Jim Allchin, co-president of Microsoft’s Platforms and Services Division, has sent an open letter to developers citing the ‘tremendous opportunity’ that Windows Vista gives them, adding that the time is now to get ready for the operating system. “If you want to ride the wave we’re creating with Windows Vista, the best way is to have your application ready by the time we ship,” Allchin said in the open letter, which appeared Sept. 15 on the Windows Vista Developer Center site. “And that is very soon.” Meanwhile, Microsoft and the EU keep tiptoeing around each other when it comes to Vista and possible antitrust consequences. And if that wasn’t enough, a Cisco exec says Vista is scary.
I think MS perfectly understands what their boundries are and what they can and can’t do with Vista in the EU. They’re just trying to keep everything as vague as possible and play the stupid dog that needs to be thaught a trick. Therefor, I agree 100% with Jonathan Todd:
But as far as the Commission is concerned, it is not the regulators’ responsibility to vet Vista before it ships. Rather, it is Microsoft’s responsibility as a “near monopolist” to abide by EU competition rules–in particular, those that prohibit abuse of a dominant market position, Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd said Friday.
The EU gets to decide what is and is not abusive. With a bit of pressure (or a small donation) from Symantec/etc., they may very well decide that simply blocking unrequested inbound traffic is “abuse of a dominant market position”.
The EU communists^H^H^H^H^H^Hittee can download RC1 right now, just like everyone else, and come up with a summary judgement as to whether or not UAC or per-application volume sliders or a more secure kernel consistutes “abuse”. Heck, they could read any one of a hundred previews. But they’ll wait until Microsoft releases Vista so they can stick ’em with totally arbitrary and inane fines.
they are not ‘insane fines’
the law is written, if microsoft or ANY OTHER COMPANY breaks the law they should be punished within the law
He said inane, not insane.
You missed the point you were supposed to be replying to. The EU should not have to download Vista RC1. Microsoft should be complying to the written law without the EU having to cajole them.
Microsoft are playing dumb in order to delay long enough to force Vista onto customers in America, causing a domino effect in Europe too.
You should read the article before making a comment.
The only thing MS has to do is use their ‘common sense’ when it comes to Vista and bundled security products, it’s not that hard like MS is acting it is. Everybody knows that MS Antivirus, MS Firewall and MS Antispyware will kick out other players on that market, no need to test RC1 to get to that conclusion. Play by the rules or don’t play.
Ever heard of the term ‘market economy’*? If I owned a company, I sure as hell would be pissed off if I couldn’t bundle some of my products together and sell them, wouldn’t you? Yes, it might close up a market, so what? Dictating what you can and cannot do solely based on its effect on other businesses is possibly the worst idea I’ve ever seen.
You should work with Microsoft. You have the exact right attitude and understanding of Law and Markets.
That would be unlikely, considering I don’t particularly like any of their products. Then again, I don’t particularly like any current products in the field, so at least they’re not alone…
Edited 2006-09-18 23:12
It doesn’t work that way in Europe. It’s really messed up over there. O_o
Messed up? Pardonnez moi!? Was that a clever piece of satire rolled in sarcasm with sprinkles of irony?
I think you’ll find it was that particularly odious variety of rightwing jingoistic bigotry otherwise known as “American patriotism”.
Or “a load of b*ll*x”.
I tend to agree (and I’ve made this comment before). This is no different, in principle, to companies like the RIAA demanding judicial protection from losing profits when their business model is obsoleted. No company has a right to make profits, and while I actually hate what Microsoft is and will not use their products, I don’t see how it is fair to penalize them in terms of allowing them to bundle their own products with their own operating system. If they are forced to remove their security products, then they will be criticized for providing an insecure OS OOTB. If they don’t, they’ll be criticized for abusing their monopoly.
Now, I’m not in favor of stifling competition. Competition is good. There should be a way for OEMs to decide that they will not bundle MS security products with Vista, or to provide a means for users to easily replace them if the want to. But I do agree that, even though Microsoft is a monopoly, the EU policy seems a little unfair.
That said, I don’t really give a damn. Microsoft has done far too much harm in the past for me to feel sorry for them being taken down a notch or two now, regardless of whether it’s fair or not in this case.
