What Microsoft Gains from Windows 7 Features' On-Off Switch, Part 2
|
News Analysis. Antitrust cases surely shaped Microsoft's decision to disable Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7—and how the process is executed. |
As I explained in the last post, rumors from earlier in the week were true: Internet Explorer 8 can be disabled in newer builds of Windows 7. Contrary to speculation that Microsoft might just be testing the capability, IE 8 removal will be an option in the Windows 7 Release Candidate. Eight other components also make the list of newly removable features. Not coincidentally, most of the features have been or likely could be subjects of antitrust complaints.
A decade and more ago, Microsoft executives argued that Internet Explorer couldn't be removed without breaking Windows. I sat in court, during two separate U.S. antitrust trials, and heard the same argument made over and over again. My, how times have changed. Say, aren't there laws prohibiting lying in court?
Cases in Point
Microsoft worked to a compromise in the United States. As part of a Nov. 2001 settlement, Microsoft agreed to hide access to Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger. But the code remained and could easily be called up. Some Microsoft competitors and independent developers have complained the settlement didn't go far enough.
Strange then that Windows 7 could go where the antitrust settlement didn't: removal of the remaining so-called middleware applications. Microsoft had already pulled e-mail and messaging from Windows, replacing them with downloadable Windows Live versions. Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are the last vestiges of contested middleware, and they've got deep operating system ties and high developer hooks.
The so-called middleware remains under U.S. oversight, and there are bigger antitrust problems in Europe. In March 2004, the European Union's Competition Commission found that Windows-Windows Media Player integration violated local antitrust laws. Another investigation is closing, as the EC prepares a similar ruling about Internet Explorer and Windows.
In Part 1 of this post, I explained why the removal capabilities make sense from operating design/efficiency and enterprise IT perspectives. From an antitrust perspective, I see four primary reasons for Microsoft to do what it has done:
- U.S. antitrust oversight;
- EU antitrust oversight;
- EU remedies for browser tying; and
- Windows 7's release date.
Questioning Timing
Surprisingly, the mechanism for the changes is less significant than the timing. The newly renamed "Turn Windows features on or off" control can be found in earlier versions of the operating system. I've often used it when running Windows Vista. Microsoft has added nine new features to the list, most notably Internet Explorer 8 and Windows Media Player 12. These two and five other features either have been subjects of antitrust complaints or they could be in the future. Their removability, assuming that's what it really is, mitigates Microsoft's future antitrust risk.
That said, as someone who isn't a developer and doesn't have access to newer Windows 7 test builds, I can't say how much of these applications is really removed. In an Engineering Windows 7 blog posted today, March 6, Microsoft Documents and Printing Group Program Manager Jack Mayo wrote that "the files (binaries and data) are not loaded by the operating system." But he adds:
We also continue to support the APIs available for features where these APIs are necessary to the functionality of Windows or where there are APIs that are used by developers that can be viewed as independent of the component. As many of you know these are often referred to as 'dependencies' and with Windows the dependencies can run both internal to Windows and external for ISVs.
For years, Microsoft has argued that Internet Explorer dependencies make the browser an application that can't be removed. So what's left if the binaries aren't loaded? Or can they still be, if some application needs them? These questions are important to the aforementioned four antitrust-related reasons and seven of the nine removable features.
U.S. Antitrust Oversight
Microsoft suffered a setback in its U.S. antitrust case early in 2008. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Microsoft competitors and lawyers for the states not participating in the 2001 settlement. She extended government oversight for an additional two years. Microsoft should really want the Justice Department dog off its back, particularly with an administration change.
During the last administration change, a newly Republican Department of Justice backed off the Microsoft case and later settled. Democratic antitrust overlords might be a whole lot less sympathetic to Microsoft and more open to competitors. The oversight extension ends in November, and that's the finality Microsoft should want to seek.
