Microsoft Threatens to Yank XP and 2000 → Remarkable shortsighted opinion TM

You can not simply give MS control of everything that goes on the OS. IF this is the case then this its NOT an OS, its a software suite. In any event, however you define it, the OS is a separate piece of software from the applications.



Without blinking I would firmly reply, "Go ahead, make my day!"

Were going to pull out OS, hehehe. I guess its time for some new lawyers, these guys are used up.

I personally know the Microsoft model. LOTS of people FULLY know M$ COM and DCOM. Its exceedingly simply to remove IE from the computer. EXCEEDINGLY. so their claim is basically perjury.

Let me explain. COM or component object model is what M$ software is based on these days. .NET takes that a step further I believe. In any event, Did you ever wonder how MS Project, MS Word, MS Money, Outlook express, even Excel, etc. all are capable of interpreting HTML documents? Most likely this is because they all use COM and use the COM object that does the HTML interpretation. IE is just a smaller version of those applications. It uses that COM object for HTML interpretation, and it adds things like favorites, and home page button, history, caching, etc. Where as word will add different things. So IE is no different from MS word in the way it uses HTML. So if you can sell the OS without Word, you can sell it without IE, while still including the IE COM Object.

I agree with M$ that the COM Object is required. So much is dependent on it. It would be like not having the VB Runtime files, or the MFC files which is so commonly used these days that M$ simply pre-installed them on all newer OSes. But the IE Faceplate for that COM object I don't believe is required. I have not read the official court documents to see specifically what they required, so I can not say exactly what the courts are asking and what M$ actual defense is to it. This is only my guess.

Personaly I say go ahead, then Bring back GeOS!!!!!

said by OrigZaphod042:

---

Personaly I say go ahead, then Bring back GeOS!!!!!

---

GeOS? That a typo?

GeOS stands for Graphic Environment Operating System. It was basically a rendition of the Mac-Windows OS designed to run on the Commodore 64 of all machines. It was slow as all get-out unless you owned a Ram Expansion Unit, since everything would have to be saved and read from the Commodore's painfully slow floppy drive with only 64k of ram (most of which was devoured by the OS itself.) Despite the speed issues, the system was quite impressive for its day and sported filing, word process and paint capabilities.

said by Old GeoWriter:

---

GeOS stands for Graphic Environment Operating System. It was basically a rendition of the Mac-Windows OS designed to run on the Commodore 64 of all machines. It was slow as all get-out unless you owned a Ram Expansion Unit, since everything would have to be saved and read from the Commodore's painfully slow floppy drive with only 64k of ram (most of which was devoured by the OS itself.) Despite the speed issues, the system was quite impressive for its day and sported filing, word process and paint capabilities.

---

I agree with all that except the "Rendition" part because I believe GeOS was before Windows 3.0, and around the time of the early MAC's.

MAC's were first before GeOS, I'm pretty sure tho, but GeOS beat Windows GUI.

Nope. GeOS was a GUI for the Commodore C-64.

I never ceased to be amazed with what the C-64 could do with only 64K total memory... and usually only 48K of that was available RAM. I know some programs managed to switch out most the ROMS and get up to about 60K, but that was about the max.

Man, 60K. Talk about efficiency. I'm sure this one browser page I'm typing on right now is taking a LOT more then 60K to display.....

"You can not simply give MS control of everything that goes on the OS. IF this is the case then this its NOT an OS, its a software suite. In any event, however you define it, the OS is a separate piece of software from the applications."

This is the thing that gets me. I don't know a lot about all this IT, OS, software bull. My profession is accounting. When I turn on my new PC I want everything to be there and ready to work.

I don't have the time nor the desire to sit in front of a dead PC trying to re-compile a kernel (whatever that hell that means). I like the way things work now. You guys may all desire to do those things but not everyone in the world does. Many of you seem to think that we all want to live in a linux world and should know exactly how to make the damd thing work when it will not.

I simply have this one question that has been stuck in my head every since this stupidness started.

Is there a law or guideline that says that an Operating System must be separate from all other software?

Is there a similar law or guideline that applies to a Browser or Office Suite?

No there isn't. Just like there isn't a law or guideline that says a car can't come bundled with an engine, and a gas tank.

So why is it that the techies seem to think that its such a horrible crime to bundle those things together?

Does Macintosh not do the exact same thing? The only difference is that Apple owns the entire box. No one has any right to require them to change anything to suite they're needs.

> So why is it that the techies seem to think that its such a horrible crime to bundle those things together?
> Does Macintosh not do the exact same thing?

I keep seeing this same fundamental misunderstanding over and over again. Microsoft is a monopoly. Certain actions that are legal as a normal business are not legal as a monopoly. Bundling is one of those actions.

Does anybody remember IBM? They were struck down for the exact same practice - and it hurt them bad. Yet the world, including IBM, is much better off.

God bless,
-Toby Reyelts

Well said.

