I think Vista is FAR from the dog people make it out to be but I will say that I am not quite sure that I want Windows 7 to be Vista 1.1. I think they made a winner in Server 2008 and while I do use Vista on all three PC's at home, the quirks I do have make we consider a for moments about an alternative OS.

they need time to get the back door fitting correctly

I think the time for regulatory oversight of Microsoft's dominance is past. They can tie things as tightly into their operating system as they like, not that many people really care any more. Open-source-centric companies have proven their ability to survive, even thrive in the present environment. Nobody's afraid of Big Bad Microsoft any more.

are other companies being reviewed as well ? what about Google and Apple, maybe MS can file complaint over them as well (for dominating other markets such as music devices and search/ads)

Quoting Joe Willcox;
"Microsoft has recently authorized TC access to another early build of Windows 7 (the successor to Vista), which the TC will review"
----------------------------------------------------
Another early build (alpha) means in this case a 2nd build, or 2nd alpha. Since it seemed to me that Vista was not subjected to such over site as closely as this, then perhaps its possible that the TC found things wrong in the 1st alpha?

Anyway, the real oversite will not be the rubber stamp DOJ or the TC here in the USA, but rather the EU after Seven is released. And that will be court time and fines. I do believe its time IE, media player, and Outlook were removed and not bundled with Windows, and would expect the EU, but not the TC to move in this direction soon.

Also, I still expect an earlier release date for Windows Seven than Joe does. Back in the very early days of MS discussing Seven, they has said Jan of 2009 that Seven would be released, but soon after it became 2010. I would expect late spring or more likely, summer 2009, that Seven will be out. It only a minor version based on Vista. Really Seven is only VistaSE, with touchscreen drivers builtin, and some new lipstick (wallpaper) for the pig. So hard is it to reissue the same old warmed over code again?

@daniel:

you obviously don't know the history of MSFT & their criminal monopoly abuses. itunes & google dominate, not because they can abuse any other sort of market position, but because CUSTOMERS find their products superior (or get suckered into the hype ala iPod/iTunes).

The DOJ was the program manager for Vista as well. Unfortunately, it came to this and it is something that many have predicted. The constant winning and crying from other Vendors and DOJ interventions was effective in crippling Microsoft's ability to generate good software and that was evident on Vista. It's a shame that litigation has replaced competition and it's time for this to stop.

New Linux PC costs less than a single Windows Vista license
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/01/17/new-linux-pc-costs-less-than-a-single-windows-vista-license/

evan says;
Microsoft's ability to generate good software and that was evident on Vista...........

Thats true, I agree. First time you ever made any sense.

evan says;
It's a shame that litigation has replaced competition and it's time for this to stop............

Even you know, its not going stop. If anything, MS deserves every bit of it and more. Also, it will slack off once MS decides it has to play fair, or get fined. But that's their decision.

Microsoft, DOJ issue status report on interoperability compliance

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9971733-7.html

Quote from the link;

"First, the TC (Technical Committee) determined that in the process of revising the technical documentation, Microsoft removed a number of protocol elements that were included in previous versions of the documentation. When this same issue arose last year, Microsoft and the TC discussed that Microsoft would not remove protocol elements from the documentation without first discussing it with the TC in order to ensure that there was no substantive disagreement."
--------------------------------------------------
Business as usual at Micro$oft, trying to pull another fast one.

It doesn't matter how high a version number you put after Inbreed Exploiter, it's a swiss-cheese bloathog (like all other M$ products). Same goes for Windows. Back door?? Doesn't really matter when the walls are unsheathed studs, either.

Bill Gates' recent interview was pretty clear, and those of us who actually lived through this period of computing history rather than just hearing the fantasy version pushed by FOSS zealots will agree - Microsoft came to dominance not because they did things right, but because their competitors make huge glaring mistakes. Digital Research tried to screw the nacent PC industry on CP/M, so MS-DOS cleaned up even though it wasn't that great, Novell tried to screw everyone on Netware 3 licencing, so NT Server 3.5 got a major foothold, even when it was pretty bad...

