms has to explain that because they got a version without that module installed they will need to go purchase the module (or worse yet an actual complete version of windows). Bad scenario to be in.
This also puts windows in exactly the position that I think is linux's biggest problem for going mainstream. There are just too many versions and no instruction manuals can be written that are comprehensive because there are so many options.
One of the big design goals in creating windows was a unified look and feel. The ability for a person to learn a few core skills and be able to use all of the OS with little trouble. What will certainly happen if modular windows is required is that people will have to learn how to use a far larger set of skills. I am 100% opposed to having windows with major components being plugable unless MS can control the bar for accepting a module as "certified". Its MS's image on the line and they are being forced to put that image in the hands of other companies that won't be affected as much by a failure.
Re:Who does MS get to charge tech support... (Score:2)
Serious question... (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say everybody should run Windows and be happy with it. I'm legitimately trying to ask if my concern is valid, or has this type of thing been done before? What are the good things that would happen?
(us Windows users are scared of change...)
Re:Serious question... (Score:2)
Isn't that kind of like being worried that if you buy a Ford Ranger you wouldn't get exactly the same thing as if you bought a Z3 sports car? Obviously you'd choose which product to buy based on which one offered what you wanted. If you wanted Opera and not Netscape you'd buy the Dell instead of going to Gateway, and vice versa. Another advantage: it'd be much more likely in a modular system that you could replace parts yourself as needed, eg. if the Gateway offered everything you wanted except for offering StarOffice where you wanted MSOffice it'd be much easier to remove StarOffice and install MSOffice without breaking everything else Gateway had installed. IMO all of this would be Good Things, yielding systems tailored more closely to what you wanted and with fewer interdependencies to keep you from getting exactly what you wanted.
Re:Serious question... (Score:2)
Re:Serious question... (Score:2)
I'm seeing people side with Microsoft over this without understanding the bottom line: it's not wrong for some dimbulb to do a rotten job and put it out there in the market.
You guys are basically arguing a socialist viewpoint that consumers must be protected from the consequences of bad actions or their own weakness- which is not, I think, intrinsically wrong- but you're casting Microsoft as the appropriate protector. Isn't that a little bit stark gibbering drooling ankle-gnawing crazy? :)
Re:Serious question... (Score:2)
Umm... no. If you wanted to make your metaphor match what I was thinking, it'd be more like this:
"I would be worried that a Ford Ranger would use a joystick instead of a steering wheel. Would it use gasoline or hydrogen? Will it come with a spare tire, or do I have to go to another store to buy one? Will the turn signals blink, or will they look like a spinning tie?"
Dell and Gateway both sell systems today that come with a lot of garbage. I bought a Gateway machine a couple of years ago, and it came with Netscape and
I was never presented with a choice of what would and wouldn't come with the machine. Instead, Gateway had already decided that. That is exactly what will happen if Windows goes modular. Only it can be a lot worse.
At the very least, I had Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. I could start with those and go get what I want from the net from there. I could tell other people how to use IE and Outlook Express to go find what they really want run instead. But if I'm talking to somebody else and they have Netscape but NOT IE, how can I help them?
Now if Gateway were to do like your suggesting, and allow me to pick and choose, then I'd totally agree with you. That would be great. I think what'll happen though is they'll resell what gives them the best deal.
But you know what might work? What if there was the 'I am a first time Windows user' option where the distributers had a very definitive list of what to start with, and then the user can go from there. At least everybody starts on an equal footing and then it's not so chaotic.
Re:Serious question... (Score:2)
I think there's a disconnect here. Why would you first assume that the computer from Dell is the identical same product as the one from Gateway? Your modified version is based on the assumption that all products are identical, where the point of modular Windows is to allow them to be different depending on the market the OEM is selling to. It doesn't even have to be the OEM, the modular form would allow someone to create an "I've never used a computer before" version of Windows that could and would install on both the Dell and Gateway machines without hassle.
