Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

Competitors Cry Foul At Windows XP, 2K Service Packs 519

Posted by timothy from the consider-the-source dept.
caudron writes "According to an article at ZDNet, a trade group partly funded, not surprisingly, by Microsoft's competitors is claiming that WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3 contain 6 separate violations of both the letter and spirit of the proposed DOJ Settlement. Equally unsurprising, Microsoft disagrees with them. And so the Case-That-Wouldn't-Die drags ever onward."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Competitors Cry Foul At Windows XP, 2K Service Packs More

Competitors Cry Foul At Windows XP, 2K Service Packs

Comments Filter:

  • The -Proposed- Settlement (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:41AM (#4289798) Homepage
    contain 6 separate violations of both the letter and spirit of the proposed DOJ Settlement.

    But it's not a settlement yet - Microsoft cannot be held accountable for violating rules that don't yet exist.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    • Re:The -Proposed- Settlement (Score:5, Informative)

      by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:43AM (#4289827) Homepage Journal
      the problem is that MS (as part of the deal) was to start operating as if the deal were approved right from the get-go, and not wait for the judge's seal of approval.

      This could be used show the judge that the deal proposed is not sufficient in controlling MS's behavior.

    • Re:The -Proposed- Settlement (Score:5, Interesting)

      by d3xt3r ( 527989 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:57AM (#4290008)
      Yes the settlement is not final yet, however, Microsoft claims that SP1 & SP3 comply with the terms of the proposed settlement. Therefore, it is important to point out MS is lying.

      Hopefully this will make the DOJ wise up to the fact that MS will find a way around anything.

    • Re:The -Proposed- Settlement (Score:5, Funny)

      by stendec ( 582696 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:01PM (#4290058)
      Microsoft cannot be held accountable for violating rules that don't yet exist.

      Trade group: Would you please tell Microsoft to stop?

      Judges: We can't do it, man! That's discipline! That's like tellin' Gene Krupa not to go boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom boom bam ba ba ba ba, da boo boo tsssssssss ! We don't believe in rules 'cuz, like, we gave them up when we started livin' like freaky beatniks! We tried nothin' and we're all outta ideas.

    • Saw this, thought it was funny... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:20PM (#4290282)
      McDonalds' employee: Welcome to McDonalds, may I take your order you please?
      Bill Gates: A big mac please.
      McDonalds' employee: A big mac, a coke. $2.99.
      Bill Gates: Sorry, I ordered just a big mac.
      McDonalds' employee: The coke is part of the meal.
      Bill Gates: I don't want the coke, just the Big Mac please.
      McDonalds' employee: The coke is free and is part of the meal.
      Bill Gates: Until recently the Big Mac was priced at $1.99?
      McDonalds' employee: But now the Big Mac has new features. It is bundled with a coke.
      Bill Gates: But I already have something to drink so I don't want the coke.
      McDonalds' employee: Then you won't get a Big Mac.
      Bill Gates: I will take just the Big Mac and pay $1.99, ok?
      McDonalds' employee: You can't separate the parts of the meal. They are seamlessly integrated and it would destroy the Big Mac if we seperated them.

      • this should be COMPLETELY OK (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's their product. If McDonalds decides to bundle a big Mac with a coke, they should have to right to do it. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. The same applies to Microsoft.

        Remember, you don't have the right to buy any product in any configuration you want. Does McDonalds must offer a half-big Mac for $1.30 ? Or a big Mac with only 1 bun for lesser price ?

        • Re:this should be COMPLETELY OK (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Reid ( 629 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `hgrubnevir'> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @03:43PM (#4292454)
          MS has a monopoly. McDonalds does not. Therefore, the same does NOT apply to MS.

        • Re:this should be COMPLETELY OK (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @05:49PM (#4293401) Homepage
          Suppose that McDonald's is the only place to buy hamburgers and that there is a vital nutrient in hamburgers (let's call the vital nutrient grease). Now, you can get grease if you buy a steak...but most people can't afford steaks. You can make your own hamburgers...but most people don't know how to assemble an all-beef patty.