Even up to current day - Vista is a poor, poor effort, but where is the competition? Apple are (still) trying to screw anyone who gets close to them, and the most promising Desktop Linux Ubuntu just screwed up with Hardy, with yet another sound system, and instability issues that we thought we had left behind on breezy...

FOSS Zealots make me sick. Why can't you guys just build a better mousetrap? if the product was better, it would WIN - quit trying to blame Microsoft, and just fix your damn code.

Ian Lowe is just another Microsoft brain dead shill with a different name, trying to scare (FUD) people into believing that Linux is bad. There is no truth, or facts as usual from this paid for, by Microsoft Shill. Who is he really, Andre anyone.

These shills never speak in anything but vague generalities. The truth is the profits of the Windows systems they are trying to protect, have the problems, that they accuse Linux of having.

Microsoft still not in compliance with DOJ interoperability order

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9974566-16.html

quote from the link: "as interoperability with Microsoft is a big deal. I'm just not sure how to accomplish it on fair and level terms, given Microsoft's seeming inability to engage openly on interoperability. If Microsoft treats the US government with this much disdain, how can a business partner possibly hope to be treated any better?"
----------------------------------------------------
So problems extend even past the Windows Seven alpha's to interoperability with the DOJ. Maybe this is not a problem for MS with the rubber stamp DOJ, but how about when it gets to the EU?

Microsoft Not Under Investigation In China--Yet

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/06/20/china-microsoft-monopoly-markets-equity-cx_jc_0620markets2.html

Quotes from the link; "A new anti-monopoly law will take effect Aug. 1 that has a loosely defined and seemingly low threshold for the government to initiate an official investigation: upon receipt of a complaint from an institution or a lone individual. Microsoft is seen as the most likely target on which Beijing will test the teeth of its new anti-monopoly law, with an eye to helping domestic software companies gain greater market share. The agency also said it had no intention to carry out a probe of Microsoft, as had been reported Thursday.

Chinese newspapers reported early in the year that Microsoft’s Chinese rivals were planning to file an anti-trust complaint once the new law comes into effect."
--------------------------------------------------
First the States and the DOJ. then South Korea, and the EU. Will China be next? And surely there must be many other revenue starved countries out there that will go after Microsoft, because of its unethical monopoly practices. After all, Microsoft is a big cash target.

Microsoft cautions hardware makers to start Windows 7 testing

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/06/02/microsoft-cautions-hardware-makers-to-start-windows-7-testing/

Quote; "In an attempt to avoid what happened after Vista was released, Microsoft has cautioned hardware makers to begin Windows 7 testing as soon as the first beta version is released."

Ian wrote

"Even up to current day - Vista is a poor, poor effort, but where is the competition? Apple are (still) trying to screw anyone who gets close to them, and the most promising Desktop Linux Ubuntu just screwed up with Hardy, with yet another sound system, and instability issues that we thought we had left behind on breezy...

FOSS Zealots make me sick. Why can't you guys just build a better mousetrap? if the product was better, it would WIN - quit trying to blame Microsoft, and just fix your damn code."
----------------------------------------------------

Yes Vista is a disaster and thats why Macs sales are up 60% and a recent figure put it at a 7% market share. It would be higher if Apple marketed to PC users as well.

Since Vista's release, Linux use is up and more importantly ...the awareness of Linux is up dramatically. Look over in the Windows forums and see how many "Windows fans" are now dual booting with some form of Linux.

Linux Ubuntu desktop, yes lets talk about that. I can run both Vista and Ubuntu. At desktop Ubuntu runs about 170 MB RAM. Vista runs 550 MB RAM. I think its Microsoft needs to fix its code.

