Posted on 2004-03-24 09:38:50 by Gandalf

abusing its "near monopoly" with Windows to foil competitors in other markets


what ppl seem to never want to accept is that ms is making SOFTware, not just OSes, so "other markets" simply makes no sense at all.


regulators gave Microsoft 90 days to offer European computer manufacturers a version of Windows without the company's digital media player, which

LOL! same argument as for IE... it will crash and burn just the same way. its up to no justice court to decide which apps to inclde in an OS. you sell a browser too? too bad. you sell a player too? too bad. make a better one or stfu. btw i dont like mplayer that much, theres far better imho, but it works.


Monti said he could have imposed worldwide restrictions on Microsoft but limited the order to Europe in deference to regulators in the United States and other countries.


lololol!

i dont believe a word of this.


Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, said he expected the case to take four or five years to be resolved.

ahaha! :grin:
that leaves some time... (for attackers to get mad)
we ll see that when win2k08 is out! :grin:


but the EU order strikes deeper, at the heart of Microsoft's business strategy ? regularly adding new features to Windows to help sell upgrades.

ahaha!
you would have to be a real moron not to add features to your products in each release.
thats the whole point of selling software. can someone tell me whats wrong with that?
this has been largely discussed for netscape and ie being part of W98.
again, this claims do not make any sense.
maybe they have a quasi monopoly, maybe thats not THAT good, but find another , better, at least, defendable, reason.

when you know the others mplayers are realplayer (!) and the one of apple (!!) ...
and how i think they are ... hem... good...


The money would be redistributed to the EU member states.


no comment.
Posted on 2004-03-24 12:14:35 by HeLLoWorld
Heh. This is quite a load of bullshit. I don't like the pricing of microsoft products, I don't like the way they bully other companies, and I don't like that they included Windows Messenger with Windows XP.

But let's face it, an OS shipping without an internet browser or a media player with be severely handicapped. I don't see any problem that MS ships MS Windows with MS Broser (aka IE) and MS Media Player - it's not like you can't install another browser or media player if you want, and 3rd-party programs of this kind can have the same level of integration with the system (and even use the same plugins if they want to - things like REAL and QuickTime actually differ here, they require their own crappy players if you want to play their, ALSO proprietary, content... unless you use things like MediaPlayerClassic, but the way that one handles real and quicktime content might not be entirely legal.)

Furthermore, IE and MediaPlayer core components cannot really be removed from the system, as a lot of 3rd-party applications depend on them - mail clients using mshtml to render HTML-formatted emails, media player core + codecs for content.

Also, this is... absurd. Windows is Microsoft's product, it's silly not allowing them to put in it whatever they want. Imagine a linux distribution not being allowed to include Mozilla, to give Konqueror a chance? Or GNOME vs. KDE? Imagine Apple not being allowed to include QuickTime with their OS?

My only gripe about component integration are things like Messenger. While instant messaging is becoming as natural as internet browsing, Windows Messenger isn't a crucial part of the OS, and it should be possible to deselect it at installation. Turns out it's rather hard to get rid of WM after the OS install (even with sysoc.inf meddling), and the way Outlook Express now depends on WM troubles me a bit - not to mention forcing Passport down everybodys throaths.

Other companies should just quit whining, and make better products. It's obvious why people prefer Windows Media Player to QuickTime or (especially) RealPlayer (with all their spyware), and it's also obvious why people prefer third-party winamp for audio files (because winamp is better at doing this than WMP). Also, third-party movie players are becoming popular because of DVDs and pirated DivX/XviD movies.


chastised Microsoft for trying to "shut competitors out of the market" in software for office servers, by hoarding code that would help competing programs work smoothly with Windows computers.

Now that's just a plain load of crap. There's no details hidden that keeps anybody from creating a browser or media player that works just as well as IE or WMP, and there's nothing stopping integration either. If they're talking about smoother internet scaling code, well christ - it's not exactly microsoft's fault that a lot of people are still using UNIX mindset fork() mindset to handle connections, when high-performance I/O Completion Ports are available (and well documented in public-available PlatformSDK).


"We are simply ensuring that anyone who develops new software has a fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace,"

Quit:Whine and come up with a decent product. It's not fair handicapping a product because all the other companies are morons.

Blah blah whine whine. Look what happened at the sun vs. ms java settlement? Now we're forced to use sun's Java VM implementation, which sucks big ass. It's slow and bloated compared to microsofts VM. Not because of "secret APIs" or whatever, simply because the MS had a far better JITter.
Posted on 2004-03-24 13:06:40 by f0dder