          Suddenly, McDonald's requires that, in order to get grease, you must pay extra money. You have no choice unless you want to skip your daily grease ration. Furthermore, they are requiring you to purchase a known-addictive substance. You don't have to consume it, of course - you could pour it out and get water from the hose outside. Unfortunately, since most people are sheep, McDonald's knows that most people will drink cola, diminishing the demand for water until cola is so cheap that water is not readily available anymore (of course, you could dig a well and purify it yourself, or you could purchase Dasani (a Coke product) but I digress)

          For the irony impaired...McD=MS, grease=consumer software (which the economy is now dependent upon), steak=high-end OS, hamburger=OS distro, McD hamburger=Windows, and home-made burgers=any free Unix-alike.

          Your error
  • How long do you think this case will last? Honestly, I think that the longer it takes the more solid a position Microsoft is going to wedge itself into, until it's all but impossible to dig them out.

    In a world where technology advances at the rate that it does today, drawn out court cases make decisions far after the point at which the subject of the decision is obsolete.

  • Also at El Reg (Score:4, Informative)

    by red_dragon ( 1761 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:45AM (#4289845) Homepage

    The Register covered it this morning, here. [theregister.co.uk]

  • Article also on The Register (Score:4, Informative)

    by beebware ( 149208 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:45AM (#4289858) Homepage
    The Registers article [theregister.co.uk] gives a bit more information, including links to the ProComp PDF [216.133.66.117] document about the issues (ProComp being the "Sun/Oracle lobby group")

  • Update: XP Sevice pack 2 (Score:3, Funny)

    by bsharitt ( 580506 ) <bridget AT sharitt DOT com> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:48AM (#4289900) Journal
    Microsoft has just released the second service pack for Windows XP, and it contains fixes for all the complaints. In effort to address problems about security andstability, the new service pack also installs the Linux kernel in place of the NT kernel. To allow users fix other problems themself, all Windows source code will be placed in C:\Windows\Source Code

  • .Net Charge is Absurd (Score:5, Informative)

    by M.C. Hampster ( 541262 ) <M.C.TheHampster@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:50AM (#4289921) Journal

    I found this charge to be very interesting:

    The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's .Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine.
    Although Microsoft released the technology long after signing the proposed settlement, the Common Language Runtime meets the standard set by the agreement for determining what future middleware products would be covered by the deal, ProComp said.

    The .Net runtime does not even come included with Windows XP and Windows 2000. Why would they need to include an option to disable the .Net runtime, if it's required that the user of the OS to have downloaded and installed it?

  • Some points (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:53AM (#4289968)
    I am not pro-Microsoft (more pro-right tool for the job) but some of these are silly:

    "Service Pack 1 for Windows XP itself is not readily accessible to consumers, and thus the mechanism purportedly settling the antitrust case is, by definition, not readily accessible," ProComp wrote in the letter.

    Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not. It's not Microsofts fault people are using a 56k modem or that it's not under 50k! I'm unsure about the $9.99 for a CD point myself - the proposed settlement didn't mention anything about them having to forcibly give it to anyone and this price is no different to their usual practises.

    The third violation, ProComp charges, is that the middleware control is not intuitive and comes with no Help file for understanding how to use it.

    So? It does what it's supposed to do. Do you really think they're going to spend money on making it all nice and pretty when end users aren't going to even touch it? They provided the tool and it does the job it says it does - so what if there is no help file?

    In the fifth alleged violation, ProComp said the updated Windows XP's My Music folder called up Internet Explorer for online shopping, even after the group had selected Netscape as the default browser and had hidden access to IE.

    Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight. We all know that Microsofts testing is, ahem, a little erratic. It might not be though, but lets not jump to conclusions.

    It is still worth pointing out that this is a proposed settlement. Microsoft haven't actually signed anything yet.

    • Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not. It's not Microsofts fault people are using a 56k modem or that it's not under 50k!

      The point is that they could have made this update available in a small (20k I would think) download. Instead they decided to make life easier for themselves and harder for those wishing to install JUST this update, by including this small change inside one of their huge service packs. What if someone wanted this update, but did not want the new updated version of micrsoft product X that is in the service pack? They are out of luck I guess.

      I'm unsure about the $9.99 for a CD point myself - the proposed settlement didn't mention anything about them having to forcibly give it to anyone and this price is no different to their usual practises.

      They are not being asked to forcibly give it to anyone. However, since Microsoft is the one that broke the law, THEY should be the ones to pay to make amends for their crimes, not consumers who were already hurt by Microsoft's business practices.

      The real point is this: Microsoft has been found to have committed illegal monopolistic practices with their operating system. They are still in court debating whether the agreement they reached with the DOJ is acceptable. Microsoft should be bending over backwards to at least look like they are adhearing to the letter and spirit of the agreement. That would go a long way towards helping Microsoft in their case. However, Microsoft is instead just going on with business as usual. Doing the very minimum they are required to do to possibly come in line with the DOJ agreement. If this is how Microsoft acts while they are still in court, imagine how they will act if the judge says the DOJ agreement stands? I hope the judge is considering this right now.
    • Your first few sound valid, but the program bringing up IE is not. Certainly they must have an easy test using grep on the source code to find out if a program is calling the "bring up IE" call or the "bring up the user's selected browser" call. They should be required to run this on all their code.

    • Besides, the middleware control system is *definitely* intiutive or do they have a problem following this:

      Web Browser:
      - Use Current
      - Internet Explorer
      - ...

      ?!

      The feature is also in the Start Menu root so MS couldn't possibly have made it more accessible.

      • Re:Some points (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dr Caleb ( 121505 )
        But it doesn't work I installed W2k SP3 the other day. When I check the box that says "Use my current email program" I assume it means Lotus Notes. Then I delete the icon for Outlook Express in the Start menu, and in the quick launch. I log off, then back on, and voila! Outlook Express is back in the Start Menu and Quick Launch. So I go to Add/Remove Windows components, and uncheck Outlook Express. I log off/On and they are back! I check Add/Remove Windows Components, and it's back!

        Following isn't a problem, it's actually getting it to work that is the problem.

    • Re:Some points (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bwt ( 68845 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @01:23PM (#4291004)
      Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not.

      That is a clear violation. They have developed code that depends on IE. The fact that they provide alternate, separate code to do the same thing is irrelevent. They obviously want to play "use nice version A to do X if you have IE or use crappy version B to do X if you use something else". Version A must comply with the settlement, which means it cannot depend on IE specific functionality to install or run. It does, end of story.

      So? It does what it's supposed to do.
      No it doesn't. What defines what the shipped software is "supposed" to do? Nothing: there's no documentation. The user who executes documented, supported functionality cannot do anything with this software.

      Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight.
      Fine, it's an oversight. It is an oversight that results in noncompliance with the proposed settlement agreement. (See below)

      It is still worth pointing out that this is a proposed settlement. Microsoft haven't actually signed anything yet.

      Somebody above pointed out that one of the conditions for the DOJ to agree to support the proposed settlement was that MS agree to be compliant with it immediately. You assert that they haven't signed "anything" yet, which contradicts this. Who is correct?

      MS has gone before the Court and said that they agree that the proposed settlement will remedy their anticompetitive behavior. If they then turn around and issue software that doesn't comply with THEIR OWN position, while they simultaneously and wrongly assert that it does, then doesn't that mean that A) they are acting in bad faith and B) greater enforcement oversight is needed.
  • ...ok I am as anti MS as the next guy in most cases, but these allegations are just plain whining...

    First of all the control does just what it should and hides(I don't remember a situlation to disable) those componets...