As part of the settlement, Microsoft shares technical data with the government about Windows. The process worked for Vista development and it continues with Seven. Surely Microsoft's government overseers reviewed the on-off feature changes Microsoft is making with Windows 7. The Bush Department of Justice wanted to end Microsoft oversight as scheduled. The changes would give the Obama Department of Justice fewer, if any, reasons to continue. Critics of the settlement have long complained that only removal of offending middleware would be satisfactory. Microsoft appears ready to deliver. I say "appears" because of my aforementioned questions about APIs.
EU Antitrust Oversight
Earlier this week, something quite remarkable happened on the Continent. The European Union downgraded its oversight of Microsoft. The EC has repeatedly slapped Microsoft for failing to fully comply with the remedies imposed from the March 2004 adverse antitrust ruling. Microsoft was fined three times, more than $2 billion, by chastising antitrust commissioners.
How times have changed. In a statement, the EC said it "no longer requires a full-time monitoring trustee to assess Microsoft's compliance." I guess criminologist, professor and author Neil Barrett, who took over Microsoft monitoring in Oct. 2005, needs a new job.
The timing of the change is revealing. Microsoft is prepping Windows 7 for release in just a few months. The most important monitoring should be during development of a new Windows version. So why change now? Microsoft's overseers probably know something that we don't. Perhaps they also were privy to the features on-off switch changes coming with Windows 7 Release Candidate? Clearly somebody is now satisfied with Microsoft's remedy compliance.
I wonder about something. The European Commission compelled Microsoft to release Windows "N" versions without the media player. Who knows, maybe the work Microsoft did removing Windows Media Player from Windows XP and Vista facilitated removable capabilities of the application and IE 8 from Windows 7.
EU Remedies for Browser Tying
It's not all hugs and kisses between Microsoft and the European Commission. Trustbusters are preparing a ruling that Microsoft's tying (bundling, integrating) Internet Explorer to Windows violates local antitrust laws.
Microsoft could make the legal argument that user removal of Internet Explorer 8 from Windows 7 would be sufficient remedy. Microsoft goes even further with media player and search removal options. It's a good effort by Microsoft, but it won't be enough, I think. One or two of three other scenarios are more likely:
- Windows 7 ships with no browser enabled
- Windows 7 ships with a choice of browsers
- OEMs ship the browser(s) of their choice
Not that it really matters. Microsoft is playing a card game here. Three-Card Monte, perhaps? Contrary to popular convention, Web browser development isn't as important as it once was. Most of the important development occurs around the browser and supporting many different ones. Windows Media Player is no great sacrifice either. The real action is the coming competitive clash between Flash Video and Silverlight. Microsoft is making concessions about the past.
The state of browser competition also calls into question the EU's expected adverse findings against Microsoft. Browser tying meant lots more in 2001 or even 2004 than today. The real beneficiary of any EU ruling and remedy against Microsoft would be Google. There's a lot of money to made off paid search, for Google and browser makers like Mozilla. Meanwhile, Google has got its own informational and search monopoly to nurture, leveraged off the browser. The EC won't likely foster otherwise-broader browser competition or third-party browser development. Still, the ties that bind matter where they knot: Microsoft tying IE to Windows and Google tying Chrome and Mozilla's Firefox to Google services.
Windows 7's Release Date
It's no coincidence that seven of the nine newly removable features and applications compete with third-party software—in most cases Microsoft "frienemy" partners. As I blogged more than two years ago, Microsoft is vulnerable when competitors call on trustbusters during late-stage new Windows version development. Microsoft is more willing to make modifications rather than delay shipment.
In the last month, Google and Mozilla have both offered to help the European Commission craft the Microsoft remedy for browser tying.
Google was particularly active before Microsoft shipped Windows Vista, and afterward. In June 2007, Microsoft agreed to voluntarily modify Vista search capabilities in response to a Google complaint made here in the United States.
Looks to me like Microsoft has decided to be proactive rather than reactive with Windows 7. Excepting security, Microsoft has most, if not all other, possible areas of competitor complaints covered. If Google complains about search, Microsoft can say it already has mechanisms for removing search and Internet Explorer from Windows 7.