Folks, the problem is - If M$ decided to cease operations today, and somehow transmit information to every PC that has their OS loaded on it that forced it to stop running, how many of you would be able to use your PC?

This issue at hand is that we have given too much control to one company for an appliance that we basically depend on for daily living. Granted, this was not an issue years ago when the PC was good for desktop publishing and a handful of other things, but now practically any machine runs it. Including servers that manage our financial networks, telecommunications networks, etc.

Again, are you REALLY that comfortable allowing one company to basically control that much data?

I'm not.

So, I use Linux and had to learn some things. Today's society has gotten so lazy now days, that the issue of doing anything out of the norm strikes fear and panic in the minds of millions.

Do yourself a favor, stimulate your brain today…

Folks, the problem is - If M$ decided to cease operations today, and somehow transmit information to every PC that has their OS loaded on it that forced it to stop running, how many of you would be able to use your PC?

Oh, thats just pure BS. Now you are linking MS with some mystical PC catastrophe that they could somehow cause to come about. What if just as mystically the inventor of the microchip caused them all to stop working, you wouldn't be able to use a single appliance in your home. Is that any more likely to come about? No. Shall we get more absurd, what if the inventor of the wheel somehow made them all morph into blocks, no cars!

There are some semi-valid complaints about MS, but yours certainly isn't one of them. Even if MS stopped working, people would adapt, another OS (or a couple) would quickly rise up to take it's place.

I run or have run Lynux, BeOS, Macintosh, and even good ole Amiga! I use MS now, because it's more convenient, does what I want it to do out of the box without having to screw with it overly much, and thats the same reason other people run it.

If it wasn't a good series of OS's, didn't do what a majority of the world wanted it to do, they wouldn't be the most common OS's on the planet.

said by Insanitywiz:

---

Oh, thats just pure BS. Now you are linking MS with some mystical PC catastrophe that they could somehow cause to come about. What if just as mystically the inventor of the microchip caused them all to stop working, you wouldn't be able to use a single appliance in your home. Is that any more likely to come about? No. Shall we get more absurd, what if the inventor of the wheel somehow made them all morph into blocks, no cars!

---

First off, I'm not accusing M$ of having this capability in their software. My statement was of pure example to stimulate one's thoughts to think to consider how many of the systems we rely on today use M$ software.

said by achuchma:

---

First off, I'm not accusing M$ of having this capability in their software. My statement was of pure example to stimulate one's thoughts to think to consider how many of the systems we rely on today use M$ software.

---

But your problem persists, you are trying to stimulate people into thinking about some over-dramatization that could theoretically happen. You are trying to say people using MS software is bad...because people use MS software. Like I said, there are some valid issues with MS, but your example is pure drama hype.

said by Insanitywiz:

---

But your problem persists, you are trying to stimulate people into thinking about some over-dramatization that could theoretically happen...

---

Okay, I can see that I'm not going to be able to turn you into the correct direction here.

To clarify your post for the rest of the world, the point I am making is for people to realize that a good majority of the systems we rely on are M$ based.

Do I think that M$ has some "magic cookie" out there that could shut down every version of M$ Windows? Of course not, that would be absurd.

Do I think that a majority of this planet's systems running on a M$ platform is dangerous? Yes.

Have we seen the example that all these systems run on M$ as a dangerous thing in the past? Yes - Especially when a big virus strain hits the networks and major businesses are crippled for hours into days.

Do I think desktop users should all convert to Unix/Linux/Etc? No. I think that most desktop users lack the technical ability to comprehend an OS that is more than a "point and click" interface. I do not see anything wrong with this.

I do have a problem when "system administrators" (the quotes because there are fewer and fewer knowledgeable system admins out there) completely rely on the Windows platforms to run and manage their networks.

Anyone with the proper training in mission critical networking, would incorporate redundant systems with diversified equipment/software.

The problem is, there are fewer and fewer properly trained system admins every day. And each "slacker" that replaces the informed admin would rather put in a few Windows NT (or 2000) boxes to host the network because "It's easy to set-up".

I'm sorry, but from what I have learned in the field was this: You are paid to be a computer guru. Installing server software because it's "easy to set-up" is not valid. You're paid to set-up servers with software that will protect mission critical information, not look pretty on your screen with bubble gum buttons and cool mouse pointers.

My point? The more we rely on one OS, the more vulnerable our data becomes to hacked security flaws. The more diversified our OS dependency becomes, the better off we are. Can we live without computers today? Yes. Do we want to? No.

I just have one question:

In a business model, is it economically viable to retrain everyone to use another OS [such as Linux] and retrain them to use non-proprietary software as well? Especially when the average cost of training for a rep in an IBM Global Services Call Center is $25,000?

If it worked the way you believe, then IBM would still be using OS2 in its call centers. We aren't. We're using licensed Microsoft Windows products. Why? They're the standard. They're the average. They reduce our training costs. Period.

While it may cost less to put Linux on the machines, it would cost more to train people to rebuild a kernal.

What would your solution to that dilemma be?

said by DSL Oberst:

---

They're the standard.