Yes there is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust
It’s called using your monopoly power to move into a new market. If Microsoft did not have a 95% desktop market share then this would probably not be an issue, but “unfortunately for them” they do.
It’s why the DoJ went after them for the Netscape issue. They used their Windows desktop position to get their browser out there, and this, combined with idiocy over at Netscape, left Netscape out of business. Guess what Microsoft did after that happened? They stopped working on their browser for several years.
Not that it’d matter if they’d kept working on it, it’d have still been anti-competitive.
I know this is hard, but please, pound this into your head: Microsoft is not a typical company in the desktop PC OS, or Office software, market.
Fair enough. I do understand the antitrust argument, but I still tend to think that if Microsoft is offering a comprehensive security suite, then they have a right to at least offer the option of integration between this suite and their OS.
If Ubuntu was holding 90%+ of the desktop marketshare, would they no longer be permitted to bundle OpenOffice.org with the Ubuntu distro, because it would be anticompetitive to, say, Microsoft’s Office suite? Would they not be permitted to use their official repositories, because it is anticompetitive to companies which don’t have software in those repositories, and would have to produce .debs and distribute these by some other means? It seems to me that there must be a line between discouraging anticompetitive behavior, and encouraging good software (I’m sure you’ll agree that integration is a good thing provided it’s done well, as it is in Ubuntu).
On the more facetious angle, I can’t honestly feel that, in this EU issue with Microsoft, having Symantec products being less widely used could possibly be a bad thing. As bad as Microsoft’s security offerings are likely to be, it would take them many more years to reach the level of sucktitude that Symantec has. Less Symantec is a win for the consumer.
//If Ubuntu was holding 90%+ of the desktop marketshare, would they no longer be permitted to bundle OpenOffice.org with the Ubuntu distro, because it would be anticompetitive to, say, Microsoft’s Office suite?//
Err, no. Not a good example at all.
OpenOffice.org uses ODF format, which is an international standard (ISO/IEC 26300). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
This format is open and fully documented, and most importantly it contains no dependencies on the underlying computing platform. It is platform and vendor neutral.
Not only is OpenOffice.org itself available for many platforms, but the ODF document format is supported in many applications from many vendors.
This is what competition is all about. A tru fre market.
Vista is a single closed proprietary platform available from a single vendor only. Office 2007 is available from only one vendor, and the underlying format (Office Open XML) contains dependencies that rely on the underlying platform. Although the one vendor is providing a version for one alternative platform:
http://www.apcstart.com/site/dflynn/2006/09/1511/exclusive-first-de…
that same vendor is explicitly excluding all other alternative platforms, and a number of features which rely on the underlying OS will not translate cross-platform.
The near-monoploly (Microsoft’s Office suite) is anti-trust and anti-competitive. The competition (eg OpenOffice on Ubuntu) is not.
If Ubuntu was holding 90%+ of the desktop marketshare, would they no longer be permitted to bundle OpenOffice.org with the Ubuntu distro, because it would be anticompetitive to, say, Microsoft’s Office suite? Would they not be permitted to use their official repositories, because it is anticompetitive to companies which don’t have software in those repositories, and would have to produce .debs and distribute these by some other means? It seems to me that there must be a line between discouraging anticompetitive behavior, and encouraging good software (I’m sure you’ll agree that integration is a good thing provided it’s done well, as it is in Ubuntu).
I don’t think you understand how it works. First of all Ubuntu doesn’t make OpenOffice, so Ubuntu isn’t leveraging their monopoly (if they had one) in other markets. Secondly, with open standards, it would be a lot more difficult to claim any kind of anti-trust, because other applications could easily replace OpenOffice by supporting ODF. In fact most Linux distributions contain several programs that do the same thing. It’s pretty difficult to prove anti-trust when you actively distribute competing products.
On the more facetious angle, I can’t honestly feel that, in this EU issue with Microsoft, having Symantec products being less widely used could possibly be a bad thing. As bad as Microsoft’s security offerings are likely to be, it would take them many more years to reach the level of sucktitude that Symantec has. Less Symantec is a win for the consumer.
If Microsoft’s security software is really better than Symantec’s then they won’t have a problem winning in the free market. They don’t need to leverage their monopoly to gain marketshare. The question is then, why does Microsoft continue to ignore anti-trust lawsuits and use their monopoly to sieze control of other markets?
