PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft warns EU it may get substandard Windows


MacBytes
Nov 13, 2003, 03:13 PM
Category: Microsoft
Link: Microsoft warns EU it may get substandard Windows (http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/11/13/rtr1146849.html)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

Mudbug
Nov 13, 2003, 03:20 PM
by substandard, does that mean doesn't crash often and decent security?

Or is this a plea by microsoft to say "we're going to offer you substandard products, so why don't you just get a superstandard product from apple that won't cause you as many problems in the first place?"

1macker1
Nov 13, 2003, 03:25 PM
That's BS, why shouldn't they be allowed to put media player in their software. There shouldnt be special rules for MS. So should apple be forced to stop putting Quicktime in with their software.

leet1
Nov 13, 2003, 03:26 PM
so why don't you just get a superstandard product from apple that won't cause you as many problems in the first place?"


Or an even better product that doesn't have such proprietary hardware concerns? **cough** Linux**cough** :p

JohnHummel
Nov 13, 2003, 03:27 PM
This means that there is:

No tie in from Internet Explorer to the broswser - so you can't use it to hack the system?

That SMB login requests aren't rejected as quickly as possible rather than doing the proper UNIX'y thing and waiting a moment, so you can't throw 6000 attempts to login Administrator in a second?

That you can't use visual basic scripts/Microsoft Office Macros that are so tied to the operating system that it's the #1 ways to get viruses?

That not every piece of software services is turned on by default, so I have to manually tell it "yes, I want to share files" or "yes, I want to have messaging on" so it's hard to crack into?

That I don't have Official Microsoft Approved Software bugging me every 5 minutes if I want to sign up for Passport or Microsoft Instant Messanger or Don't you want to use Outlook Express?

For that matter - no Outlook Express to help spread viruses through when it gets cracked? Again?

Wow - if that's the plan for a substandard Windows, then sign me up! I remember the "good old days" when Win98Lite was a program that could make Windows 98 lean and mean - and it was far more stable because it didn't have all the extra crud into the OS.

Which is what I think the real problem is. If you look at OS X, Safari is a program - you are not "forced" to use it by default to browse files. You can delete it. The same for Mail and, well, pretty much every program you want to. It's not a part of the kernel itself - so I only have to sue what I want to (well, within reason - I'm not sure if you can delete Finder, but let's face it, every OS has that one app you can't get rid of or it would be useless - unlike Windows which seems to have 50).

Just my opinion - I could be wrong.

dombi
Nov 13, 2003, 03:35 PM
How could they deliver something even more sub-standard than the current Windows?

How about fixing all the f@#$ed up standards that they have created in with IE, and so on.

I am really not suprised at the EU doing this. I think that they are right, and have all the rights to do this.

d

leet1
Nov 13, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by dombi
I think that they are right, and have all the rights to do this.


You think its right for a country to control what software companies develop and say what they can and can't put in it.

Maybe its just me and a few other people on here that think, weither it be windows or any other operating system, that thats just not right.

redAPPLE
Nov 13, 2003, 03:53 PM
substandard software? hey. that is what about 80% of computer users around the world are using now right?

MarcL
Nov 13, 2003, 04:16 PM
Microsoft gets judged under different rules because they are a monopolist. No more, no less. They are also a monopolist that intentionally weaves its proprietary technology into the OS to secure its permanency and prevent users from exploring other options. Microsoft's format standardization is not because their options are the best ones, but because they are blatantly forced on their massive user base.

The main problem with this is that the standards are proprietary and intentionally exclusive. If Microsoft was embedding standards that were open and common to all platforms, there wouldn't be an issue. WMP is not a player, like Quicktime tries to be, that encodes and decodes as many standards as possible; its primary concern is cementing Microsoft's stranglehold, not "innovating" or offering choices to customers.

Microsoft's modus operandi has always been to (illegally) strongarm and bully their formats into standardization ASAP, and by the time they get charged or fined or found guilty of anti-competitive practises, it's too late. They pay a little fine or make some tiny concession but still reap the rewards of their illegal and monopolistic tactics.

If WMP and DRM and IE are all weaved into the Windows OS, it's not because they need to be -- it's because it then makes it difficult to remove. "It will break Windows," they complain. But MS can also choose (especially with the context of anti-competitive legal action) to NOT embed the technology and Windows won't suffer. All they have to do is program it that way.

