EU Sleuths Think Microsoft Sabotaged Windows 786
Adam Zweimiller writes "The Inquirer is reporting that in it's ongoing battle with Microsoft, the European Commission is investigating the possibility that the Vole has sneakily sabotaged the Media Player-free versions of Windows it is obliged to ship to the EU. A report (subscription required) in today's Wall Street Journal suggests Microsoft has fiddled with the registry in its stripped-down Windows offerings and the result is that video clips embedded into Microsoft Word documents don't run properly, for example."
They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just going to take a wild guess here and say that maybe they should install Media Player to get those clips to run properly?
And for those who actually take this seriously....
I'm sure someone will try to point out that Word won't play embedded media clips even if alternative media players are installed. Seems logical to me, when embedding a media file in a proprietary document format it likely requires Media Player to play it.
It's like "suggesting" Microsoft purposely "sabotaged" the Help system after a person removes the IE Core from the system. (Doing so effectively breaks the help system among other things)
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good example - if you embed a visio document into a word document (which you can do really easily) - don't expect the person you send it to have a fully embeded version of vision inside the word doc to add/change the visio drawing. You may even have problems printing a full resolution copy of the drawing inside word without having visio installed.
Same holds true for media - the most it will do is show you an icon. Do this as a test though - install real media onto one computer - embed a real media clip into that word document - ship the file off to someone running a mac, or windows without real media. Notice how you'll get an error when playing the file inside word.
I've found - at best ole objects are nifty tricks you can perform in the office, but by no means a replacement for file format placement, or content distribution (like media in word, or excel docs in word etc).
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Informative)
Do this... Install Quicktime from Apple. Delete the quicktime player
You are right in that this would be an easy demonstration to fake. But it would take longer to fake than to do the real thing.
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Media Player is just a front end shell for the multimedia services in windows.
Removing media player should not affect window's capabilities in handling multimedia content - and should not affect any application using the multimedia services.
RE: Media Player just a front-end shell (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, if I received a Media Player free version of Windows, I wouldn't expect files made for their format to play if I embedded them in, say, MS Word. I'd think the *expected* behavior would be for them to be "broken", at least until I installed 3rd. party products to handle the media.
Even the folks making the technical argument that the Media Player codecs should still be in Windows XP when MS removes the "player front-end" seem to me like they're treading on thin ice. This argument boils down to deciding if "Media Player" encompasses the codecs that "make it go" or not. Since competing players like Quicktime consider their media playing products as "one component" (deleting the
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Informative)
No it can't; not unless the codec comes with a DirectShow filter. Apple (and Real) do not do this, in order to keep eyeballs in their clients.
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:3, Funny)
Of course not, because then you'd have the Secret Service after you...
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:3)
As others have said because of their past record I for one will not install anything from Real no matter what deal they've done.
On this note I've also complained to the BBC several times about their practice of using Real Audio when there are many alternatives available.
Shame on the BBC for dealing with such scum.
Fuck Real.
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Informative)
I've been using it for the last year or so for exactly the same reason as you, and not had a problem.
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
-K
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me it's the reasone they embedded MP and IE into Windows.
And why on Earth would anyone want to embed video clips into MS Word documents? Just because it's possible?
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Funny)
I bet he's a Harry Potter fan.
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They "think" it was "sabotaged" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The terms the EU is imposing are clear: MS has to deliver a Windows without Media Player component that is not crippled in any respect when the OS is used with an alternative player. Perhaps that is not so easy-- but then again it isn't like MS with all its billions of cash reserves is going to be bankrupted by the development costs.
It's like "suggesting" Microsoft purposely "sabotaged" the Help system after a person removes the IE Core from the system. (Doing so effectively breaks the help system among other things)
That's what Microsoft did. Apps are apps and OS is OS, and coupling one to the other has been recognized as bad design since the 1960s or earlier. Yet MS purposefully chose to do bad engineering because it looked like a good marketing strategy.
I won't shed any tears if the EU declares that MS has been acting illegally, and that its protections under EU law are therefore voided. I wouldn't benefit from that directly, but I expect that I would see a lot of indirect future benefits if Windows code ended up in European public domain.
I really think that it is time for Redmond to grow up and take on the responsibilities that go with its success. And stop farting around like an adolescent entrepreneur with a shoestring budget.
