Microsoft forced to modularize Windows

BPizzuti · 03-06-2002, 03:39 PM

There's an interesting news report/discussion thread going on over at geek.com about what Microsoft has threatened to do if forced to sell a version of Windows that can have certain components selectively installed or uninstalled (namely withdraw themselves from the market). It's at:

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0305010569.htm

I put in my 2 cents, but dunno what people will say about it yet. What I'm wondering is what you guys on here think of the idea, and of the discussion (if you can call it that, but most of the posts are more like a flame war

)

MMICROSOFT!!

LINUX!!

Maybe we should all just go back to dumb terminals.

Georules · 03-06-2002, 09:30 PM

I have to say, even though I can't wait to see the day MS dies, (which is somewhat hypocritical) I can't help but feel that they should be allowed to do what they like with thier OS. I put myself in thier shoes, like if I made my own OS and added stuff to it, I just don't feel it right for people to force me to stop. I understand why in this case that people find it to be monopolizing, but I just can't help myself from sympathizing. Er, well thats the US for ya I guess.

BPizzuti · 03-06-2002, 09:48 PM

Well, I think the idea here is the removal of the gap between an OS and an application. The next step would be for something like Office to not be an application anymore, but a snap-in-module for Windows.

By your reasoning taken to the extreme, Microsoft should be allowed to write their OS in such a way to prevent software from other companies from functioning, unless written using a Microsoft compiler. Now, the scary thing is, I can see that happening in the future, if things keep going as they are.

You know why they wanted to not let Java on to Windows XP at all? One of the reasons might be because StarOffice needs it to run, and other than Lotus SmartSuite, StarOffice is MS Office's only serious competition. Just a little theory of mine, but it happens to make sense.

You get a warning when you install a driver that isn't MS approved. Maybe soon they'd do that for applications too. What happens when they don't bother with the warning, and just say "This is not approved code, and WIndows will not allow you to install it." They could even call it a feature intended to "increase stability."

Just devil's advocate-ing here, but somehow Microsoft might have (or get) the legal right to do it. "It's their software, and they can write the way they want" carried far enough allows this, so be careful of what you say

Of course, hopefully if it actually GETS that way people will give MS something similar to this:

Hahahaha!

Georules · 03-07-2002, 09:23 AM

heh, I see it taken to the extreme and there I would agree that it is monopolizing, but as it is now, I see it more as innovative, as MS sees it, with integrated stuff. Linux comes prepackaged with stuff, Macintosh comes prepackaged with stuff, MS deserves the right to prepackage some stuff too.

BPizzuti · 03-07-2002, 04:17 PM

Difference: All the other OSes give you and OEMs an easy way to remove said prepackaged stuff, while Microsoft would prefer to force everyone to think that they can't.

See the root of this is that OEMs want to get paid by companies like AOL and Real.com to offer their software instead of MediaPlayer and Windows Messenger. They used to be able to do that too, but instead now Microsoft is forcing OEMs to advertise the Microsoft services instead...and it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to have the OEMs do so either. THAT is unfair competition and abusing a monopoly. See, they're using their effective monopoly in the OS arena in order to boost the use of services like their media player and messenger software at no cost to themselves...in essence free advertising through extorsion. It's also costing OEMs possible revenue from Real.com and AOL.

Now I dunno about you, but if someone offers me money to put their piece of software on a machine I'm selling, and MS tells me I have to advertise their competing service for free and not get anything out of it, I'm gonna squeak. Loudly.

Georules · 03-07-2002, 08:17 PM

OK OK. You got me. That was my best defence for MS. Shot down. MS sucks. I know. But maybe people are being a bit to rough? No? OK. heh.

lowlight · 03-07-2002, 08:18 PM

What packaged stuff is in question? Explorer? That's pretty much a part of the OS, and besides, nobody is stopping people from using Netscape or Opera

BPizzuti · 03-07-2002, 10:19 PM

Explorer used to be one of them, but it's considered a necessity nowadays. THough MS tried to not let people install other browsers. Now all they can do is not let Netscape or Opera look at their MSN sites.

The applications in question are Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger (Which I don't like) and also the DVD playing capability, the packet writing sofware (Which I don't like MS's implementaiton of, but it SHOULD be part of an OS), and most likely their movie maker software and photo editing software. When you think about it, XP didn't add anything to the OS itself..they just added a bunch of Microsoft applications to it, and took out the uninstaller for them.

I think the big ones are the messenger and the media player though...not as big a stink is being made over the other stuff.

lowlight · 03-07-2002, 10:44 PM

Hmm I uninstall MSN Messenger as soon as I install...

And for the Media player, I use the old one

For DVD I use PowerDVD (not that I watch movies on a computer, lol)

I don't think there is an issue here at all

BPizzuti · 03-07-2002, 11:10 PM

Joe AOLer can't uninstall Windows Messenger...and OEM's don't want it there in the first place, because they can't collect money from Real and AOL and put their software on there instead. They can put in on in addition, but then OEMs don't get as much money from Real and AOL.

That's the issue. It actually has nothing to do with the end user. They don't care about us. We are dirt. We are scum. We are nothing.

This is the OEMs vs. Microsoft, basically. Microsoft wants free advertising, and the OEMs want more money from competing companies, and also don't want to give free advertising to Microsoft. People don't realize that this really has nothing to do with end users.