    Second its meant for OEM's to use not really the end user...(Again was the spirt of the request, for OEM s to do the hiding)

    Third, when using MS componets they usually need other componets its unfair for this to be changed...However I think MS should be forced to open the APIs to have others products fill those roles...

    Finally .NET is a set of runtimes, you can't diable it, anything they is compiled with VS.NET will not work if you diabled it, and in the near future of new product releases thats going to be nearly every windows application and game....

  • i'd prefer... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:55AM (#4289979) Journal
    Competitors Cry Foul At Windows XP, 2K Service Packs

    I'd prefer it if they were to "Cry 'Havoc'! and let slip the dogs of war"

  • First, they claim that it's hard to get. Jesus Christ, it's in a service pack. That's how MS has *ALWAYS* distributed their software. Now, with automatic update, it'll even come over automatically. And the whole download doesn't have to be done in one sitting either.

    Secondly, it doesn't provide Start Menu access? Well, I'm looking at a big icon for it right now, not even in the "Programs" section. They must have blind software testers working for them.

    Thirdly, they claim that it's hard to use. I understand usability. Really, I do. But THIS being hard to use? A fucking 10 year old could use it.

    This "ProComp" group, whoever they are, certainly are fucking clueless. ZDNet even reporting this garbage is really, really irresponsible. Crackpots send letters to the gov't all of the time. Even worse, this isn't just some random crackpot, this is a fake group created by some of MS competitors.

    This article is complete garbage.

    • Re:ProComp is full of shite. (Score:4, Funny)

      by mblase ( 200735 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:10PM (#4290162)
      But THIS being hard to use? A fucking 10 year old could use it.

      Usually, the ten-year-olds are the only ones in the family who can use it.
    • Actually it is a pain in the ass to get, even over broadband. It's huge and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, rarely chooses to setup mirrors. Everything comes from one connection, one group of servers, and that's super inefficient. My download squeaked by at about 10KB/sec or so, ebbing a flowing just a little for a long long time. My connection supports 150KB/sec sustained so you could imagine it was frustrating.

      From time to time they have CNet or someone mirror important updates (like this one should be) but not this time.

      Every day I see newer and more valuable benefits to linux distros like Mandrake. If Ibiblio is slow I can hit secsup.org or a dozen others.
      • "It's huge and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, rarely chooses to setup mirrors."

        Huh? Microsoft has been using akamai for a couple years now, before that it was conxion. It's mirrored all over the world. I believe they're doing bandwidth limiting on the download in order to support more users at once, as all downloads I've seen of XPSP1 have been at exactly 10K.

        For like $15 you can get a CD sent to you via Airborne Express.
    • Agreed.. ProComp is doing nothing else than making fools of themselves.

      Interesting how they find the easiest things in Windows hard to find, when they do all this to get more users to *nix based systems.

  • Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `101retsaMytilaeR'> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @11:56AM (#4290000) Homepage Journal

    The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's .Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine.

    ka-BOOOOM!! There's goes the group's credibility (if they ever had any). First of all, .NET is NOT an alternative to Sun's JVM. .NET is an application environment, period. It's a different product. Second, what the hell does .NET have to do with ANY of these issues? Answer: Nothing.

    Yes, clearly there should be options to disable the standard Windows GUI APIs as well.

    Sun is so f'ing stupid. Everytime they try and pull bullshit like this, they just increase the sympathy for Microsoft. I can't wait until Sun goes under and that smirk is finally wiped off McNealy's face.

    • Yes it is. Anybody who has kept up on it knows that is what the CLR is. MS couldn't change JAVA to do this, so they came up with there own. They don't say '.net' they say '.nets framework CLR',and CLR is an attempt to replce the JVM.

      read this [microsoft.com]

      is it a violation of thewre agreement? I don't know, I am not a lawyer.

    • Sun as in java.sun.com are one of the members of the group.