Re:Coupling is bad? Tell that to F1 racers. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Coupling is bad? Tell that to F1 racers. (Score:3, Funny)
MS Sabotage is a Safe Bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS Sabotage is a Safe Bet (Score:5, Informative)
A better analogy would be like Microsoft purposely sabotoging their own document format to make it impossible for other word processors to legally interoperate with it.
Wait no, A better analogy would be like Microsoft serving up broken web pages to the browsers of competitors.
No, wait. A better analogy would be like suggesting Microsoft would break Windows so that it would refuse to run under a competitor's version of DOS.
Maybe it's like Microsoft shipping a browser that has the option to uninstall other software vendor's browsers. Or Microsoft forcing OEM's to pay them a fee for every computer they ship, with or without Windows installed. Perhaps it's like Microsoft hiding crucial API's from everyone but themselves, and when forced to expose them for all to see defining "all" as anyone who can pony up 50 thousand dollars plus additional fees. Or Microsoft attempting to ship broken versions of Java to destroy the standard. Or forcing OEM vendors to carry Microsoft ads, and only Microsoft ads, on all desktops sold. Or negotiating with another company for a year only to steal their technology. And then refusing a court order to turn over all e-mails from that period.
But all of this is metaphorical: Microsoft would never do anything like this. This is all speculative fantasy. And besides everyone in this country is innocent until proven guilty in at least 4 different courts of law.
Re:MS Sabotage is a Safe Bet (Score:4, Interesting)
But that was just a rumor, of course.
Re:MS Sabotage is a Safe Bet (Score:5, Interesting)
Any lawyers around here? What exactly is the punishment in the US legal system for forging evidence? Why MS got away with it?
Never attribute to malice (Score:4, Insightful)
-R.J. Hanlon
Re:Never attribute to malice (Score:5, Insightful)
This company is being run by people who have no ethics whatsoever.
Re:Never attribute to malice (Score:5, Funny)
In this case, it should read: "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to both incompetence and malice."
Re:Never attribute to malice (Score:5, Funny)
What's the deal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's the deal? (Score:5, Funny)
Of this I have no doubt.
Re:What's the deal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regretably that's not actually safe at all.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Media player removed, but expect to play media (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Media player removed, but expect to play media (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe their product wasn't designed to be anticompetative but a complete solution in the best interests of the consumer, incorporating as much functionality as they could...
Or maybe they are just evil.
Re:Media player removed, but expect to play media (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars come with stereo systems as factory defaults. This doesn't stop the numerous car audio manufacturers from selling their products, nor does it stop entire stores devoted to selling you one of these (better) systems, and installing it for you. The fact remains, when you drive off the lot, you want to be able to listen to music. Microsoft recognises this, and therefore sells their operating system with a device which plays media.
Re:Media player removed, but expect to play media (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not really removing it (Score:5, Interesting)
You are free to delete the executables for media player or IE or any of the other things like that. However that's not really removing them, the guts still exist and Windows still uses them. To really remove it, like MS's competitors seem to want, would require stripping the guts as well. Those are what really do the work of the program.
That's why the things MS claims are a part of Windows and are necessary are, after a fashion. They aren't necessary for everything, but other things depend on them. Like the help system breaks if IE goes away. Why? Well help files are HTML based, and call IE, or rather the MSHTML engine that it uses, to render.
Same thing applies to Linux as well. X isn't required, as in you have to have it to have a working system, but if you want a system with, say, KDE it is. You can't say "I want KDE, but I don't want X." Sorry, but KDE uses X, you either install it or you shove off.
The difference is that Linux has chosen to be very, very losely defined and modular. The only thing that acutally is Linux is the kernel. The rest is all optional. There are some conventions, like that almost all graphics ride on top of X, but those are just that, conventions. However you have to have all lower level dependencies for a program, you can't just remove them and replace them with something different, but incompatible and expect things to work.
Windows is different and is like MacOS or Solaris in that it is more richly and tightly defined. The OS isn't just a kernel, it's a kernel, GUI, several APIs, a number of programs, services, etc, etc. That, of course, removes felxability but provides unity. You don't have to concern yourself with the presence or absence of certian things as they are a part of the OS.
X doesn't have to be XFree86 (Score:5, Insightful)
X is a well documented standard (and if the documentation is lacking, you can just read the source
If you wanted to roll your own Media Player, you'd have to do a fair amount of reverse engineering to do it - which is illegal in some places.