03-06-2002, 03:39 PM	#1
BPizzuti Truly HARDCORE Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 1,016	Microsoft forced to modularize Windows There's an interesting news report/discussion thread going on over at geek.com about what Microsoft has threatened to do if forced to sell a version of Windows that can have certain components selectively installed or uninstalled (namely withdraw themselves from the market). It's at: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0305010569.htm I put in my 2 cents, but dunno what people will say about it yet. What I'm wondering is what you guys on here think of the idea, and of the discussion (if you can call it that, but most of the posts are more like a flame war ) MMICROSOFT!!LINUX!! Maybe we should all just go back to dumb terminals.

03-07-2002, 08:18 PM	#7
lowlight 37% More Evil! Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 13,076	What packaged stuff is in question? Explorer? That's pretty much a part of the OS, and besides, nobody is stopping people from using Netscape or Opera __________________ You do read our reviews, right?

03-07-2002, 10:44 PM	#9
lowlight 37% More Evil! Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 13,076	Hmm I uninstall MSN Messenger as soon as I install... And for the Media player, I use the old one For DVD I use PowerDVD (not that I watch movies on a computer, lol) I don't think there is an issue here at all __________________ You do read our reviews, right?

03-06-2002, 09:30 PM	#2
Georules Serpens Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 8,549	I have to say, even though I can't wait to see the day MS dies, (which is somewhat hypocritical) I can't help but feel that they should be allowed to do what they like with thier OS. I put myself in thier shoes, like if I made my own OS and added stuff to it, I just don't feel it right for people to force me to stop. I understand why in this case that people find it to be monopolizing, but I just can't help myself from sympathizing. Er, well thats the US for ya I guess.

03-06-2002, 09:48 PM	#3
BPizzuti Truly HARDCORE Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 1,016	Well, I think the idea here is the removal of the gap between an OS and an application. The next step would be for something like Office to not be an application anymore, but a snap-in-module for Windows. By your reasoning taken to the extreme, Microsoft should be allowed to write their OS in such a way to prevent software from other companies from functioning, unless written using a Microsoft compiler. Now, the scary thing is, I can see that happening in the future, if things keep going as they are. You know why they wanted to not let Java on to Windows XP at all? One of the reasons might be because StarOffice needs it to run, and other than Lotus SmartSuite, StarOffice is MS Office's only serious competition. Just a little theory of mine, but it happens to make sense. You get a warning when you install a driver that isn't MS approved. Maybe soon they'd do that for applications too. What happens when they don't bother with the warning, and just say "This is not approved code, and WIndows will not allow you to install it." They could even call it a feature intended to "increase stability." Just devil's advocate-ing here, but somehow Microsoft might have (or get) the legal right to do it. "It's their software, and they can write the way they want" carried far enough allows this, so be careful of what you say Of course, hopefully if it actually GETS that way people will give MS something similar to this: Hahahaha!

03-07-2002, 09:23 AM	#4
Georules Serpens Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 8,549	heh, I see it taken to the extreme and there I would agree that it is monopolizing, but as it is now, I see it more as innovative, as MS sees it, with integrated stuff. Linux comes prepackaged with stuff, Macintosh comes prepackaged with stuff, MS deserves the right to prepackage some stuff too.

03-07-2002, 04:17 PM	#5
BPizzuti Truly HARDCORE Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 1,016	Difference: All the other OSes give you and OEMs an easy way to remove said prepackaged stuff, while Microsoft would prefer to force everyone to think that they can't. See the root of this is that OEMs want to get paid by companies like AOL and Real.com to offer their software instead of MediaPlayer and Windows Messenger. They used to be able to do that too, but instead now Microsoft is forcing OEMs to advertise the Microsoft services instead...and it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to have the OEMs do so either. THAT is unfair competition and abusing a monopoly. See, they're using their effective monopoly in the OS arena in order to boost the use of services like their media player and messenger software at no cost to themselves...in essence free advertising through extorsion. It's also costing OEMs possible revenue from Real.com and AOL. Now I dunno about you, but if someone offers me money to put their piece of software on a machine I'm selling, and MS tells me I have to advertise their competing service for free and not get anything out of it, I'm gonna squeak. Loudly.

03-07-2002, 08:17 PM	#6
Georules Serpens Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 8,549	OK OK. You got me. That was my best defence for MS. Shot down. MS sucks. I know. But maybe people are being a bit to rough? No? OK. heh.

03-07-2002, 10:19 PM	#8
BPizzuti Truly HARDCORE Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 1,016	Explorer used to be one of them, but it's considered a necessity nowadays. THough MS tried to not let people install other browsers. Now all they can do is not let Netscape or Opera look at their MSN sites. The applications in question are Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger (Which I don't like) and also the DVD playing capability, the packet writing sofware (Which I don't like MS's implementaiton of, but it SHOULD be part of an OS), and most likely their movie maker software and photo editing software. When you think about it, XP didn't add anything to the OS itself..they just added a bunch of Microsoft applications to it, and took out the uninstaller for them. I think the big ones are the messenger and the media player though...not as big a stink is being made over the other stuff.

03-07-2002, 11:10 PM	#10
BPizzuti Truly HARDCORE Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 1,016	Joe AOLer can't uninstall Windows Messenger...and OEM's don't want it there in the first place, because they can't collect money from Real and AOL and put their software on there instead. They can put in on in addition, but then OEMs don't get as much money from Real and AOL. That's the issue. It actually has nothing to do with the end user. They don't care about us. We are dirt. We are scum. We are nothing. This is the OEMs vs. Microsoft, basically. Microsoft wants free advertising, and the OEMs want more money from competing companies, and also don't want to give free advertising to Microsoft. People don't realize that this really has nothing to do with end users.