Some in the industry refer to Windows as "Virus Magnet". How come MSFT cannot fix the virus problems? And no, Vista and its UAC is not going to "fix" it. MSFT only had about 15 years to get it right and redo their code, maybe they need more time?

Maybe the continued lack of innovation from Redmond will help extend Windows XP Home to 2014 or 2016 on the teeny laptop market. Since some insiders say Windows 7 will be based on Vista. So that rules out a small lean and mean OS for that segment of that market. Unless of course MSFT feels like giving that important market back to Linux where it belongs.

Why can't we build a better mousetrap? lol We did, and thats why you see Linux servers on Wall Street and in major companies and not Windows servers.

Maybe thats why companies, governments, government agencies, countries and even the European Union has mandates for Open source. Maybe thats why some school district is taking its 20,000 school desktops to Linux, another is moving 1,000 computers to Linux, another 9,000 over in Switzerland.

I think that it's a bit easy for big companies like Google to complain about Microsoft. In the so-called "democratic countries" which are meant to be liberal it's a bit weird to see the government making sure that a company like microsoft is not including their software in ... their software.

I've always wondered what all the complaints are about. I use macs and linux. They have their nitch. But when it comes to the desktop computer we use windows. We have deployed Vista at 1 High School and will be deploying it at another 3 Highschools and 1 Middle school. So far so good. SP1 has made improvements but before that Vista ran fine. Is it perfect no. But I haven't ran across perfect with our MAC systems or linux systems. Sorry but the government and EU getting involved doesn't make any sense to me. When people want to use linux they will, when they want to usa a Mac, they will. We can see some of their increase in use. The money being wasted both on the government's side as well as Microsoft's side could be put to better use else where.
My 2 cents.

@tsmorty

I'm assuming you are new to the DOJ v Microsoft case. Because if you were familiar with the case you would understand why it was important for the government to get involved and regulate Microsoft's behavior.

I suppose you haven't been paying attention to Microsoft's latest escapade, trying to prevent Government agencies, businesses and users from using ODF. Then they tried to ram their XML document format through the ISO standards process by rigging the voting procedure. Fortuntately enough counties appealed the ISO vote that the voting procedure and Microsoft's XML document format is being reviewed.

Your 2 cents would be better spent learning about the issue instead of posting ignorant comments.

@BenderIsGreat
Actually I try to keep up on tech news, but I was commenting on their involvment with the OS. I am open to your comments and was not trying to post "ignorant comments." I just didn't feel like I needed to notate everything that Microsoft has done that the DOJ and the EU have had issues with to post here in the comments section. But if you are willing to take the time, please post why their involvement in the OS development is positive.
Thank
Sorry if I don't have the time to spend loads of time commenting. I am too busy keeping up on DOJ vs Microsoft ;)

All of this would have been so much easier if the DOJ had gone forward with the original plan to split Microsoft into separate OS and Applications divisions. As soon as the Bush admnistration took office, though, this idea was immediately shelved along with most of the antitrust effort that had taken years to develop.

We wouldn't have to have a government oversight committee watching to see what Microsoft puts into Windows if the company had been split apart in the first place.

@Peter
I am seriously curious, I like good conversation. The two companies may have kept the constant DOJ presence in Microsoft out but do you think that it would have stopped the anticompetitive behavior DOJ was alleging. I would think that enough of the leadership would have remained on either side that would have kept strong ties and the DOJ would have still kept an eye on them. Your thoughts, you think it would be otherwise?

My personal opinion. The DOJ vs Microsoft was due to the packaging of the browser with the OS and they alleged that Microsoft would use some anticompetitive behavior to ensure their browser was included as the default with the OEMs. Sorry but why is it the governments job to do this. They didn't prevent this yet still their are good alternatives. i.e. I am using Mozilla to type this up. I think that if a company has bad business practices that eventually it will come back to bite them. Plus look at search. Google just had the better Idea and they are top dog. The OS problem, if it is one and Linux is the solution they will come out on top.