That is why Microsoft must be stopped.

Vonnie
Nov 13, 2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
That's BS, why shouldn't they be allowed to put media player in their software. There shouldnt be special rules for MS. So should apple be forced to stop putting Quicktime in with their software.

They are a monopolist, that needs extra rules to keep certain markets normal. Real Software or Windows Media isn't pushed out of the market, just because Apple included Quicktime Player with Panther.

1macker1
Nov 13, 2003, 04:49 PM
So punish MS til others catch up and become the new monoply. MS isn't a monolopy, the just ruled a few years back that they wasn't. It's their right to include what they want in their software.

If that's the case, then Apple shouldnt include Quicktime in their software. Nor should the include iTunes.

MarcL
Nov 13, 2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
MS isn't a monolopy, the just ruled a few years back that they wasn't. It's their right to include what they want in their software.

If that's the case, then Apple shouldnt include Quicktime in their software. Nor should the include iTunes.

What?! Microsoft is absolutely a monopoly, and a dangerous one at that. If Apple was a monopoly and forcing use of Quicktime to the exclusion of all others, they would need to be stopped.

Not to mention that Quicktime Player, like Safari, can be removed with no ill effects. WMP and IE are not essential to the operation of Windows -- it is now because it is intentionally programmed that way. Users would suffer NO inconvenience or loss in functionality if WMP and IE were separate apps and plug-ins.

Not only that, but it is probably more logical to have them as modules for the sake of upgrading, patching, etc. SO functionality isn't "broken" everywhere else if something needs to change.

mrsebastian
Nov 13, 2003, 05:40 PM
seems to me they are figuring out how to make a poorly patched together opperating system more secure and reliable, since microsoft won't do it themselves.

leet1
Nov 13, 2003, 05:41 PM
Its not forced on users to use WMP. Just because it comes with the OS and isn't uninstallable doesn't mean its being forced to be used. You can install another player and make it your default player. Its really not that big of a deal.

simX
Nov 13, 2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
So punish MS til others catch up and become the new monoply. MS isn't a monolopy, the just ruled a few years back that they wasn't. It's their right to include what they want in their software.

If that's the case, then Apple shouldnt include Quicktime in their software. Nor should the include iTunes.

Sorry, you're wrong. See this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/Story/0,2763,566426,00.html). Microsoft was ruled as a monopoly, and one that uses illegal tactics to maintain that monopoly.

Thanks for playing, but you struck out. Next!

Originally posted by leet1
Its not forced on users to use WMP. Just because it comes with the OS and isn't uninstallable doesn't mean its being forced to be used. You can install another player and make it your default player. Its really not that big of a deal.

When your operating system totally ignores your default browser choice and opens Internet Explorer anyway (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5094144.html), yes it is forced on users. This is why Microsoft is being regulated. Here's the relevant quote:

Clicking the link opens an Internet Explorer window--even if another browser such as Opera is the computer's default browser--and takes the computer user to a Microsoft page advertising a handful of top artists' albums, along with a space to search for other artists by name.

I'd like to see you tell me that that's not abusing its position as a monopoly.

leet1
Nov 13, 2003, 07:01 PM
I was using firebird as my default for a while, never had that problem.....been fixed...?

simX
Nov 13, 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by leet1
I was using firebird as my default for a while, never had that problem.....been fixed...?

Wow, are you that na´ve? From the same CNet article to which I linked above:

"We believe that the use of Internet Explorer by the Shop for Music Online feature in Windows XP is consistent with the design rules established in the consent decree," Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said.

See now why Microsoft is being regulated?

leet1
Nov 13, 2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by simX
Wow, are you that na´ve?

I have never had that happen to me. Never. Ever.

[mod. edit - Insult.]

Mr.Hey
Nov 13, 2003, 07:18 PM
They tried this with Explorer and now with a media player (wtf).

simX
Nov 13, 2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by leet1
I have never had that happen to me. Never. Ever.

I'm just pointing out that maybe you shouldn't be giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt all of the time. :rolleyes:

[EDIT: Um, yeah. With the mod edit it made my comment seem out of place. :P

Anyway, this seems to be an incredibly specific place of forcing Internet Explorer on users that not many people will run up against. From the article, it says that it's not clicking on any link -- it seems to be just clicking a link that appears when browsing the "My Music" folder. So that may be why you aren't seeing the problem.