Security's absence is surprising and yet not. Before Vista launched, security software developers raised holy hell about integrated features like Windows Defender and changes to the 64-bit kernel. Microsoft mollified them then and apparently isn't offering to remove anything now, which isn't surprising. Microsoft risks more from malware writers than antitrust enforcers.
I believe there's foreshadowing here. Microsoft is retiring Windows Live OneCare on June 30. The forthcoming "Morro" will replace OneCare. Microsoft hasn't set pricing. Could Morro be free?
Why not, when anti-spyware and firewall are free with Windows Vista and 7? I don't expect that Microsoft would put Morro into the operating system, which surely would cause security software developers to cry antitrust foul. But Microsoft could offer the software for free download, as it does Windows Live software.
Seriously, I'm not conspiracy-crazy. :)
Comments (25)
"I sat in court, during two separate U.S. antitrust trials, and heard the same argument made over and over again. My how times have changed."
Nothing has changed other than the definition of removing Internet Explorer.
If you were to define IE as being iexplore.exe and all the associated DLLs then you still cannot remove it from Windows without breaking everything.
Just removing (or in this case just blocking access to) iexplore.exe will not break anything except badly written apps which try to launch a browser by calling iexplore.exe directly.
"Meanwhile, Google has got its own informational/search monopoly to nurture leveraged off the browser."
That does not even make sense. Please do an entire post about how Google can/is/will abusing their monopoly and what complaint should be made. Microsoft will thank you forever.
Posted by billybob | March 6, 2009 8:05 PM
"DISABLING" is not the same thing as "Removing."
And there are many reasons why it should be Removed, the files deleted, etc, instead of disabled. But the biggest reason has to be it should not be bundled or on the computer in the first place. One should be able to go into ADD/Remove programs and remove it and delete the folders/files completely. As far as Windows Help, what a completely useless application, I always disable that with XPantispy and SafeXP. So if Windows Help depends on IE, then its a plus that its gone.
Now since Windows Update depends on IE being installed, it might seem like the end of the world for some. Bet that M$ could come up with a Firefox addon for those the want Windows Update to work, its just not that big a deal.
Joe Wilcox, you remember an article you did way back about the Windows Stealth Updates? And these on systems that had auto-updates turned off, if I recall correctly. Another good reason to see IE wiped off completely off the hard drive, files deleted. Obviously you cannot trust M$ to not use the IE files that are still on the Hard drive, merely disabled. In fact, they are not disabled completely at all are they?
Another reason for wanting IE deleted, or better never installed in the first place, is to insure that those who write programs (like the intuit example I gave in Part 1) will not be dependant on propitiatory M$ patented programs like IE, as this makes the job harder for groups like Wine to get them to run in other platforms. In the interest of "interoperability."
Another reason is because IE is unsecured. After the fact that Windows comes setup as a wide open Administrator account default setup, then the next biggest malware target on an Windows system is Internet Exploder. So if you are not using it, why oh why, would you want this malware target on your computer, doing things you have no idea what (only M$ knows for sure) without your permission.
And of course, there is the simple fact, that it should have never been bundled in the first place. It was simply a vehicle to kill off Netscape, and to provide more lockin. It is all the things that Opera complained about. The files do not need to be removed as much as they should not be allowed to be installed/bundled in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------
Thankfully, I do not have to use Windows and all its malware very often these days, mostly just on computers that people bring me to fix. There is a better way, Linux does not have all the Malware problems of Windows and IE.
Posted by Chips B Malroy | March 6, 2009 9:02 PM
Re: "As far as Windows Help, what a completely useless application"
Wait a minute here! Google is the #1 Windows help facility. It's not useless at all!!! ;-)
Re: "`Meanwhile, Google has got its own informational/search monopoly to nurture leveraged off the browser.'
That does not even make sense."
Why do so few people outside of billybob, Chips, and Goblin have such a difficult time understanding this true statement? Google is NOT a monopoly. They make something that works from any browser on any operating system from high-end Unix workstations down to mobile phones, with all the PCs, Macs, and netbooks in between. People can switch to Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, Alta Vista, Cuil, or their local library if they want and no lunatic monkey is going to throw chairs at them or rant that they are violating Google's patents.