Having everyone start on the same footing assumes that all users are identical. As someone who's been jockeying computers since before MS-DOS existed, I don't want to have the same base apps as someone who's never seen a computer before. I want to discard all of that and pick and choose what I want without forcing everyone else to do so as well (same as I want to use Gnome as my default desktop on my home systems without forcing anyone else who uses them to do the same).
Re:Serious question... (Score:2)
"* the filesystem" -- Most Windows users don't know the difference between Fat16, Fat32, NTFS, and so on. What they see are icons.
"* the file manager" -- Virtually identical since Windows 95. Only a few minor updates have been made. The metaphor is still the same.
"* the browser" -- Again, still virtually the same. An IE 3.0 user wouldn't be that out of water if presented with 5.0. That's not so true with Netscape or Opera.
"* Office file formats (.DOC compatibility? Ha!)" -- The
Windows hasn't changed much, from the average user's perspective, since Windows 95. A Windows 95 user could easily pick up 2000 and use it. XP is a little more radical, but the assymilation period would be short.
"Users will be able to pick systems that run componants they like, with features they want, with support from the PC retailer"
They have that option today. It's called the Internet. Out of the box, Windows provides essential basic functionality including the ability to get on the net and go get what you really want. It's the retailers that do shit like force you to buy Office etc.
I agree that MS's strategy of "make it impossible to uninstall IE or Outlook" is slimey and I want that fixed. And I definitely want MS punished for their evil practices, but this change does scare me. (Lucky for the world I'm probably wrong about what'd happen, heh.)
Greed (Score:2, Interesting)
For you decision makers out there, take thsi to heart: Blind Greed will NOT make you more successful. No matter how much shareholder value you *think* you can add by being unethical, greedy, or sleazy, you will find that you will be losing twice as much value when your actions catch up to you. Stop basing your decisions on thier results for next week and start basing them on their value in the next decade!
OK, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
What will stop them form making Windows without IE crash every 15 minutes?
What will stop it from forcefully removing HTML rendering & ActiveX with IE, an invite them to install IE when Kazaa tells them it needs mshtml.dll? (Or is that a good thing - Kazaa will stop showing banners using IE? My version of Kazaa Lite still shows pop-ups.)
Finally, what will stop them from shipping the non-modular version with PCs and requesting that people buy the normal one for $XXX?
Developer's nightmare... (Score:4, Insightful)
As a programmer on Windows, I'd hate it.
Think about the situation on Linux -- dependencies left and right. That's fine for SOME people (you people reading this, mainly). But common consumers? The mass market? Come on...
Shipping a program for Windows would no longer be just a matter of shipping one or two new versions of DLLs with a software package. Instead, requirements would read: MSWKernel 1.2343 or better, MSGDI 1.232 or better, REALSound 1.001 or better, AOLNetworking 0.12415 or better.
Programs would have to be written targetting EACH possible configuration. Sure, one can ASSUME that all interfaces would behave the same, but who are we kidding? Each company, trying to get OEM deals, would be trying to make some performance aspect stand out. Which means software will then be wanted that uses those effects. But what works on REALSound wouldn't necessarily work on CREATIVELiveSound. So as a developer, I would have to be developing for multiple platforms to sell for Windows.
And let's assume I require MSNetworking. While other companies might have competing networking configurations, my product is so wonderful everyone decides to give MSNetworking a whirl, just so they can use my product. I would then have to be arranged as an OEM, reselling the MSNetworking component along with my program... and another version for those who already have it!
Unfortunately, it really would wreck havok if the majority of users suddenly had to worry about every aspect of their system configuration. Windows provides a base-line configuration anyone can program to. Switching to this "destroy it all" modularity design would make people much less eager to work with computers that might change radically under the installation of one program... think about it, install AOL and all of a sudden, you have ads in your background, your documents, your emails, your startup screen... (they have to make revenue somehow).
The solution really is to make MS publish their standards. Working from their published documentation does reveal a lot -- their MSDN library is much more accessible and unified than every other developer's documentation package I've worked with. What IE provides to the operating system is to an extent known -- you can analyze the IE object for what interfaces and methods it supports fairly easily. If MS is forced to continue this, and allow groups like Samba and OpenOffice to work better with their software, much more will be gained than if suddenly a one-floppy program needs to ship on three CDs in order to be sure all systems have the necessary components in order to play minesweeper.