      And as to .NET with its VM and bid for the enterprise not being a competitor to Java with its VM and establishment in the enterprise. Same as saying Linux isn't a competitor to Windows.
    • Although Microsoft released the technology long after signing the proposed settlement, the Common Language Runtime meets the standard set by the agreement for determining what future middleware products would be covered by the deal, ProComp said.

      See? .NET is a new middleware component according to the definitions of the proposed settlement. All new middleware components would need to be included in this control. Say Borland creates a better .NET VM and I wanted to use that one instead of MS's?

      So, yes, .NET isn't Java (after all, Java is much more mature), but it is a middleware component.
  • I would have to see the 'non-intuitive' interfaces they are refering to. As for the SP updates, the time is normal for any windows update.

    I am sure M$ will do whatever they can to make this obscure, but the features added are being added more for the OEM's than for the home user.

  • According to an article at ZDNet, a trade group
    partly funded, not surprisingly, by Microsoft's
    competitors is claiming that WinXP SP1 and
    Win2k SP3 contain 6 separate violations of
    both the letter and spirit of the proposed DOJ
    Settlement.
    Why wasn't this reviewed prior to release? It's a little late now to "take it back", and
    microsoft will just defend their actions saying it is "vital to the core operation of
    the operating system" or some such nonsense.
    • Microsoft, however, took issue with the group's claims.

      "We had a whole beta process for Service Pack 1
      where we sought and received feedback from industry
      and government," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler.
      "It's unfortunate, by hardly surprising, that this group,
      which is backed by our competitors, chose to play politics
      rather than participate in the process."
      • I believe the issue came up when MS filed their "compliance update" with the court. At that point MS came forward with a document trying to claim that the Service Packs in question met requirements for their compliance with the proposed settlement.

        This is what triggers the counterclaim/complaint from the ProComp group. The beta process for the Service Pack is to determine if there are any technical problems with it. It certainly isn't the forum for seeing if it complies with legal issues related to a proposed settlement.

  • Just installed the Service Pack... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:06PM (#4290119)
    ...My impression of the Service Pack's "Set Program Access and Defaults" was that it offered an easy, centralized way for users to make MS products their defaults. Your choices for each item (Browser, email, ect) are something like

    Use Internet Explorer
    or
    Use Your Current 3rd Party browser

    The easy, inviting option is the MS ones. The use of "Your Current 3rd Party Brower" instead of "Mozilla" or "Opera" or whatever is detected, lends an air of complexity. The 3rd Party choices aren't laid out, but the MS choice always is.

    But before you can choose your specific programs, you need to first choose whether you want to use "MS Windows" "Non MS" or "Custom" ... A single place to change to ALL MS. The "Non MS" button would only work if you have 3rd party programs already installed, right? So if you choose it and things get fucked-up, you'd probably want to revert to "MS." The "Custom" option is the Advanced one, and it includes a check box "Enable Access to this Program " which seems to mean that even though you're disabling IE, you have to take an additional, criptic step to really disable it.

    Compared to the process of, say, the "File Types" config, where you choose a program for any file-type, this interface privilages the MS products. But of course, setting a File Type no longer means that a certain program becomes the default...
    • The first time I installed Windows XP, then Mozilla, my browser and IMAP client of choice, and set each to the defaults using the built in preferences (set as default browser), I noticed the icon on the start menu changed to show mozilla, along with the Gecko icon. I was sincerely shocked and amazed.

      This is without any service pack installed.

    • On Win 2000 SP3, it has the same setup, but I was suprised to see that Mozilla Mail was explictly listed as Mail Client option ( as opposed to being in the catagory "My current mail program" ) while Mozilla wasn't listed in the browser section. Oddly enough Outlook XP wasn't listed as an mail program either.

      Even though I turned off using Media Player, it still popped up any time I inserted a Music CD. Once I installed Winamp 3, that stopped happening.