I'd write more but the kids need a bath
Re:But that's not really removing it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Media player removed, but expect to play media (Score:3, Interesting)
That sir, is crap.
They were ordered to remove Media Player. It should be obvious that this means the program in it's entirety, including both the front and back ends. Anything less would not be conforming to the great EU's vision of a worthless^H^H^H^Hwhile operating system.
"Get WMP out of Windows! Now! Oh, but leave in all the DLLs which do the real work so we can still benefit
Re:Media player removed, but expect to play media (Score:4, Informative)
Why is this even remotely odd? It's just the difference between libraries and an application that uses those libraries. The equivalent operation on a Mac is trivial: just delete Quicktime Player from the Applications folder. As it happens, this won't affect any other Quicktime dependent application -- it just removes a single app.
On the surface, this appears to be the same BS that MS tried to play off in the US antitrust case regarding the bundling of IE. MS purposely chose a twisted interpretation of the scope of "Internet Explorer" to claim that IE was inseparable from the rest of the OS. That is, they chose to interpret "remove IE" to mean removal of not just the top-level application and/or icon, but of all related architectural components. That alleged inseparability was a mind-numbingly stupid claim to anyone with an iota of actual software development knowledge.
Why is that odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Media Player is just an application that plays DirectShow codecs, you know? Microsoft wants you to believe it's some core aspect of the OS, like with Internet Explorer. If they were at least honest, I could respect their desire to include the player with every copy of Windows, just to let people have a default music
Re:Why is that odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a medialess windows it won't play media without doing the work to get it to run. What someone needs to do (maybe real, though I wouldn't run t
This sounds like meetings I sit in ... (Score:5, Funny)
Me: ok
Manager: Why don't these media clips play anymore?
What I'd like to say: Cause you're a fucking idiot. And you told me to take it out, which I did. So go fuck yourself, and stop telling me how to do my job.
More people missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Manager: Take that media player out of your operating system.
Me: ok
Manager: Now, install RealPlayer. Why don't these media clips play anymore now that we have a competing media player installed?
What I'd happily say: Because Microsoft left the registry in a way that makes it difficult for competing media players to run those clips. Slap me silly with surprise. RealNetworks already demonstrated a functioning Media Player-less Windows, so this is more shenanigans from Microsoft.
Media Player vs. DirectShow (Score:3, Interesting)
One way to embed video clips into Office documents is to embed the Media Player ActiveX control. Of course, without Media Player there is no Media Player ActiveX control and so documents using this technique won't load correctly without Media Player.
I've not used Word in years, but I'm going to assume that there's also a second way which involves embedding the video just as video data, without any particular container. Now, I'd expect those to play back through DirectShow (the API Media Player uses to play
Sabotage, or.... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft ships out buggy code after a fight with the EU: people complain that they're intentionally sabotaging their code in retaliation.
Please people, just pick one conspiracy theory and stick with it...
Microsoft....CHEATING??????? (Score:4, Funny)
Not a Sabotage (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but when you ask someone to take out its native media-playing capabilities from the OS, then don't expect products from the same company that rely on that product to work.
It's like someone removing Direct-X and then bitching about how their game doesnt work anymore.
Re:Not a Sabotage (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply put, microsoft was ordered to take out the Media Player system from windows and did just that. It's not their fault that subsequent applications which expect the media player system to exist no longer work.
No, the removal of the media player EXE should not require the removal of all the codecs too. But why should microsft give you the codecs without the program that goes with them. If you want their codecs, use their software, otherwise, get your own codecs.
People seem to want their cake and eat it too.
Yes. Sabotage. This is why (Score:5, Informative)
It forces people to install WMP to regain lost functionality that shouldnt have been lost, and that's definitely sabotage.
Not one word in the article about... (Score:5, Funny)
Someone give me one good reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't tell me it's because they plan on publishing their web site with Word. That's the only reason I could think of off hand.
Oh yeah... and I don't think it's outrageous that MS cripple any of their products. Free market economies rock... someone can give them a non-crippled product and make some change take place.
Re:Someone give me one good reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
To get video clips thorugh corporata mail servers that strip out video files but let word through. People send images and audio embedded in Word files for the same reason.