Re:Developer's nightmare... (Score:4, Funny)
You're arguing for a state of affairs that is putting you out of business: the simplest baseline configuration is "We supply all the software, why would you ever need anything else?". And that's what MS is driving towards.
Are you really so dedicated to user simplicity that you're willing to stake your career as a Windows developer on it, and side with Microsoft on this issue? Very noble, but I'd question how smart it is. Maybe you should consider making life a little harder and riskier for those consumers so YOU can have room to move, and to sell them stuff.
Re:Developer's nightmare... (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new to programming ... we already have this ...
Version DLL Distribution Platform
4.00 All Microsoft® Windows® 95/Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0.
4.70 All Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.x.
4.71 All Internet Explorer 4.0. See note 2.
4.72 All Internet Explorer 4.01 and Windows 98. See note 2.
5.00 Shlwapi.dll Internet Explorer 5. See note 3.
5.00 Shell32.dll Windows 2000 and Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me). See note 3.
5.80 Comctl32.dll Internet Explorer 5. See note 3.
5.81 Comctl32.dll Windows 2000 and Windows Me. See note 3.
6.00 Comctl32.dll Windows XP. See note 4.
And all of this is FOR 1 DLL!!! ... now the next dll ... (you get the idea) ...
Info stolen from Microsoft [microsoft.com] and Yes ... I'm deep linking ...
Re:Developer's nightmare... (Score:4, Insightful)
I get REALLY tired chasing things down for an APP because it got installed into the OS.
Here are the rules the OS should have imposed LONG ago.
ALL DLL's MUST reside in the application directory, unless the DLL is supplied with the OS. Any files the APP needs, that are not included in a default install of the OS must be in a subdirectory of the applications, NOT the OS.
All INI and Registry additions must be merged and applied on the fly. (This would be a modification of the OS)
This would make "imaging" a whole lot easier. Just copy the app directory and all subdirectories, and you've got Word/Excel etc.
Sure, the API would have to be robust and stable, and applications might be a bit larger because you'ld have to include your own tools/dlls.
But hey, it's not like most Windows developers ever heard of profiling their code anyway! It's serious bloatware, starting with the OS, and it just rolls downhill from there.
Besides, just deal with this like everything else. More disk, more RAM, more CPU. For lower support curves, (it would make life a whole lot easier) the additional hardware costs would be trivial.
Sure, I REALLY WISH the horrible static linking problems you all claim would kill us WOULD ACTUALLY happen. From a system admin perspective, it would make life a whole lot easier!
The OS OUGHT to stay the OS. Programs don't add things to the OS. They add them to their own directory, and merge them at run time when needed.
No more DLL hell.
I regularly rebuild Windows OS's, and the cost of doing do over the life of the machine, for many users exceeds the cost of the machine. Backup all data. Reinstall OS. (Think we're done, Oh No, we're just starting!) Install apps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. Reconfigure all apps. etc. Many many hours later, you're done. (Imaging really doesn't work in a one-off world...)
A modular OS as I describe above...
-Backup all directories other than the OS.
-Reinstall OS.
-Copy back directories.
-Do minor configuration to apps and desktop
-Go golfing for the 4 hours more you would have spent otherwise.
Cheers!
I don't think you've got this right... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if you are a developer and you're writing a package that depends on MSHTML, the installer could simply state that it needs the Windows CD (which anyone with a legal copy will have) to continue installation. Programs do this all the time today - it's very common. Especially Microsoft applications (Office upgrades for instance). Basically, everything needed to satisfy dependencies will be available to the user, just not installed by default on their system.
We're not talking about MS selling stripped down Windows, we're talking about MS selling a modular Windows. You've missed the point.
ABORT! (Score:3, Funny)
Maximum number of Microsoft articles per day exceeded. Core dumped.
I mean, really - I like to keep up on this case as much as the next guy, but we're up to what, four articles today? And the night's still young. How 'bout at least containing all the trial-related stuff into one wrap-up article per day, at least, and saving the "Microsoft eats small children for breakfast" filler ones that aren't breaking news for more of the off days?