If you sell water every year at the state fair and put your competitors out of business with price-fixing, thug attacks, and lobbying your lawmakers to ban other water vendors, you have a monopoly and are abusing it. THAT is how Microsoft operates.
But if you sell water every year at the state fair, and your competitors sell bottles of dog urine mixed with water from puddles and floaters from the porta-potties, you will very, very likely be the dominant vendor, and yet you won't have a monopoly. Being popular from a willing volunteer market is NOT a monopoly. And if advertisers flocked to your booth with their banners and avoided the other vendors, that is not unfair, but rather you have something people want, while your competitors have products that nobody else wants. THAT is how Google operates.
Posted by Philosopher | March 7, 2009 12:09 AM
So according to Chips Malware there should be no browser with the OS. Better get the EU on RedHat, Novell, Apple and Ubuntu to get the browser out of their OSes by default. MS writing an add-in for Firefox to support Windows Update? That's about the most daft thing I've ever heard! A software company that has to try and "bolt on" to someone elses code for an integral function like OS updating rather than their own? Unreal!
So its ok for Firefox and Chrome to be "free", but heaven forbid that MS has a "free" browser as well. The hiporacy of the logic here is unbelievable.
And Joe, wake up to the fact this isn't 2001 or 2004; we're not talking about MS suddenly saying that "oh yea, we can get rid of IE in Windows XP", they're saying they can now do it on a code base that's two generations later than XP. Maybe, just maybe they've done some re-engineering between 2001 and now to reduce some of the internal dependencies. But then again Joe, that wouldn't fit with your sensationalist, grand conspiracy style...
Oh, and by the way I enjoyed your complete flip-flop the other day on the Netbook issue. 6 months ago Netbooks were the thing that would kill Microsoft and Windows. Now this month with MS getting really to support them they're irrelevant. Way to keep the sensationalism going. Maybe you should try some different cold and flu meds as you're a bit off lately...
Posted by GetAGrip | March 7, 2009 12:37 AM
Quote "So according to Chips Malware there should be no browser with the OS. "
-
No, I believe thats the stance the EU are taking, although Ive yet to see it clearly defined as to exactly what they want.
-
I believe this may be one time when I disagree with Chips, in that I believe this EU sillyness is a very bad idea. I am personally worried where it could lead, and after being burned by the good intentions of "fair competition" in respect of phone call providers, I have no faith in the direction the EU will take with this.
-
Maybe Ive got the whole EU thing wrong, but please humor me for a moment. Lets say I develop my own version of Calculator. Does that mean I can go to the EU and demand that the Windows one be removed in favor of giving the users the choice of mine or Microsofts? I dont think so.
-
Why cant Windows just simply be bundled with Firefox as well? Wouldnt that save alot of time and allow users to choose? The fact that IE is embedded into Windows 7 is (IMO) not something that Microsoft can be reasonably expected to correct between now and the RC any even if it was would that mean there would be Windows EU and Windows "Rest of the world" version? How would that affect compat?
-
I dont think anyone will argue that I have little love for Windows. That being said, I certainly do not have any love for the way the EU is tackling this issue, which really IMO doesnt need to be sorted.
-
I think out of all alternatives packages, Firefox is the most well known (that was shown in the download stats) Users are well aware of the alternatives, and whilst I mention peoples awareness about them, I would be a hypocrite if I said that Firefox needs to be offered as an alternative (since I believe even new users are aware of it)
That, IMO is good enough for me, and is the whole reason why I post. Freedom of choice through knowledge of alternatives.
-
I may, as some people like to say be a "Opinionated Linux idiot" but I am fair.
Posted by Goblin | March 7, 2009 3:26 AM
"Users are well aware of the alternatives, and whilst I mention peoples awareness about them, I would be a hypocrite if I said that Firefox needs to be offered as an alternative (since I believe even new users are aware of it)"
If everyone was well aware of alternatives and they could switch the browser in and out without a problem, then why does IE (easily the worst browser out there) still have a > 50% share in the market?