Re:Someone give me one good reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that is just because some people think Word is Windows.
BTW, that is not a joke, I work in tech support.
Re:Someone give me one good reason... (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, that is not a joke, I work in tech support.
No kidding... Wish I had mod points for you, but lacking them, I'll give a hearty "me too".
My favorite - I have a never-ending war with spyware at my workplace (don't we all?). OVER HALF of people swear up and down that they don't ever use "the internet". Now, a few I expect just lie about it because they think I'll get them in trouble or something (look at porn all day for all it matters to me - Do your job, don't make extra work for me, and don't get me sued, and I really couldn't care less what you do on-line).
I realized after a while what this really meant, when immediately after (sincerely) telling my she never used the internet, one coworker wanted to "show me something". She then opened "My Computer" and proceeded to type a URL (badly formed, but good enough to work) into the address bar.
Totally blew me away - I never would have thought that, someone would actually believe that they have "google.com" on "My" Computer!
So, BTW, how did all you Slashdotters get into my computer? Very rude of you not to knock, you know... And stop stalking me! I notice you on my computer at home, too!
Re:Someone give me one good reason... (Score:4, Funny)
I think a very high percentage of word documents are never printed. People send them via email as attachments. And if you hunted these people down and killed them, the courts would say it was you who did something wrong, even if they embedded a video in the attached word document! Strange, but true.
Integration (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. If WMP becomes another "essential component" of windows, like IE did back in the days of the DOJ trials, that is, remove it and you destroy windows, then we're in for another long round of format lock-in, the way MS wants. I think it's important to watch as MS adds "features" to the operating system to ensure that it's not just a sneaky way to further another of MS's goals (e.g. media format dominance).
It seemed like hogwash then, and it seems like hogwash now. Just because a modular component was integrated, doesnt mean it cant be undone. It may take a lot of effort, because you intentially put yourself in a dependancy ditch. But that's your fault for not thinking ahead of time and considering the possibility that one day, that dependency might not be available. And yes, it is reasonable to think that MS programmers think like that. Just because they got away with it once, doesnt mean it's going to happen again. They should be prepared for the eventuality that at some point, not every piece of MS software will be available on the install by default.
Re:Integration (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone codes to an API, and the modules that comprise that API are removed from the system, the things that made those calls simply won't work any more. This isn't about sloppy programming, this is the dependancy ditch you refer to. Sure, Windows Media Player's libraries could be installed seperately -- and indeed, that's what has to be done now. You have to install wmplayer and get the libraries back. There's no foul play here, except that Microsoft is involved, so they must be up to no good.
This is different from codecs...that's one step above what we're talking about here. The wmplayer API components allow the application developers to play video with a "black box" so to speak. Instead of processing the video file directly, decoding the math, or parsing 4CC codes or headers and then calling the relevant decoder APIs directly, they can call WMPlayerComponent.playVideo(filename) and have it all taken care of for them. That's an important function, and I don't know of very many substitutes to it, especially ones that will work out-of-the-box with those same API calls.
Having to add yet another layer of abstraction, to allow you to pick-and-chose blackbox media rendering APIs to use, would be annoyingly complicated.
Re:Integration (Score:3, Informative)
You're getting Media Player and DirectShow confused. DirectShow is the standard Windows API for video playback. Windows Media Player is an application which provides a UI for video playback based on the DirectShow API. The codecs live inside DirectShow. The Media Player ActiveX control confuses things a little, but is really a way to embed the Media Player user interface into your application or document, not just the bare video playback functionality.
If MS removes Media Player, they break the ActiveX cont
Conspiracy? Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is more likely? Do we really need a conspiracy to explain this?
well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows Media Player, for many people, is their preferred music-playing application. Why? It came with their PC, it was there, and it made their PC do stuff right out of the box. It probably came with a dozen or so free MP3s of public domain works (I know some classical music, Jazz, and old MIDIs that date back to Windows 3.0 days come with every install of Windows.)
Windows XP also burns CDs natively (they licensed Roxio's technology for this.) Sure, it's a piece of crap, but it *does something* right out of the box -- and many times that's been just what I needed to get out of a sticky tech-support situation.
The problem is...people would see their computer doing the stuff already, and not see a need for QuickTime, RealPlayer, Winamp, BSplayer, or one of a dozen other third-party media playing applications. Thus, the anticompetative behavior. Microsoft did add value to the PC by including out-of-the-box applications to do what most computer users want to do (play media of one sort or another) but in doing so, drastically eliminated the market for other application providers.