      And it's great to see that if I use IE, many of the bookmarks launch Mozilla

    • Re:Just installed the Service Pack... (Score:5, Informative)

      by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:42PM (#4290539)
      The "Your current 3rd party browser" is there solely as a default. The third party product needs to rewrite their installation so that they register with the new API that controls these applications.

      It's all documented here [microsoft.com].

      My understanding is that the latest version of Netscape 7 does register itself properly. Opera and the others have apparently not taken the time to create new install packages.

      If you take the time to actually figure out how things work you'll find that your criticism is entirely unjustified.
  • Microsoft for YEARS now has made a habit of misleading business practices and ignoring the concerns of consumers (and even industry groups). They're forced competitors out of the market, they try to make everyone adapt to their standards, and we're supposed to be SURPRISED that they're already violating the proposed settlement???

    Reality time folks: either it's going to take a forcible settlement that makes MS a non-issue or we're going to just have to learn to live with them as they already are. They have way too many people who do nothing but sit around to find loopholes. Then they have a large number of marketing/PR types that make using those loopholes look like desireable features (or at least like they weren't INTENTIONAL slights of law or agreements...).

  • XP service pack (Score:3, Funny)

    by fruey ( 563914 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:10PM (#4290171) Homepage Journal
    I'm crying foul too. My warez copy won't install the service pack. Note to Microsoft lawyers: this is a joke. I run Linux.

  • They have some valid points... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7@c[ ]ell.edu ['orn' in gap]> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:14PM (#4290205) Homepage
    But complaining about download times? Christ, that's low.

    The service pack is large. Live with it. It's no different than downloading 20-30 megs of RPMs for a system-wide update.

    I strongly dislike M$ practices, but I find that these accusations are nitpicking that makes these "ProComp" people look like whiners. Throughout this case people have focused on the smaller aspects of the case (The stupid browser war) while barely touching on more major aspects (The M$ tax on PCs even if I don't *WANT* Windows on them.)
    • Yes, and there's always the possiblity that this is a golden opportunity to make changes to Microsoft. If MS win to a large part in the antitrust case, do you all think it could be brought again just as easily?

      It's sad to see the very unprofessional ProComp / Sun people drive this case to the point it's laughable, when they could do so much more.
    • ProComp's complaint about the download times is because this is the only method for getting the new control. This should be a seperate download.

  • Just make something better (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Richard5mith ( 209559 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:15PM (#4290221) Homepage
    The tool that Microsoft are distributing is very similar to what OS X includes, where you can choose your default browser, email client etc from a menu. It doesn't pick up every possible option automatically either (I imagine those apps have to register themselves with the system to say they are web browsers). It's hardly a big deal. I thought it was pretty straightforward too, so they're really just moaning for the sake of moaning.

    Frankly I just wish these companies would just stop bitching all the time and just produce something better for us all to use. If they spent half as much time and effort on revolutionising computer software and hardware as they did writing reports to get at MS, I figure I'd be coding Perl by telekinesis by now.
  • I find it annoying that Apple "kindly" puts aliases (shortcuts/soft links) to a couple programs on the desktop whenever I install the OS (not for patches, only full installs) and I put them in the trash can. They go away and stay away.

    Why does Microsoft need a separate control panel to do the same thing? Why can't they just put shortcuts (aliases/soft links) to the programs on the desktop so you can just delete them?

    Also, it's too bad they can't make the fix smaller than 30,000,000 bytes, too ... I thought all those DLL's allowed you to not rewrite the whole OS every time you wanted to put up a couple radio buttons, but I guess not.

  • This is absolutely stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gamorck ( 151734 ) <jaylittle AT jaylittle DOT com> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:30PM (#4290381) Homepage
    The Washington, D.C.-based trade group, which is partially funded by Netscape Communications, Sun Microsystems and other Microsoft competitors, argued that Microsoft's distribution mechanism for the service pack is the first violation of the pending settlement.
    You've got to be kidding me. Everybody under the sun cries foul when some benchmark or study comes out of some firm which receives any funding from Microsoft - yet this shit is okay even though this group clearly isn't looking to have their funding cut off? Come on now - at least be consistent...