If things were working properly then the best browser would have a massive lead in marketshare (like Google has with search).
Virtually every non-technical person I ever speak to is not aware of Firefox or even what a browser is.
Posted by billybob | March 7, 2009 8:00 AM
"So its ok for Firefox and Chrome to be "free", but heaven forbid that MS has a "free" browser as well. The hiporacy of the logic here is unbelievable."
There is no hypocrisy whatsoever, Microsoft is being brought up under anti-monopoly laws, how on earth can companies which are not monopolies be guilty of anti-trust crimes?
We want monopolies to be kept in check because it is better for the consumers (ie us).
Every time anything comes up about anti-trust and Microsoft, there is always this same question. It has been fully answered why the other companies are not subject to the same rules. If you find it so difficult to understand then maybe you should go and pay a lawyer to explain it to you. Or maybe move to a country with no anti-trust laws.
Try to understand the difference between libre and gratis. The English language is not very good at differentiating because it uses the same word for both. Firefox and Chrome are libre and gratis, IE is only gratis. The fact that they are libre means that they cannot be used to dominate a market like IE has.
Posted by billybob | March 7, 2009 8:17 AM
Isn't the notion that IE is free nonsense, surely it's included within the price of Windows. Just like Honda includes the price of the wheels it bundles with its cars.
@Chips B Malroy - The Windows Help content is not a good example of what the Help Software (built around the IE engine) can do, but that's a content issue not an engine issue. Just because I might not like the WSJ doesn't mean I dislike all newspapers. If the engine were removed it would mean 1,000's of very good help content libraries for 1,000's of very good 3rd party software products would be rendered useless, and 1,000,000's of users would be very p..... off .
Posted by RightPaddock | March 7, 2009 8:42 AM
GetAGrip :
"Better get the EU on RedHat, Novell, Apple and Ubuntu to get the browser out of their OSes by default. MS writing an add-in for Firefox to support Windows Update? That's about the most daft thing I've ever heard! A software company that has to try and "bolt on" to someone elses code for an integral function like OS updating rather than their own? Unreal!"
That's the problem, in any Linux OS you can update the OS whithout the UI using apt-get. But even Windows build in auto update requires IE.
Posted by whatever | March 7, 2009 11:34 AM
Re: "Just like Honda includes the price of the wheels it bundles with its cars." and a gaggle of other silliness.
It is NOT NOT NOT NOT about the price of IE. NOT!!!!
It is about IE being so common that web site developers blindly, stupidly, and/or expediently build their web sites and servers to support IE, and then the world discovers too late that you can't get to those sites and servers unless you pay for and run Microsoft operating systems and clients.
THAT is the problem. And removing IE's iexplore.exe is WAY TOO LATE! The damage has already been done, and the EU's actions are too little, too late, and not worth the effort. They are only telling Microsoft, "Now that you have conquered the world, we're going to take your guns away from you. But you can keep the parts of world that you have already conquered."
It's NOT about free as in price. It's about free as in FREEDOM to choose and to be free from Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Sun, or any other vendor. You only owe them when you accept their products and terms, but you should NOT owe them anything if you don't.
Posted by Philosopher | March 7, 2009 12:26 PM
@Philosopher:
"It is NOT NOT NOT NOT about the price of IE. NOT!!!!"
----------------------------------------------------
How very true. After all, is not IE freeware? But still there is a price to be paid for this type of M$ "freeware." Its not really "free" as in freedom, that is the price just for starters. M$ still holds all the patents on IE, and th EULA (which is most likely untested in court) and how you can use it.
Perhaps some of us here (not you Philosopher) forget why the EU is doing something about the bundling anyway. Its because Opera complained to the EU, similar to the USA DOJ case caused by Netscape. The opera case goes further than the netscape case in that they also complained that M$ used non-standards of IE in a way to discourage users from using other browsers as well. Not to mention, it also caused a coding nightmare for many websites having to code sites to make IE and other browser work. So if most of you think about this, this is the reason that the EU is looking at "complete unbundled of IE from Windows (or at least I hope they are).