I'm not saying MS is in the right for their tactics, but, the monopolisation effect is a result of their behavior, not vice versa.
Re:well. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is one of the main differences between Linux and Windows. If I bought or downloaded a good desktop Linux distribution, I'd get a few CDs or a DVD packed with a variety of software from a multitude of distributors, with many different choices. I can choose between KDE and GNOME; between Konqueror, Firefox, Epiphany, and Galeon; between mplayer and Xine; between OpenOffice, KOffice and AbiWord/Gnumeric, etc. In this situation, there are so many choices that it sometimes overwhelms the user, but at lea
Re:well. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about cripling PC's, but about MS preventing OEM's to ship PC's with competing products, thus allowing the customer even more convenience. This is also the main difference with Linux distributions, that ship most/all competing offerings in one distribution. It's like if Trolltech's Qt licence would disallow the use of Gnome or Borland VCL, coupled with Qt having (fictively) 95%+ market share.
Re:well. (Score:3, Interesting)
If I read the correct articles from EUROPA [eu.int] (portal site of the EU) and understood them correctly, then I don't think forbidding OEM's from installing other media players was the problem. According to those articles from EUROPA's "Antitrust cases" section [eu.int], the problem was merely the "tying" of WMP to its "dominant" OS.
The articles
Re:well. (Score:5, Informative)
Been in the OEM business for many years, and we have yet to see any documentation from Microsoft preventing us from installing ANYTHING we want on the OSes for our PCs.
Additionally, prior to Windows2000, Windows95 and 98 had REALPLAYER on the OEM setup CD provided by Microsoft and it was installed in Windows, just they also had setups for AOL, Compuserve, and MSN.
If Microsoft is FORBIDDING the installation of this software, why is it on the OEM CDS that Microsoft provided to Manuafacturers up until the time these companies started stabbing Microsoft in the back by participaiting in lawsuits against MS.
Bully for Microsoft. I would of stopped putting RealPlayer, and AOL on my OS setup CDs as a courtesy to these companies once they testified against my company.
But EVEN after all that, there is NOTHING to forbid the installation of these applications, our Microsoft Contact, knows we do, and has even provided help from Microsoft on some of our installation troubles with these products, which they DID NOT HAVE TO DO.
The consipiracy theories here just keep getting bigger and bigger.
As for the whold Media Player issue in this thread... A) The EU requried MS to Remove Media Player (the UI) B) The EU required MS to Remove Media player control (the applet that allows it to play on web pages, and also provides OLE access). So even if the CODECS are installed on the system, but there is NO EXISTING Applet or Application to process them, how in the world could any reasonable person expect the video to play?
This is the most uneducated and ridiculous item I have seen in a while. And goes to prove the Government should fund and support technology but NOT REGULATE IT, as most people in the Government DOn't Get, won't get, nor have any expertise in these matters, no matter how many witnesses and hours are spent trying to EDUCATE a judge just so they can make an honest ruling.
I am so sick of Gov't thinking it knows better than the 'scientists', and 'technology' leaders of the world. Support these people don't second guess them.
As for the Intenet Explorer trial issues with regard to the Microsoft Monopoly, even the creator of Netscape later said it was bullcrap. (And he would be considered educated in the field, far more than the judges and lawyers making decisions FOR US).
This is gotten insane, in the US they preach capitalisim, yet when lawmakers or competitors draw into question a company that is too successful, the get put on a block and picked apart.
Sure there were idiots at Microsoft that did screwy stuff, but that doesn't mean Microsoft as a whole set out to do 99.9% of the things that Slashdot members keep refering to, over and over, and very inaccurately as well.
Get over it...
You don't like Microsoft, beat them at their own game. Truly make an Open Source OS that is as easy as Windows and supports as many program and hardware as Windows, and can do so without having prioritory Hardware like Apple does, and you will not even have to worry about Microsoft.
Ok, off my rant, and 90% of this stuff was NOT directed at the person that I am replying to, but I had to get it off my chest and into this discussion thread.
(Sorry in advance to RogerWilco)
-Also ignore the typos and grammar, I can see several in a quick proof, but don't have the time to edit them today.