The question is then, why does Microsoft continue to ignore anti-trust lawsuits and use their monopoly to sieze control of other markets?
The fact is that they aren’t. Symantec would have you believe that any improvements made to Windows by definition lock them out of the market.
Should Toyota not be allowed to add side-curtain airbags to their vehicles? Should Honda not be allowed to use antilock brakes? Should your answers change if Honda or Toyota were “near monopolies”?
The fact is that they aren’t. Symantec would have you believe that any improvements made to Windows by definition lock them out of the market.
That is utterly false. No one sued when XP came out with SP2. Antivirus isn’t a hardening tool. It is a bandaid for a broken system. The issue has nothing to do with security and everything to do with locking out competitors.
Should Toyota not be allowed to add side-curtain airbags to their vehicles? Should Honda not be allowed to use antilock brakes? Should your answers change if Honda or Toyota were “near monopolies”?
That is the most ludicrous conclusion that can be drawn from what is going on with the EU and Microsoft. You either lack any understanding whatsoever of what is going on or you are trolling big time.
Ever heard of the term ‘market economy’*?
yes
If I owned a company, I sure as hell would be pissed off if I couldn’t bundle some of my products together and sell them, wouldn’t you?
Yes, as a business owner I would, but my views as a consumer and/or a person who wanted to make sure that the “market” operated efficiently I would prefer to regulate such activities if the business had a dominant position in the market.
Yes, it might close up a market, so what?
Almost there – by the time you end this post, you might actually be able to work out why this is important …
Dictating what you can and cannot do solely based on its effect on other businesses is possibly the worst idea I’ve ever seen.
… so close, but just failed to apply any logic at the end.
The regulation is to ensure the efficient operation of the market. Without this protection, the market would fail, to the detriment of consumers, innovation, and the “market economy”. Therefore this kind of regulation is essential to protect the “market economy” that you seem to cherish.
Yes, as a business owner I would, but my views as a consumer and/or a person who wanted to make sure that the “market” operated efficiently I would prefer to regulate such activities if the business had a dominant position in the market.
No, that has absolutely nothing to do with the company’s position. So long as other companies can duplicate it, there should be no reason to artificially limit companies like that.
The regulation is to ensure the efficient operation of the market. Without this protection, the market would fail, to the detriment of consumers, innovation, and the “market economy”. Therefore this kind of regulation is essential to protect the “market economy” that you seem to cherish.
You complain that I’m not thinking, yet your reasoning is so vague as to be useless.
Well shall I spell it out:
A market economy derives its efficiency from competition. When producers compete, they do so either by creating better widgets, or reducing the price on commodity widgets. Where there is only one producer, then they don’t have to compete, prices rise and innovation stagnates. This does not create the effects that a market economy is supposed to.
In the present situation, if MS uses its monopoly in one market (ie the OS market) to leverage itself into another market (ie the A/V / Spyware market) this is deemed harmful to market efficiency, as the incumbents in that market are unable to compete against the monopoly producer, as the monopoly is able to subsidise its entry into the market using the monopoly rents it derives from the other market. So the incumbents get pushed out, and another monopoly is created.
You’re more than welcome to create a competing product that doesn’t even need anti-whatevers.
//You’re more than welcome to create a competing product that doesn’t even need anti-whatevers.//
Can’t be done.
To implement all features of Microsoft’s Office suite you need to run the application on a Windows platform.
To write a competing product (1) goes up directly against Microsoft’s own product on Microsoft’s own platform, and (2) promote’s the Microsoft near-monopoly anyway, since the end user still is required to purchase at least something from Microsoft in order to be compatibile with Microsoft’s format in some way.
Even Microsoft’s free “Word viewer” is a Windows application only.
Microsoft software is all about end-user lock-in to Microsoft software. This is precisely in the best interest of Microsoft only, and is to the detriment of the best interests of every other party on the planet.
Edited 2006-09-19 03:51
So does that mean Microsoft should be unable to fix its own OS, since it would “compete” with anti-virus software?
You’re more than welcome to create a competing product that doesn’t even need anti-whatevers.
How in the world are you supposed to create a competing product when the product you are competing against is a MONOPOLY. Monopolies create very large barriers to entry in the market. C’mon folks this is all economics 101. At this point you might as well be arguing about whether gravity exists.