---

They are standard ONLY on the desktop.

said by DSL Oberst:

---

While it may cost less to put Linux on the machines, it would cost more to train people to rebuild a kernal.

---

Why would you train call-center representatives to recompile a kernel? You don't train them to reimage the NT computers, do you? Granted, many of them may know how, as it isn't a difficult process, but you don't train them to do it, unless they are going to be doing it.

If they are in a call-center, you don't WANT them to be compiling the kernel, your agents wouldn't have the root password, and wouldn't be able to recompile the kernel. Your argument is flawed, in that you think that normal users will need to perform system administrative activities, when, for the most part, they wouldn't.

My roommates have never needed to recompile...

That's okay with me. I wrote this comment in Mandrake Linux 8.1. All my Windows games and programs run fine in 98.

said by mritchie:

---

That's okay with me. I wrote this comment in Mandrake Linux 8.1. All my Windows games and programs run fine in 98.

---

This is completely off the subject, but a buddy of mine swears by Mandrake and he doesn't know a lick about computers aside from the office. What's your take on Mandrake?

The problem here is that Linux users want everyone to use Linux OS for X number of reasons. The same as true for the Window users.

The thing is there is a bigger number of dumb users. These are people who want a OS to do everything for them and is SIMPLE TO USE. When microsoft provided this people start to buy computers left and right. NEXT companies that wanted to sell computers put WINDOWS on them WHY you ask because they will sell. See my point.

Now other OS's are to far behind Windows to catch up and are complaining, because BIG brother got to many cookies. Linux should of took the same track with Keep it simple for users. Then we would NOT here everyone complaining. Now it is to late because most of the market for developers is geared for Windows Development.

The only thing left to do is bridge all of these OS's so you can run any APP on any OS. That should be the dream not how may OS are out, but can I write a program ONCE, compile it. And it WHILE run on any OS, because of standards set in place. That is what Lindows is trying to come close to do. If it works I WILL be using that OS for sure.

said by workhorse149:

---

The only thing left to do is bridge all of these OS's so you can run any APP on any OS. That should be the dream not how may OS are out, but can I write a program ONCE, compile it. And it WHILE run on any OS, because of standards set in place. That is what Lindows is trying to come close to do. If it works I WILL be using that OS for sure.

---

That's exactly what I think should happen. Check my other posts and you will hear me ranting left and right about making an industry wide standard of interoperability. The answer isn't to kill Microsoft. It's to level the playing field so a person can choose what they want on their computer. In other words I agree with you.

This is BS. Where would we be today?
We would have 15 to 20 different OS's to choose from.

Think of the problems you would have if it wasn't for MS.
How long would it take to find a driver??
You have to make sure your OS will support the hardware/software. Adobe would have to make 15 to 20 different versions to photoshop etc.

MS has made computing what it is!

"Its exceedingly simply to remove IE from the computer. EXCEEDINGLY. so their claim is basically perjury."

The Government doesnt just want IE out of the way, it is also requiring that MS removes MSN Messenger (which is probably as easy as IE) and Windows Media Player... I for one, think that we should just let MS get on with it, alright, so they are "pouncing" on all competition, but i would much rather have one OS that does most things that i need it too, rather than having a billion and one diff programs running on my desktop!

said by jsneyd:

---

I for one, think that we should just let MS get on with it, alright, so they are "pouncing" on all competition, but i would much rather have one OS that does most things that i need it too, rather than having a billion and one diff programs running on my desktop!

---

On the contrary, the fact that you HAVE to have Microsoft's added "features" on your computer when you choose not to use them seems to cause more congestion on your computer than picking what you want and un-installing the rest. I think with the argument you state that having the opportunity to take out things like MS Firewall or Media Player if you do not want them would be more in line to your desires. The fact you can't is what bloats your system. Not the fact you can get additional programs that are similar and even superior to the MS counterparts.

The problem isn't the way some people see it. It's not as simple as asking "what's wrong with bundling?"

Microsoft has been involved in some very shady business. It's about MS having talks with Netscape and saying "You take the Mac market, we'll take PC market" and when it Netscape said no, they released a free browser in order to corner the market. It's about when that browser (IE 2.0) completely sucked, they bundled v3.0 with Win98 in order to force it on the masses and kill Netscape. It's about charging $500 for a word processing program because they've made everything else not work properly, or less effective, and just saying "We can't support all programs with every OS release". It's about bundling Windows with a browser when they're two very different functions, and there's no reason to do it besides corner the market and leverage your monopoly on the OS market. It's about stealing Quicktime code in making Windows Media Player, and when Apple sues, just agreeing to buy $100 million in Apple stock, or else kiss our butts and let's duke it out in court for years, because by the time it gets to court technology will have completely changed and the case will no longer be relevant.

It's about a lot of nasty things MS has done and is doing. It's about an OS that should just be an OS, and make it OPTIONAL for everything else. It could be that way. It's not, because MS owns it.

People need to wake the hell up.