TheNetAvenger - ranting off....
You have to pay Media-player when you buy Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
The programers developing mediaplayer and IE work at Microsoft and are paid by Microsoft and so, in the end, anyone buying Windows pays for IE amd WMP too. If you don't need WMP since it's only an Office PC: tough luck, you have to pay for it anyway
Re:well. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about bundling in shops, it's about the fact that OEMs are not permitted to rip out WMP and put in something else better. Or, indeed, rip out IE and put in something secure.
Now, if I were a business, and I wanted to buy 5000 pcs, why shouldn't the OEMs be allowed to tailor the machines to me? I would especiall
Re:well. (Score:5, Interesting)
When this trial in the EU started I thought it was pointless too - people want a media player with their OS, but recently I've realised that it was the correct thing to do - I don't know about the rest of Europe or the US, but here in the UK a lot of online media stores have sprung up, and guess who's DRM they use? Microsoft's [tescodownloads.com], Microsoft's [woolworths.co.uk] , Microsoft's [64.233.183.104] and Microsoft's [64.233.183.104].
And why do they use MS's DRM?
" We recommend Microsoft Windows Media Player for this, as it generally comes pre-loaded on new PCs" [tescodownloads.com]
"The Windows Media Player has been shipped with Windows-based PCs since 1997" [woolworths.co.uk].
If this isn't using one monopoly to push another, I don't know what is.
Solution: Openoffice.org (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft took away support to another application. The only other alternative to it would be get rid of the conflict, Microsoft themselves.
Openoffice isn't going to kill budgets. Have another player installed. Switch and be done with it.
Quicktime plays fine in openoffice with a mpg format.
Punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft loves to do things like this. "Well, you asked us to remove it, and that's what happened!" We savvy people, of course, realize that if Microsoft left the registry screwed in some way during their unbundling process, they would have had to purposely ignoring fixing it since I assume Microsoft knows their own registry enough to fix it (many IT admins have become expert in fixing the damn thing themselves). Leaving it purposely fucked in order to say "See?" wouldn't be complying with the Commission's order. It seems the EU isn't bending over and taking these cute little games the way the U.S. did when dealing with Microsoft.
Re:Punishment (Score:3, Insightful)
Not bothering to fix that wiring is in essence not following the orders o
EU should (Score:3, Interesting)
This would cause software makers to adjust their thinking and make software for linux or other operating systems.
The Dep.of Justice did nothing to fix a wrong.
something awful about that WMP format like ... (Score:5, Funny)
Ask to have it removed then complain its gone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The commission is still in the process of assessing
Well. They complied. They provided a fully functioning version of Windows without Media Player. It's very unfortunate that the entirely separate application, MS Word, which is not a part of Windows doesn't do everything it used to, given that it relies on Media Player being part of the O.S. Then again, the ruling covers the O.S. not the separate application.
I mean, seriously... When I write an tag to use Media Player in a web page, it doesn't work as well now either. If an external app looks for a specific set of calls and can't find them, of course it's not going to work. That's hardly the fault of an OS that was ordered to stop supporting those calls.
Now, on the other hand, had Microsoft been ordered to fully and transparently transmit those calls to any application the user cose to install in Media Player's place - and if Real could prove they seamlessly supported that complete set of calls - then there'd be a legitimate case. But the article makes no mention of that.
What it does say is that Microsoft has to make a fully functioning version of Windows without Media Player. It has done so. It infers that Microsoft should also make Word support Media Player's absence better - but never actually shows where that was part of any ruling.
Weasley? Perhaps. Actually breaching the letter of the ruling? Not from anything that's actually in the article.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:4, Interesting)
MS uses its monopoly position to exact other monopolies. For example, Java, office apps, web browser, media player, DRM. Several of these new monopolies are then used to exact other monopolies (i.e. WMP on DRM).
I don't think it's innappropriate to say that MS has intentially tied programs that are not, or were not, considered part of an OS to the Windows OS in order to gain a monopoly in the different application markets. It would also then be appropriate for someone to tell them that it is not good enough that they filtered out the application and left their OS broken.
They intentially exploited a monopoly situation to gain other monopolies. Part of this was intentially leaving their operating system breakable by removing the applications so that they can insist the apps are tied. The apps are only tied because they chose to do so in order to exploit their monopoly position. It is reasonable, then, to demand that MS fix whatever they did to break their operating system on removing one of these tied, monopoly-exploiting, apps.