    Aside from this... most of Procomp's complaints are complete and utter BS. They whine that Microsoft wants to charge you 10 bucks to get the service pack on the CD, yet they also want to whine about how long it takes to download the minimum install of 30 megs. Then they complain that Microsoft may potentially make tens of millions of dollars on the CD distribution yet neglect to mention that you can legally download it from their own site for FREE.

    Nor do they mention how Apple or other MS competitors dont even allow you to download larger OS/APplication updates for free and require that you purchase a CD (for clarification Im reffering to OS 10.1 not 10.2). They also continue to whine about how links to the Middleware control panel are not included on the Start Menu and Desktop. This is beyond stupid. Control panels BELONG IN THE DAMN CONTROL PANEL!

    I can't believe the lusers editing /. let this one slide through. It really does reek of baseless Anti MS sentiment like so much other material published on this site. There are plently of legitimate things to bash MS for yet the /. community seems to perfer focusing on the misunderstood and irrelevant bitches and moans rather than approaching things in a constructive manner.

    Oh well whatever. Im guessing we will soon see an article lamenting RedHat's decision to make Mozilla the default browser in their upcoming Redhat 8.0 release. Yeah Redhat does linux but since they actually have a head on their shoulders and actually want to make money instead of going out of business - we are supposed to hate them right?

    So so so stupid...

    J

    • Re:This is absolutely stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @01:14PM (#4290914) Journal
      Well, I agree with your points about this being a load of trash, however:

      1. Apple did offer the 10.1 update for download - they just didn't offer it for long. The 'update' is 650 megs, and is basically a 10.1 installer that checks to see if you have 10.0 installed then replaces it. They didn't want to keep having their bandwidth sucked dry.
      2. I think it's a GOOD thing that Slashdot 'let this slip through'. The editors didn't make any comments about it being good or bad, they just posted the news and let people make up their own minds. This is good journalism. They're informing the public about competitors bitching baselessly and unfairly, and I'm glad it was posted. News is news, even if it is unfairly anti-microsoft.


      --Dan

  • My Take (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaytonCIM ( 100144 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:40PM (#4290513) Homepage Journal
    Service Pack 1 for Windows XP itself is not readily accessible to consumers, and thus the mechanism purportedly settling the antitrust case is, by definition, not readily accessible, ProComp wrote in the letter.

    Consumers have three choices for obtaining the service pack. The first is to use Windows XP's Automatic Update feature to retrieve and install a 30MB file. ProComp noted that the time for retrieval, as stated by Microsoft, would be 1.25 hours over a standard dial-up connection.

    Honestly, if you're still using dial-up, then you should expect longer download times. And Microsoft does offer a CD ROM; granted $9.95 does seem a bit high for S&H.

    The third violation, ProComp charges, is that the middleware control is not intuitive and comes with no Help file for understanding how to use it.

    As a Technical Writer myself this does bother me, but honestly it isn't something with which I would walk into Federal Court.

    The fourth violation alleged by ProComp shifts to Windows 2000, which, with the release of Service Pack 3, was updated with a leaner version of the middleware control.

    In the letter, ProComp emphasized that the middleware controls installed with the two service packs are substantially different. The trade group contended that the Windows 2000 version is substantially less intuitive than (the one) in Windows XP.

    So, the service packs are different for different Operating Systems? That seems fair. I think between this complaint and number 2, Microsoft is guilty of not putting their creative power behind the middleware control.

    In the fifth alleged violation, ProComp said the updated Windows XP's My Music folder called up Internet Explorer for online shopping, even after the group had selected Netscape as the default browser and had hidden access to IE.

    Now, I am beginning to understand why ProComp included the previous not-so-important violations: To show a trend. If the above is true it is bad for Microsoft. I'm sure MS will try and explain it away as some kind of oversight or better yet a "feature" of XP to improve the user's experience. Better to just release a quick "fix" and remove this "feature" quickly.