Ever heard of the term ‘market economy’*? If I owned a company, I sure as hell would be pissed off if I couldn’t bundle some of my products together and sell them, wouldn’t you? Yes, it might close up a market, so what? Dictating what you can and cannot do solely based on its effect on other businesses is possibly the worst idea I’ve ever seen.
You are totally missing the point of anti-trust and the “market economy”. Microsoft isn’t being treated this way for any other reason than their monopoly status. Monopolies create strange circumstances in the market, they are allowed to exist but they cannot leverage their monopoly to other markets. So MS cannot leverage their OS monopoly to expand their multimedia market, like they have been doing with WMP. Monopolies can give an unfair advantage over other products and actually harm a “market economy”. In fact monopolies actually have the potential to destroy a free market economy because choice is actually removed from the consumers hands and prices no longer have to be fair market prices. This is the antithesis to a free market.
In fact monopolies actually have the potential to destroy a free market economy because choice is actually removed from the consumers hands and prices no longer have to be fair market prices. This is the antithesis to a free market.
When does Microsoft force you to buy their products? The fact is, if Microsoft started trying to leverage their monopoly by, say, increasing their prices drastically, it would probably just collapse.
When does Microsoft force you to buy their products? The fact is, if Microsoft started trying to leverage their monopoly by, say, increasing their prices drastically, it would probably just collapse.
I’ve said it before but I guess I have to say it again. It doesn’t matter whether you think MS is a monopoly or not but the US and the EU both determined that MS is a monopoly. Besides that Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly. It has nothing to do with raising prices and everything to do with leveraging their monopoly in other markets. That’s what this has always been about.
Oh yes, because consumers are better off without any builtin protection at all.
Consumers should definitely pay Symantec and others for the right to get the protection, rather than get base protection and a choice to use other software if they want to.
“But they’ll wait until Microsoft releases Vista so they can stick ’em with totally arbitrary and inane fines.”
Their market, their rules. If you don’t want to play by them you’re free to take your business elsewhere.
Funny though, big multinational corporations rarely have any problems complying with the rules of oppressing regimes as long as it gets them some extra sales.
I agree with you, the EU’s conduct in this situation is close to harrasment, because as I see it, MS are not allowed to add features to thier OS, not without paying fines. UAC and other security updates in Vista are sorely needed by the home user, but the EU figures it is more important to punish MS for monopoly abuse.
Everyone complains how crappy Windows security is, myself included, and then we complain when they try to do something about it, seems like hipocrisy to me.
It’s in the EC’s interest to make vague statements about “Rather, it is Microsoft’s responsibility as a “near monopolist” to abide by EU competition rules–in particular, those that prohibit abuse of a dominant market position, Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd said Friday.”, because the law itself is vague (there are no hard and fast rules in antitrust law, like the EC pretends that there are), and because it lays the trap for the EU to levy arbitrary fines in the future. The EU is not acting in good faith, that is quite clear.
(Also, he calls MS a “near-monopolist”, in other words, “not a monopoly”, so why are they getting the “monopoly” treatment anyway? If they aren’t a monopoly then they should be able to ship whatever they want, and certainly whatever any other OS ships (e.g. Mac OSX bundles a firewall, so why shouldn’t Vista, given that MS is not a monopoly according to the above statement?).)
I think MS should take the EU at their word, and err on the side of not giving the EU an excuse to levy another fine; MS should rip out all security features from the EU version of Vista and wash their hands of any and all security issues in that version. In otherwods, MS err on the side of safety from whimsical fines, given that the EU refuses to say what’s ok and what isn’t before RTM. And EU citizens can continue paying extra to the likes of Symantec. Problem solved.
Edited 2006-09-19 08:01
Yeah, Allchin says: “Dear developers, start make Vista-only software to create demand for Vista, please!”
Like ATI with his Catalyst Control Center – IMHO major .NET runtime “driver” for Microsoft.
We (tiny software company) are totally behind the schedule – we just in this year made our flagship app XP compatible (I mean visually, of course it worked in XP before that too). Big problems with retaining W98 compatibility – but hey, many of our customers are using W98, they won’t change their OS just because our software
Well they should, Windows 98 absolute crap. I don’t think you’re doing them any favors.