Disclaimer: Everything I state is my opinion. I would love to converse with those with opposing views. But if you disagree don't cry "ignorant"

Being from the UK I watch the goings on at Microsoft with interest. If MS was a European company then most of the Microsofties (MS zealots) would not be so prevalent.

I think many Americans feel MS is being picked on for being successful. These people are obviously swayed my MS propaganda about this issue and could never have an informed opinion either way.

And to those that say Microsoft should be left alone to do business as it pleases, you probably voted for Bush twice too.

Microsoft's latest venture in Vista represents just how far they will go to control everything you do with a computer. The DoJ's oversight is limited in the extreme. The Bush administration let Microsoft off for a reason. What is that reason is anybodies guess.

Being from the UK I watch the goings on at Microsoft with interest. If MS was a European company then most of the Microsofties (MS zealots) would not be so prevalent.

I think many Americans feel MS is being picked on for being successful. These people are obviously swayed my MS propaganda about this issue and could never have an informed opinion either way.

And to those that say Microsoft should be left alone to do business as it pleases, you probably voted for Bush twice too.

Microsoft's latest venture in Vista represents just how far they will go to control everything you do with a computer. The DoJ's oversight is limited in the extreme. The Bush administration let Microsoft off for a reason. What is that reason is anybodies guess.

Being from the UK I watch the goings on at Microsoft with interest. If MS was a European company then most of the Microsofties (MS zealots) would not be so prevalent.

I think many Americans feel MS is being picked on for being successful. These people are obviously swayed my MS propaganda about this issue and could never have an informed opinion either way.

And to those that say Microsoft should be left alone to do business as it pleases, you probably voted for Bush twice too.

Microsoft's latest venture in Vista represents just how far they will go to control everything you do with a computer. The DoJ's oversight is limited in the extreme. The Bush administration let Microsoft off for a reason. What is that reason is anybodies guess.

Sorry for the triple post, seems my browser does not like this website.

I've heard of MS 13 (Mara Salvatrucha), will Windows 7 be released by the Redmond terrorist gang as MS 7?

Time to sell off your George Bush and Bill Gates Beanie Babies!

@Lager And Crisps:
I actually lived in the Czech Republic for 2 years. It was great. First time I dealt with openoffice and mozilla. Mozilla I liked. Openoffice on the other hand, ehhh. Anyways. I don't understand why people that believe less government envolvement in this case "are obviously swayed by MS propaganda." Explain how Vista increased control of my desktop, by Microsoft?
I would really like to see some comments that point out how the government's involvement is positive. Just curious to see some.

Everybody seems to have the opinion that Microsoft ties in all the 'middleware' with their operating systems on purpose. I am of the opinion that the 'Great and Mighty' Microsoft does not have the abilities or expertise to create products that run seperately from each other.

Microsoft has been 'developing' software for over 20 years (The first time I encountered the name Microsoft was for a game running on a ZX Spectrum) and the best they have been able to do (Vista) requires over 30 different programs (processes) to be running just to sit and show the desktop. Ineffeciency is the order of the day.

I have developed 'real time' access control hardware and firmware running an 8-bit CPU at 11.0592 MHz that has quicker response times than the Vista running on what could be called a supercomputer. I have been waiting patiently for Microsoft to GET IT RIGHT. Vista proved to me that they do not have the abilities to GET IT RIGHT.

I've never been so worried with Microsoft's niddleware being set to default in Windows. The thing that worries me more is MS Software having advantages running on windows that third party software does not, like better api's, documentation, etc... Users can always switch to Firefox/iTunes, but the DOJ needs to make sure that companies can make competitive software for the windows environment.