Disgruntled but still reading the article,
This is NOT going to make tech support any easier (Score:4, Insightful)
*25 minutes later*
"Ok, now we're going to install a browser... yessir. No, it's not there yet, we need to load it from the CD..."
*38 minutes and 2 reboots later*
"Ok, now you should be able to get online... No e-mail? What? Nosir, I certainly didn't say that, we must have a bad line or something... Ok, here we go..."
Objection! (Score:3, Funny)
MS Lawyer: "Objection Your Honor! There's no such thing as "robust and reliable" Windows. This alibi cannot be trusted........Oh wait..."
This could be really useful (Score:3, Interesting)
have i got this right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardware vendors -- Dell, Compaq (sorry, HPQ), Sony -- they will make a desktop for use with the machines they sell, forging alliances with AOL, Real, etc. to build up a user environment on top of the commodity OS core that MS would provide.
Add in the tech oversight in the company, forced publishing of core APIs, etc., thus allowing RedHat, BSD or Apple to make a "drop in" replacement core...
That would be a tough situation for MS.
Re:have i got this right? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the one hand it does create an interestingly compelling argument. Gateway could differentiate their Windows PCs such that they looked more like a Macintosh than current Windows. In that sense it may provide for considerable innovation. It would certain allow PC makers to promote themselves out of the commodity market and into boutique computing.
The downside is that within a rather short time period, the various OEMs would have differentiated themselves to the point that software that installs on a Dell won't on a Gateway(as an example). It'll be like we were back in the 1980's again(anybody remember TI's aborted attempt to create a DOS compatible computer? It required DOS software compiled for the TI and never really sold well as a result.)
I guess the question is, do the positives outweigh the negatives? I suppose we could say it should be up to the customer to decide.
But what if the consumers reject this new model and instead choose compatibility over differentiation? Will the skeptics be happy, or will they believe it was manipulation on Microsoft's part and come back in to readjust the rules?
That's the question I want answered.
How to kill MS. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Let them have their monopoly. Let them change their licensing to subscription based pay per use licensing.
Their customers are already squealing at the prices they are paying and the massive licensing costs are reducing the competitiveness of some large companies already. MS will have to squeeze tighter and tighter in order to continue sucking money.
Meanwhile Linux will spread and OpenOffice will spread. At some point in the near future, there will be a "catastrophe" and Windows will no longer be the most popular desktop operating system.
Any attempts to curb Microsoft's excesses simply prolong their dominance of the desktop market.
Re:Maybe not in MS' pocket? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe not in MS' pocket? (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, wouldn't have any idea how to help my aunt use her Gateway Computer if they decided to include some things but not others.
Re:Maybe not in MS' pocket? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe not in MS' pocket? (Score:2)
Fair point. It seems to me that the solution, then, is that Office works like Write or Notepad. You can choose not to install those, and there's no impact to your system. But if you uninstall Outlook Express, then Outlook 2000 won't work.
Yes, I'd definitely love if MS was prevented from modifying the system with Office.
The problem I can forsee is that this openness could be abused by computer manufacturers such as Gateway. I could see them making their distro of Windows be so convulted that computer illiterates will stick with only that distro. In other words, in the long run, I can see one monopoly being traded for another.
Maybe I'm overimaginitive. It's just that every time I see the 'modular Windows' headline, I picture my aunt calling me and asking me how to fix something on her computer, and I'd have no idea how to because Windows is different.
Re:Maybe not in MS' pocket? (Score:2)
Firstly, it would not be in Gateway's interest to cram more complexity into the system - it makes it slower (on the same hardware), and it makes it harder to use and support. They would be the ones pushing modularity - in part, because it will allow them to sell extra OS modules separately and earn on both ends of the scale (save on support of a simple desktop, and take in extra cash for souped-up desktop).