Dear Jim,
Sorry, I discovered Linux and open source about seven years ago, and since then neither XP, Vista, .NET nor any other Microsoft product offers me anything anymore.
Thank you for your interest, but as they are fond of saying on Fark.com: “DIAF”!
Warmest Regards,
DoctorPepper
A Linux User
When Vista is released, the panic can subside allowing the end user to see this is not so bad afterall. There is plenty of room for Vista/Linux on the desktop and Apple of course. One thing for sure, Linux has pressured Microsoft into producting better quality software. In the end it is better for Linux/Vista and for all.
On the other hand I use Linux in the workplace/home both, with no problems. But I am curious to see how Vista will perform on a daily basis when it is released.
Except for the fairly well-documented tendency that MicroSoft has had to use even their best-functioning products to unfairly manipulate the market so that anyone with a similar or perhaps superior product simply cannot bring it to market, or comfortably keep it there. Making Microsoft produce a better Windows is a nice side-effect of Linux’ competition and example, but if MicroSoft merely turns their improvements into a marketing wedge, we’re right back where we started. The once cottage industry of fighting viruses on the MS platform has become now one of their products, pre-installed and excluding all others if left alone, and why fix security holes permanently when you can have an unending revenue stream from “fixing” your own product that you shipped broken and charging monthly for the privelege?
I for one have switched to Ubuntu Linux, and aside from the little bit of money I Paypalled to them, I’m not out anything but a little tinker-time. I am firewalled and secure, I have (for the most part) upgraded safely, and I’m more productive than ever on both my desktop and laptop. So sure, enjoy the new, improved Windows, but understand that the product isn’t the whole story, and owning the OS is merely a tool towards other controls (DRM, anyone?), wherein a corporation will, if left unopposed, dictate how you live your life.
This is another area I am perplexed by, why all the fuss over change in an area where it should be expected. Tech is evolving everyday of the week. New breakthroughs to new releases, functionality and so on. Microsoft is working on its problems at hand ‘security’ one would think that some kudos on the part behind MS would be applauded in some degree. One facet that is true, technology is dynamic it is ever changing with no ruts to dive into.
Sometimes I feel people need to be pushed out of the confort zone to see the world is not flat.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
People winge about MS and security and when they try to do something about it. Not like they will be the be-all end all of solutions but then Symantec aren’t the cluiest with their security products either. On the home user front they blow.
Will there ever be a secure piece of software, no. Will MS lie down and allow for their software to be drilled and exploited? Of course not. They will do what they have continually done in the past and that is plug the holes when they are needed to be plugged. Linux ain’t much better, it’s called bugs, people.
Crap, I did an Ubuntu Edgy64 Knot 2 update and I’m left with a non booting system. I haven’t had such an issue with Vista RC1 yet. Still, Vista has given me a Blue Screen. Horses for courses.
They will do what they have continually done in the past and that is plug the holes when they are needed to be plugged. Linux ain’t much better, it’s called bugs, people.
Linux has the opportunity of mandatory access controll mechanisms like:SELinux,AppArmor,RSBAC,Grsec,etc..
I don’t know if UAC is a true MAC.But after a little fidling with RC1 the admin still can do pretty much everything.MS still thinks in the trend of granting users rights instead of granting software rights.Software will allways have bugs and thus can never be fully trusted.
Windows can never be as secure as linux,*BSD per definition because the target audience is expecting utter convenience and as we all know user friendlyness is disproportional to security.You simply have to compromise if aunt Granny has to have her positive experience aswell.The more granular the system security is the “harder” to use.Furthermore linux doesn’t have a tight release shedule and millions of peoples lifes depending on wether it succeeds or not.It’s indeed merely voluntary because people love to code and make things working.
Crap, I did an Ubuntu Edgy64 Knot 2 update and I’m left with a non booting system. I haven’t had such an issue with Vista RC1 yet.
RC1 gave me a blue screen see here:http://netpython.blogspot.com
That doesn’t say much nor does the fact that Edgy Knot2 left your system unbootable.Both are developer versions not ready yet to be released,such things can occasionally happen.
>> Windows can never be as secure as linux,*BSD per definition because the target audience is expecting utter convenience and as we all know user friendlyness is disproportional to security. You simply have to compromise if aunt Granny has to have her positive experience aswell. The more granular the system security is the “harder” to use. <<
That makes no sense. It’s not about user-friendliness vs. security, that would make OSX an insecure system. And a lot of Linux distros too, by the way. It’s all about carefully separating userland from the core system where all the essential stuff happens.