This report on Windows 7 and DOJ oversight has one central mistake: the US DOJ has nothing whatsoever to do with the TC's activities reviewing Windows 7. Rather, the New York Group of Settling States oversees this part of the TC's work. The US DOJ's court order covering this part of the TC's work expired last November. State AG's in the New York Group, together with California Group members, asked the court to extend their own court orders, and the federal court in Washington granted that requested - over the opposition of not only Microsoft, but the US DOJ itself. In short, this work is now the New York Group's responsibility - the US DOJ is out of it. Email me if you want more information. I'm in charge of Antitrust in the New York AG's office.

To those who wonder why the DOJ is involved you have to look at Microsoft's previous behavior, which has caused them to be convicted of anticompetitive behavior.

They have at times made chances to Windows (and before that DOS) SPECIFICALLY to break compatibility with apps of some vendors they don't like; they still have deals with OEMs where they will jack up the price of software if they sell PCs without Windows on them (anticompetitive towards non-Windows OSes); the ongoing problems with them STILL not releasing documentation required by the DOJ settlement; they tie more and more functions into Windows, using Windows' dominant sales position to gain dominance in those markets (they for instance "included" Internet Explorer with Windows SPECIFICALLY to harm Netscape.. this has been documented in internal E-Mails); they've released programming specifications to other departments within Microsoft before giving them to anyone else and even given other Microsoft divisions otherwise undocumented info (when Microsoft Office had serious competition, this put the competition at a HUGE disadvantage). The requiring Windows on all PCs and using Windows to expand into new markets were originally the biggest complaints, and they have not been addressed at all.

Google: They don't have a dominant position in the ads market, it's like 60 or 70%, and they are not using that to either strangle the other 30-40% or to force themselves into other markets. Apple: They should allow buying a Mac without MacOSX (that's bundling) but they aren't using that anticompetitively, and they aren't doing anything naughty with ITunes to force any potential ITunes competitors out of business either.

@jay
Do you trust somebody who claims to be involved with anti-trust and will not post comments using his full name? Personally I do not.

@hwertz
re: Google. Do you trust a company that thinks they have the right to browse every and any computer connected to the internet in the name of providing a good search engine? Install a good firewall on your computer, ping google, and sit back and watch how many times your firewall blocks entries into your computer. Not just google. Ping microsoft, yahoo etc. I picked it up because in the good old Republic of South Africa we pay dearly for data going up and down our broadband connections.

@doj
Business is business. DR_DOS, IBM-DOS, CP/M, and many others. Microsoft survived. What is stopping Netscape from providing their own operating system? Even the mighty space traveller cannot get it right. I gave up trying to install Ubuntu on a system that I had used to test Server 2008. Microsoft might not be able to GET IT RIGHT, but they are way ahead of anyone else.

The whole way that Billy boy got hold of his first OS could at best be described as being unethical. Nobody complained then. Microsoft have developed and marketed products that nobody else has been able to. Business is about competition. Microsoft's operating systems have been developed by Microsoft. The OS's are not public property.

If Microsoft had had a policy right from the beginning that only Microsoft applications could run on Microsoft operating systems, would that have changed things? In promoting their OS's, Microsoft took the attitude of, 'OK, here is an OS that people have chosen to use by purchasing it. We will go as far as providing the tools (APIs etc) for other companies to develop and run their software on our (Microsft's) products.'

Imagine if Diamler-Chrysler were told by the DoJ that they have to design their vehicles in such a way that a person can use a BMW steering wheel. It would not happen, would it?

One point of view on the whole DoJ's involvement in a companies' products is that the DoJ is being played like a puppet by the companies that could not do what Microsoft have done. The old saying, 'Jealousy makes you nasty' might be appropriate.

garthhempel@yahoo.co.uk

Mr. Hempel, and whoever else is interested:

I'm sorry, it's Jay Himes, jay.himes@oag.state.ny.us.

@Trey: "I've never been so worried with Microsoft's niddleware being set to default in Windows. The thing that worries me more is MS Software having advantages running on windows that third party software does not, like better api's, documentation, etc..."

So now Microsoft is being faulted for having better APIs and documentation?