    The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's .Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual
    Machine.

    I smell a fight here. Microsoft is betting on the .Net technology to carry them well into this decade and into the next. I'm sure MS will fire off a few of their own comments to the court in defense of .Net. Too much money and too much time has gone into this and I don't see Bill backing off.

    Honestly, the first 4 "violations" are pretty weak. However, when grouped with the 5th there is evidence of a "trend" on the part of Microsoft to not act in good faith.
    What will be the outcome? I don't really believe the Justice Department wants to re-open this case, especially with all of the juicy "terrorist" cases just waiting to be tried. And let's be honest, case against Microsoft is not going to get a federal prosecutor TV time, but case against terrorists will get a federal prosecutor a lot of TV face time.
    • The .Net Framework is not an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine. You CAN pick which JVM you would like to use, Sun's or MS's or any other one. The .Net Framework isn't a JVM.

  • The 6th allegation is just ridiculous... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @12:46PM (#4290587) Homepage

    The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's .Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine.
    .Net is an application development architecture, just like Java, yes. The thing is though, the .Net architecture cannot run java applications and vice versa. The issue with IE vs. Netscape is that one directly replaces the functionality of the other. In this case, I'm not going to find my java applications suddenly launching in .Net instead of a sun JVM. No consumer is going to willingly cripple functionality on their system that doesn't have a direct replacement (like if there was a 3rd party implementation of .net).

    Most of these issues are rather nitpicky and pointless. The only thing that's going to put microsoft in check is to eliminate the rules they attach to OEM versions of their software. Having the ability to received a Dell pre-installed to dual-boot windows and linux would be a big improvement.
    • Installed service pack 3 on my Windows 2000 box at work and sp1 on my XP box at home (stop laughing already!)
    • IE crashed under Win 2k, XP box won't let me install my new software I "found" on some Russina web site (*just kidding about that last bit*)
    • Asked if I wanted to debug or send info to Microsoft
    • New MS wireless hardware fails ...
    • Realized that I don't have source code to debug ...

    .... *lots of yelling and cursing* ....

    .... *wondering why MS keeps adding useless functionality to SP's rather than fixing the millions of existing bugs in their GUI interface that sits on top of a piss poor OS* ....

    ... *realized that there was no need to go to the barber this month* ...

    • Press "Enter" to install with graphics
    • Type "Text" and press "Enter" to install in text mode
    • ....

    (* The rest of the partition that this MS Word document is located on has been formated! *)

  • Ridiculous.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by meis31337 ( 574142 )
    I fully support the open source movement and think MS's tactics are pretty shady... but these complaints are just a political ploy.

    A) When you grab the sp w/ IE... it still is a big download, it just happens interactively.
    B) Why wouldn't MS charge for the CD? They aren't going to ship it for free, that would be bad business.
    C) Who the hell uses a modem anymore anyways? :)

  • not intuitive? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mr. Asdf ( 267041 )
    Everything about 'Set Program Access and Defaults' says consumers are unwelcome here," the developer said. "It's a barren place, compared to the rest of Windows XP, bereft of simple instructions or extended Help......

    .....The trade group contended that the Windows 2000 version "is substantially less intuitive than (the one) in Windows XP

    i have sp3 on win2k and i just took a look at the "set program access and defaults" which is so conveniently located on my start menu. (almost annoyingly convenient since i won't use it very often- if ever) Well, it was so easy to use that I can't even imagine what the help doc might say, perhaps something like this: if you want to use you current web browser instead of internet explorer, then select the choice for "use your current web browser", or if you would prefer to use internet explorer as your web browser, then select "use internet explorer". IMAO, if you need a help file to use this tool, then you have no business ever logging in to your machine as Administrator, which is what you need to be in order to use it (and rightly so).

Slashdot Top Deals

Been Transferred Lately?

Close