In any case, even though it's a specific case, this still violates the terms of the settlement, and it's clear to me that Microsoft really doesn't care about being an illegal monopoly. They got an incredibly lax settlement and they still can't find the willpower to abide by it. This is the nature of Microsoft, and so yes, Microsoft needs to be regulated while other companies do not.]

MoparShaha
Nov 13, 2003, 09:33 PM
The EU seems to be one of our greatest allies. Now if they could only switch to Mac. I'm glad to see one government not being bought out by Bill Gates. Someone needs to stand up to Microsoft. I sincerely hope this is the begginning of the end of MS's stronghold on the industry.

whocares
Nov 13, 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by leet1
You think its right for a country to control what software companies develop and say what they can and can't put in it.

Maybe its just me and a few other people on here that think, weither it be windows or any other operating system, that thats just not right.

To re-phrase the idea, I personnally think it's a governments right and duty to protect its citizens. Controling what MS puts in their OS can be considered as a move to protect the EU users, for security reasons as well as to ensure free competition. Of course this is all debatable... but such a debate should be moved to Political and War Discussions as it might get a bit nasty :p

Originally posted by MoparShaha
The EU seems to be one of our greatest allies. Now if they could only switch to Mac. I'm glad to see one government not being bought out by Bill Gates. Someone needs to stand up to Microsoft. I sincerely hope this is the begginning of the end of MS's stronghold on the industry.


That's 15 governments Mopar ;)

Golem
Nov 14, 2003, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by 1macker1
So punish MS til others catch up and become the new monoply. MS isn't a monolopy, the just ruled a few years back that they wasn't. It's their right to include what they want in their software.

.

MS is a monopoly and Monopoly companies have special rules under many goverments. They are not allowed to force their way into other markets by using their monopoly in another market.

Joe Blow,average citizen has a right to choice!. That is why IBM got split,that is why AT&T got split etc. The only thing stopping MS from including office,accounting etc into their OS is laws and goverments as above.

1macker1
Nov 14, 2003, 09:25 AM
NO one is forced to use WMP.

The courts ruled MS was not a monopoly. They were going to split MS up into different divisons.

http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,44900,00.html

1macker1
Nov 14, 2003, 09:30 AM
You have a choice, just dont use WMP. I dont use it. I dont use IE, so what do you mean.
Originally posted by Golem
MS is a monopoly and Monopoly companies have special rules under many goverments. They are not allowed to force their way into other markets by using their monopoly in another market.

Joe Blow,average citizen has a right to choice!. That is why IBM got split,that is why AT&T got split etc. The only thing stopping MS from including office,accounting etc into their OS is laws and goverments as above.

The only thing MS is guilty of is doing "good" business. If Real's player was worth .02 cents, people would use it. It's just a crappy application.

Golem
Nov 14, 2003, 06:18 PM
Unrestrained Monopolys are bad for everybody else! They might be good business for the company that does them but no one else can compete except another monopoly. Monopolists have no need to innovate and no need to supply on price unless it is forced on them by goverment.

If for example IBM had got a much better foothold at the start of the 80's and apple had folded quickly want to give me the odds you wouldnt be running Dos 2002 On a IBM PC right now?

simX
Nov 14, 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
NO one is forced to use WMP.

The courts ruled MS was not a monopoly. They were going to split MS up into different divisons.

http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,44900,00.html

Maybe you should reread the article to which you linked. The sentencing (if that's what you can call it), which was to break up Microsoft, was overturned because the judge spoke to the press about it. But the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and that they abused their position was upheld. In the second paragraph, the article YOU QUOTED says:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Thursday upheld a lower court's conclusion last year that Microsoft violated federal antitrust laws.

So please don't go spreading lies and misinformation. Microsoft is a monopoly, and it abused its position as monopoly. Period. End of story.

You have a choice, just dont use WMP. I dont use it. I dont use IE, so what do you mean.

As I mentioned before, Microsoft abuses its monopoly by forcing its applications on its users. And as I pointed out before (sigh, :rolleyes: ), I provided a specific example with IE -- despite the default browser setting, Microsoft made IE open in response to a link being clicked in the "My Music" folder of Windows XP. Users of Windows would indeed be allowed to use other applications other than Microsofts' if only Microsoft would let them. And it's obvious that Microsoft isn't going to stop doing what it's doing, which is why it should be regulated.

Please don't make me explain this again.