--------------------------------------------------
@RightPaddock :
"The Windows Help content is not a good example of what the Help Software (built around the IE engine) can do, but that's a content issue not an engine issue. Just because I might not like the WSJ doesn't mean I dislike all newspapers. If the engine were removed it would mean 1,000's of very good help content libraries for 1,000's of very good 3rd party software products would be rendered useless, and 1,000,000's of users would be very p..... off ."
--------------------------------------------------
The windows help itself I have never found useful, it mostly ask stupid questions like have you plugged in your cables, etc. Now the idea that there might be 3rd party apps that use windows help is interesting. I was not aware of that, since most of us here are more power users, and tend not to need the "help" from these help features. Still, it brings back the point I made about 3rd party apps piggybacking on IE or any other patented M$ product like IE, WMP, Outlook, and Messenger, they need to stop and write their own software, or use truly open source of gpl software to do this.
As I pointed out with the Quickbooks example, it becomes much harder (not impossible) to make this type of app work in Wine in Linux, because of the similar patent trap (think fat32) with patented IE being used by 3rd party apps, including your 3rd party help apps. What is done in this decision also in this way affects other non-microsoft platforms as well, example wine. Only by completely eliminating IE as bundled with windows, will this bit of lockin be somewhat discouraged. Even there, more than that needs to be done by the EU, as M$ already has a big head start with its bundled browser for the last 11 years plus.
Also I think its a step in the right direction to have IE unbundled (not on the disk in the first place) as far as malware prevention. Windows users need all the help they can get from malware, and M$ is not helping them that much. If it was, why are so many folks moving to Linux and Mac? (and rightly so too)
Now if M$ had done this disabling feature way back in 1998, during the Netscape USA DOJ antitrust case, then it might not have the problems it is having now with the EU. What M$ is doing now is to try to preempt the EU ruling with less, and still have a way to maintain the lockin (and control of users computers) of IE with with 3rd programs using patented IE. Now, its just too little too late, as one commentator put it.
Now about Windows update, the firefox addon is not a bad idea. But M$ can do something like Debian based Linux distros (including Ubuntu I believe) do with app-get. I would not be opposed to leaving documented parts of IE installed if, 3rd party apps could not excess it and use it, if it would only be used for updating, if the users could still be offered the right and freedom to completely uninstalling (which includes deleting) it from the hard drive. As far as the programs and help files that depend of the IE lockin, theres going be some pain about that. Those 3rd party companies will have to come out with patches won't they?
It is time for the EU to hopefully level the playing field, for Opera and for open standards. Completely removing IE is only a small step in this direction.
@Goblin :
If that is really you, and you are not being impersonated. First of all sure M$ could use Firefox and give up on IE altogether, this would be the best solution, but you know its not going happen. They could even open source IE under the gpl if they wanted too, LOL.
As far as you respectfully disagreeing with me, I have no problem with that. My opinions are my own, and not part of any group, organization, or corporations. As such I do not represent any Linux group, or any Mac or Windows group. Neither do I expect anyone to agree with me 100% of the time. There are even areas that I have changed my opinion on in the course of time.
Posted by Chips B Malroy | March 7, 2009 1:32 PM
"Now the idea that there might be 3rd party apps that use windows help is interesting."
Not the help system necessarily, the HTML rendering engine. Help files are chm's which stands for Compressed HtMl. They obviously use the Trident engine to render, any other apps providing chm's will use the same help viewer.
The bigger problem is apps which use the embedded IE control to render HTML (not always for help files). It is easier to write a UI in HTML than Windows Forms so a lot of apps do that.
Not having to include a web browser control with your application makes it easier to distribute and makes security easier.
All GUI toolkits have some sort of web browser control, they are used more often than you expect.
Posted by billybob | March 7, 2009 2:23 PM
@billybob:
The help system and the auto-updates debate about totally removing IE is just a side show in M$ astrotufing talking points. The goal is to keep IE in the new Windows Seven. If anyone thinks just disabling IE8 is going stop programs and M$ from using IE8 in the background, for many purposes, then I got some land to sell you.