>> Furthermore linux doesn’t have a tight release shedule and millions of peoples lifes depending on wether it succeeds or not. <<
Microsoft doesn’t even have a release schedule at all.
And please, it’s just software. Nobody’s life has ever depended on Microsoft’s success. The less successful Vista is, the better life gets, IMHO.
(That’s no flame, it’s a fact that it would be a blessing for software quality and competition in general.)
Microsoft doesn’t even have a release schedule at all.
And please, it’s just software. Nobody’s life has ever depended on Microsoft’s success. The less successful Vista is, the better life gets, IMHO.
(That’s no flame, it’s a fact that it would be a blessing for software quality and competition in general.)
I can say one thing, they are working on locking down the operating system, which is a huge step forward when the past is examined. Hopefully, MS will take the feedback from the community on bugs/problems and of course fixes to these issues that come about. The biggest change is User Access Control, plus changes to keep rougue programs from accessing the kernel. The innovation that comes about will help Linux in the end, just as the same way it pushes MS to work on Vista.
No software is secure 100%, but Microsoft is doing better as a whole and it appears they are focusing on the end user more than in the past. When comparing Windows Server 2003 to Windows NT 4.0 it is like a Ford Mustange to a Pinto.
Have to love it.
EU: “Make sure Vista is in accordance with the guidelines we have set forth.”
MS: “Can you tell us what the guidelines are so we can make sure it does?”
EU: “Never you mind, as we will not know that until after Vista ships and we fine you.”
Have to love it.
EU: “Make sure Vista is in accordance with the guidelines we have set forth.”
MS: “Can you tell us what the guidelines are so we can make sure it does?”
EU: “Never you mind, as we will not know that until after Vista ships and we fine you.”
Give me a break. Microsoft has the essentials to understand how to comply with the law. They only need two things, someone who can read, and a lawyer. It isn’t much more difficult than that.
It’d be nice if the “law” were actually written. Instead it’s President Bush claiming that since he’s a War President he can do whatever he pleases.
It’d be nice if the “law” were actually written. Instead it’s President Bush claiming that since he’s a War President he can do whatever he pleases.
Are you even having the same discussion I am having? I am not even talking about the US, nevermind Bush. This is about the EU, and the anti-trust status of Microsoft.
Are you being purposely dense? It’s an analogous situation.
Are you being purposely dense? It’s an analogous situation.
On what planet?
More like:
MS: “Can you tell us what the guidelines are?”
EU: “Read the law and figure it out for yourself.”
MS hardly needs to be spoonfed, they have more than enough lawyers to be able to figure out EU competition laws.
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 2.0; U; AvantGo 3.2)
[/i]”MS hardly needs to be spoonfed, they have more than enough lawyers to be able to figure out EU competition laws.”[/i]
The problem here is that the law is not clear, lawyers or not. It all comes down to the tying phrase. The EU commission itself is not being clear by investigating Microsoft for NOT including (tying) the PDF functionality in Office, but yet are hinting that the included (tyed) Spyware cleaner and Anti-virus in the OS could be. That in itself is a contradiction. I obviously don’t know all the facts, and unfortunately journalists can’t be trusted to tell the truth, so the only thing to do is sit and watch and see what happens.
you read all the rants but many business and much of the knowledgeable decision makers still trust in MS products… that alone has much to say regarding how anti-MS proponents should look at things differently, or more precisely, in a broader perspective.
This letter sounds that no RC2 is on the way and this bothers me as well as others who think that MS is forced to “release now, fix later”.
I wish they know what they are doing, as the people will judge their programming effort with the 6 years of inactivity in their mind, and they might say after few frustrations with vista, hell with it, they took 6 years and all they could get out of their pocket is this crab, I am switching tomorrow no matter what. Of course this will not happen for a wide range of customers who don’t or couldn’t think of anything but windows due to issues they know very well, but finally a big slice of windows users might really question their commetment to this platform and start to look at alternative which will diffinetly end up in considering 2 platforms OSX for busy and no brainer customers or Linux for rather adventurous and high tech customers.