MS Office has certain dependencies... (Score:4, Interesting)
MS Office uses the ActiveX component that is a part of WMP to embed media content in documents (Link [microsoft.com]). This ActiveX component, due to certain design constraints, can't be shipped seperately from the WMP client (link [microsoft.com]).
The fact that they removed this stuff does indeed mean that MS Office no longer plays media content properly. I find it funny that the EU is complaining about this, as they got exactly what they wanted!
Perhaps in the future, MSFT will expose a framework that allows third party media player development libraries to plug into the desktop environment, allowing other applications to use whatever libraries are currently configured to play media. Kind of similar to how they've exposed anti-virus hooks for AV vendors to plug into.
But for the EU to ask them to rewrite how this all works, and to rewrite all of their software (ie. Office) to work with it overnight, I think it's asking a little too much. Even of MSFT.
Re:MS Office has certain dependencies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody has to point out that the Windows infrastructure is such an unholy mess, Microsoft might have just botched the change they made for EU compliance.
Basically, if Word is written so that it breaks unpleasantly when the WMP components are missing, that's a bug in Word. This is similar to the design flaws in other Windows components that make them dependent on rather than merely enhanced by the HTML control.
Cock up rather than conspiracy? (Score:3, Interesting)
If Windows Media was tightly coupled to the OS then removing it might break other software not tightly coupled to it, but the code base of which uses those tightly coupled bindings within the US. Word seems to fit perfectly into this sort of scenario.
Alternatively it may be that there were mistakes made in the process of removing all references to Windows Media due to issues with the design of Windows. Again no need for a conspiracy theory, just an issue with implementation.
I am not a Microsoft apologist, but people sometimes need to slow down before assuming that a conspiracy is operating and examine the facts and the possible explanations.
Remember that WMP is several different things (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, it is the DirectShow/ActiveMovie/etc stuff that lets applications use WMP codecs (e.g. Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 uses it for WMA music).
And thirdly, it is a set of codecs that come with windows for playing WMA, WMV, ASF and whatever else microsoft includes with windows.
The question is, which of the 3 bits is microsoft removing in this "cut down" version. I suspect all 3 bits are being removed (which breaks the embedded videos)
However, if you just remove the first bit (the UI) and leave the codecs and DirectShow components there, it wont break embedded stuff but WMP will be gone. (look at the program XPLite to see just what can be removed from Windows XP without breaking stuff, that includes an option to remove just the Windows Media Player frontend without removing the backend components that works just great)
Re:Remember that WMP is several different things (Score:3, Informative)
Windows Media Player is just that, the player. It's not themes, it's not codecs, it's not DirectShow/ActiveMovie.
Just about any other media player that you can install in windows will play all the same media formats as WMP, usually using the same exact codecs. Uninstalling WMP (if that's possible) should not touch those codecs. I didn't RTFA, but it sounds like Microsoft choose to also not include the codecs to play media. If that's the case, it sounds like Microsoft just told the EU that old school
Taken on it's own (Score:3, Insightful)
First, we have the licensing of server protocols to competitors, which are licensed both in a manner to deliberately exclude oss/fs implimentations, and generally under terms that would be considered unreasonable to all but the largest of proprietary software vendors. This is NOT what the EU mandated.
Second, they have been directly interfering with the work of and trying to claim veto rights over what the EU appointed oversite trustee may be permitted to examine and do. This in particular strikes me as being like a criminal claiming to have the right to decide what his parole officer may say or do. Indeed, this latter issue is the one that seems to have most put a bug under the EU at the moment, as it directly flawnts their authority.
It shouldn't have to be like this, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory, you should be able to completely replace IE with Firefox, so long as Firefox registers all the same OLE interfaces as IE does. The, when an application says "I need an HTML renderer - give me a handle to one" the system would hand it a handle to an object created from the Gecko DLL rather than the MSHTML DLL.
However, due to the way Microsoft implemented the idea, you cannot simply replace the DLLs and rewrite the registry entries. DLLs call functions that are not exported via the normal interfaces, rendering what ought to be a model of OOP a bowl of sticky, congealed spaghetti.