Secondly, Gateway is not a monopoly in any sense. There is plenty of competition in desktops, and even more competition in notebooks. The barrier of entry in desktop market is so low that even companies with bad business plans can enter and make their own beige boxes. Many do, in fact. Monopoly is where no other player can play, and that would be MS. Gateway (or Dell) is not any more monopoly than WinAmp is a monopolist in MP3 playing on Windows.
I picture my aunt calling me and asking me how to fix something on her computer, and I'd have no idea how to because Windows is different.
It is already different between Win95, Win98, Win2K and WinXP. You'd find more similarities between Linux distributions than between OEMized releases of various Windows... Differences between IBM and Dell preloads are so great that you barely could find anything in common! Since the OS lacks the utilities, both OEMs load tons of 3rd party software to compensate, and you are on your own figuring out which app on which desktop restores the registry, for example, or plays DVD...
Re:Maybe not in MS' pocket? (Score:3, Interesting)
Big Reason#1: Under the states plan the OEM & Wholesales price of the the stripped down version of windows would be 25% less than the full version. UNLESS Microsoft starts charging for the components, then the price is Full Version Price less the cost of all the components sold seperately.
So if Microsoft started charging $20 each for IE, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, etc then the price of the stripped version of windows would be closer to $0
Basically MS will be forced to licence "Window XP Lite" and then give away the add-ons in hopes of keeping market share in Internet Technologies. Otherwise we will be back to when Windows 95 was first released and it was possible to make money selling a web browser, media player, etc and compete with MS on price. Thwarting all MS attemps to corner all online media formats.
And now, for the non-conspiracist theory... (Score:2)
Personally, I think its more important to go the way the states are--after the modularity argument. I couldn't give a crap less if there are "secret" APIs in Windows, as long as the ones necessary for plugging in third party components as replacements for IE and Media Player and such are fully documented and available for use.
Re:Modular Windows = Good for OSS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes this is true but every person I ever talked to in my life beeing geek or not they know what linux is. Its not they never heard of the OS its just that its been portrayed as a hard to use OS. I know there been huge leaps in the easy to use department but that doesn't change the opinion on the OS it self.
Linux will stay behind windows till it can breat the image of a hard to use OS.
Another thing linux doesn't have is a large library of games for it. For the average Turn on computer and check email this wouldn't be a problem but a lot of users out there like to play online games too. WineX has helped here but its not going to help as much as true linux support. Then you could argue that user could simply do a dual boot to play games. Most people in the world are lazy they will most likely find this irritating.
Sure modular windows would be great for open source. But if the majority of users are either afraid to try something new it will not accomplish anything.
Re:Demonstration of Modular Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
I have 100% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes either. Funny how these things work...
I think this "Modular Windows" is a bunch of crap anyway: what will it accomplish? You _KNOW_ it will sell for the same price as "regular Windows", if not making Regular Windows even more. Of course no (normal consumer) is going to buy "modular Windows" cause they want the apps, baby. When someone goes into the store and buys a Compaq Presario, they want to plug it in, click, and "Welcome to the internet, my friend!" They don't want to bother installing audio/video players, web browsers, et cetera --- they don't care. All they care is that it WORKS.
Re:Demonstration of Modular Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
When they buy it from Compaq, it will have all of those apps. The difference is that Compaq will pick the apps that best suit its customers - for example, Mozilla instead of or in addition to IE, etc. It's a straw man to say that "consumers don't want to install apps" - nobody is suggesting that at all. The argument here is to restore the modularity to Windows that Microsoft removed when they were trying to strong-arm an OS monopoly into an apps monopoly.
P.S. I hear there's another IIS bug out; you might want to guard your web server before somebody else crashes it for you :)
Re:Demonstration of Modular Windows (Score:3, Funny)
It just works? Out of the box?
You mean like a Mac?
Re:How to defend the indefensible? (Score:2)
And you would think, that after all this time, those 31337 people who're cracking Office apps would have seen some of these alleged missing references.
Re:Modular Mac OS. (Score:2)
Because you can't do that in Windows, numbnuts. Just because it works in KDE doesn't mean it works in Windows.
"You can drive a car with your feet, but that don't make it a good fuckin' idea." -- Chris Rock