Vista is really going to be a hinge for Microsoft future, and It will for sure affect the giant to the good or to the bad we don’t know, time and competition will only tell.
Hee hee, what is that song by The Eagles….
“Me, I’m aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll-ready GONE…”
Yeah Jim, sorry bubba but you are too little too late. Vista has nothing to offer me as a developer and I’ve got no time for Microsoft products in my career, or my life anymore.
20+ years I been doing this and let me tell you: MAN that felt good!!!!
20+ years I been doing this and let me tell you: MAN that felt good!!!!
Sooner or later your mom will sneak up on you. Move out and get a life.
So many (cross-atlantic) flamewars, so little time.
I wish I could look elsewhere for an enjoyable technical daily read, instead of biting on the same flame bait every day, but I can’t! Silly me!
Edited 2006-09-19 07:25
The only way for competition between desktop OSs is, if all companies selling PCs to consumers are abliged to sell their hardware without the OS installed – and include the correct discount from doing that.
It is so difficult to get a laptop or computer without an OS in many places. Even if I want to run BSD or Linux or AROS or whatever OS on a PC, in most places I have to pay the Microsoft tax for an OS that I will just go and delete. I detest this lack of freedom and competition.
Micrsoft tells Allchin to get ready for resignation.
Vista is a big disgrace for Microsoft and it will be a major letdown to their customers when it it will be finally shipped. I think that even ME and XP were a more positive surprise than Vista.
Europe: blending fascism and communism since 1939.
There is so much FUD in this thread that it is frightening. Aren’t you people supposed to be at least a bit educated? The problem that MS has with the EU isn’t about the company’s intentions to bundle an anti-virus or whatnot. The problem is exactly the same as before, which envolved IE and MS media player. Don’t you guys have any memory whatsoever?
The problem is that the company is trying to lock every component down into the OS and locking every potential rival company and their products out of the platform. It has nothing to do with MS writing an anti-virus program and it has absolutely nothing to do with obsolete software.
Care for an example? Say, th anti-virus companies. They are complaining for months that MS locked them out of vista and they have to hack into the OS just to make the anti-virus functional.
That is the problem. It has nothing to do with competition. MS has produced backup software and anti-virus before and this problem has never happened. Now it is happening because MS is purposely locking everyone out of the OS and reserving Vista’s juicy and very handy insides for MS’s own products. Like MS did with IE. And Media Player. And Office. And now the company’s AV package.
There is so much FUD in this thread that it is frightening.
There certainly is. All of it coming from those who want a totalatarian regime controlling the market.
They are complaining for months that MS locked them out of vista and they have to hack into the OS just to make the anti-virus functional.
Their complaints have no merit. If you’d bothered to check up on them, you’d see that they’re full of BS and outright lies.
Well said, sir!
There certainly is. All of it coming from those who want a totalatarian regime controlling the market.
What? Totalitarian regime controling the market? Are you stupid? If there is anyone who is trying to control the market it is Microsoft, which is trying to ship a software platform without releasing interface information to their developers and reserving those interfaces to the in-house products. It is Microsoft that wants to ship products which will be tightly tied down to the OS like IE in such a way that they will not be removable and even less replaceable.
What the EU is fighting for is the openness of the platform and the ability of security software companies to build products which don’t have to hack into the OS just to be able to secure it.
Their complaints have no merit. If you’d bothered to check up on them, you’d see that they’re full of BS and outright lies.
Please quote a single instance of those “lies” and “BS”. Please quote just one. If you can’t (which you will not) then just shut your trap and stop trying to troll.
OK so we’re able to run numerous Win32 applications and games under Linux with satisfactory results.
But what about Vista apps and games?
Vista includes a new managed API called .NET 3.0 (was WinFX) and has new technologies around it like WPF and Managed DirectX 10.
Will Linux ever gain an implementation of this API and framework so that we can run future Windows Vista and .NET applications? I’m aware that there is Mono, but it isn’t nearly feature complete as needed to execute Windows .NET programs without porting them.
Edited 2006-09-19 16:28
Tell me what is the difference between all of the uproar when RedHat said they were dropping support for 9.0 and so on. The community at large was upset, no one likes change and face it Technology is change plain and simple.
I am glad Microsoft will be releasing Vista maybe it will be more secure, locked down and stable.