I've said it before with respect to to Mozilla, and I shall once again say it with respect to Media player - until users are able to replace system component objects with third party programs, and do so seamlessly, they will never win, and Microsoft will continue to be a monopoly.
The courts should focus upon requiring Microsoft to follow proper software design principles and the design concept of OLE/COM by making each COM object use ONLY the published interfaces from the other objects in the system, and to allow the user to replace those objects with third party objects if they so choose.
Were Microsoft to do this, they could then look the court, Slashdot, and the people in the eyes and say "We've done our part - here's the freaking documentation on the APIs - if Mozilla or Real have not seen fit to make their product able to do a simple DllRegisterServer and replace our GUIDs, then bitch to MozDev, not us!"
Re:At this point ... (Score:3, Informative)
Would be a great boost for Linux though if they did.
Re:At this point ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? I call bull**** (Score:4, Insightful)
Americans do spend a bit more as a percentage of their earnings, but that means Europeans are saving more, which is hardly a bad thing.
I just can't believe anybody would recite such claptrap. The poster must have never been to Europe to be able to type such rubbish.
Re:At this point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The report talks about net income (which is income after tax), and it completely neglects to take account of all the services provided by taxpayers.
What it effectively says is "The net income of people in the EU is lower that that in the US, and that this is due to (amongst other things) higher taxes."
What it ignores, is that people in the USA must pay for health insurance, public transport, education, and a host of other social security benefits that are available to most people in the EU.
I haven't travelled in the US, but I have in Europe, and I never noticed a single homeless person there (I'm not saying there aren't any). The situation there is even better than in Australia where I live.
If I had to make a choice between a high-tax/high-spend system, and its opposite, I'd go for high-tax every time, because of increased social productivity, vastly decreased crime, homelessness, drug addiction.....
When I read it, I couldn't believe that someone could write a report with such transperant bias.
Re:At this point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the exception of medical care, I can't say which system is better-- wealth is nice, and it's much harder to achieve the higher echelons on your own in the European system (by starting your own business, for example.) On the other hand, are we really better off with larger homes and more appliances? Most Europeans I've met have all they need, if not everything they want. And my impression is that they tend to enjoy a more stress-free existance, because if they lose their job or get sick they don't face the risk of losing everything we have.
Re:At this point ... (Score:4, Insightful)
the Uk has an average salary of £22,411 which is around $41,958.91
The same for germany and france roughly
Re:At this point ... (Score:3, Insightful)
People should take GDP figures older than 6 months or so with a grain of salt. The US dollar has pretty seriously weakened in the last few months (almost 50% in some cases).
Re:At this point ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK has lower unemployment, proportionately higher exports, proportionally *far* lower imports, is an energy exporter and has *no* external debt. I have to say looking at those figures I feel we're in a far better financial position as a whole.
Those income figures are not right. All other reports say that the average for the uk is £22,000. For example here [incomesdata.co.uk]
Re:At this point ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why Microsoft is sitting on billions sailing around in their yachts and you're at home posting on slashdot as an anonymous coward.
Nobody ever got rich by walking away form a multi-billion dollar market as long as it was still widely profitable just because they weren't allowed to cheat to make money.
Re:Gut reaction (Score:3, Informative)
Why not? They did almost the exact same thing in the US Antitrust trial -- completely broke Windows when told to remove IE, even though others with access to the source code had managed to do it successfully without major problems.
I mean, geez, they deliberately falsified video evidence in a federal court and barely got a stern talking-to -- why would they ever bother to do what they're told to? It's not like anybody ever penalizes them.
Re:Commision has contradictory requirements (Score:3, Insightful)
People publish APIs all the time. Including Microsoft. The only difference here is that Microsoft is obliged to prove that the APIs published are both genuine and complete.
Rival systems had produ
Re:MS LIES (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, I miss the go-go 90s.
Re:Vole? (Score:3, Informative)
A vole is a small rodent resembling a mouse but with a stouter body; a shorter, hairy tail; and smaller ears and eyes.
Re:Need WMP to play video in Word! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, what Word should do, according to the Microsoft developer documentation everybody else is supposed to read and follow, is use COM to request an object implementing the Media Player interface, and then make calls on that object to play media. As long as the underlying provider implements the complete interface as documented, the calling application isn't supposed to have to care exactly what the underlying provider is. This is, again according to Microsoft, exactly what COM is supposed to be for: allow