We will have to wait and see what the Eu will have them do. But consider the title of Joe's article for a moment, "What Microsoft Gains from Windows 7 Features' On-Off." Ask yourself what MS gains by disabling but leaving IE8 on the hard drive? They could have just as easily given users the choice of disabling or totally removing it. But if the argument shifts to that, we should not forget, that it was about not putting IE with the OS in the first place.
So why does M$ fight so hard to keep IE8 with Seven? It could be it will be a minor hassle to fix auto-updates (WSUS) and windows help. Not sure if BITS and WGA also depend on IE as well. And of course a lot of the DRM can be got around by removing WMP, but still the cpu cycles will still do all the checking and polling of device drives and hardware, so performance really does not increase there.
I say M$ is in love with all the lockin that it has created, and cannot stand to give it up, case in point IE and Office formats. As Billy G tends to be a control freak, if you remember the stealth updates, which most likely used some IE components as well. My opinion is that M$ should not be let off to continue to do what it has been doing all these years and getting away with it. They may very well get away with it, as I see they are throwing huge parties in Europe these days, inviting the people that run the EU.
Posted by Chips B Malroy | March 7, 2009 7:33 PM
Microsoft shunning ARM netbooks?
http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS2669864885.html
"Microsoft is not supporting the idea of running Windows Mobile or CE on ARM netbooks, complains Warren East (left), ARM's chief executive. "I think it's a dangerous missed opportunity for them," East is quoted as saying in an interview published today by London's Financial Times.
ARM netbooks, first tipped for release last year, could be up to ten times more power-efficient than their x86 equivalents, offer a "desktop-class user experience," and will be on sale later this year for under $200, ARM claims
Of course, Microsoft's flagship Windows 7 and Windows Vista operating systems, as well as Windows Embedded Standard 2009, require x86 processors and cannot run on ARM CPUs. But, Windows CE and Windows Mobile, as used in more than 140 different types of Windows phones, run on ARM natively, and would presumably require little adaptation for netbook usage.
While East didn't speculate as to what those reasons might be, Nuttall ventures to say that Microsoft's longtime "Wintel" ally, Intel, might be unhappy if the software giant supports ARM as well as Atom on the netbook battlefront. ARM netbooks are likely to be the cheapest available, which might require Microsoft to cut its licensing fees further, he adds."
--------------------------------------------------
The last paragraph says it all, two monopolies watching out for each other again. But if MS and Intell thinks that these cheap ARM netbooks will not sell, then take a look at this one:
www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/
Quote "Breakthrough battery life
Designed from scratch for lower power consumption, the Touch Book is not an energy-guzzling beast like other laptops. It offers an amazing 10 to 15 hours of battery life for less than 2 pounds."
--------------------------------------------------
Having this kind of battery life in an ARM netbook might make it a must have.
Posted by chips b malroy | March 7, 2009 8:05 PM
If Microsoft is being forced to disable IE8 from Windows Seven, then why isn't Apple being forced to disabled Safari from OS X so we may use Firefox, or Opera? Seems like everyone is against Microsoft, and in favor of Apple, or even Google. Oh well.
Posted by Rennis | March 8, 2009 1:24 AM
@Everyone - In particular Chips.
-
First off, the post was me and not an imposter. Im sure Joe can confirm.
-
My stance on the EU is one of my more non-FOSS ones, based on the complete hash previous anti-trust legislation has made in the UK. Im certainly not against it and I think the ethos of what they are trying to do is good. Its the implimentation of it that worries me. Im sure any UK'r here will support my opinion that previous anti-trust legislation has been fraught with problems.
-
Quote "If everyone was well aware of alternatives and they could switch the browser in and out without a problem, then why does IE (easily the worst browser out there) still have a > 50% share in the market?"
-
Agreed, and certainly I do know many users who had not known about it until I mentioned it.
The point I was trying to make was that there are plenty of other alternatives in other areas that dont have the awareness FF has, and in my opinion the anti-trust legislation would be better aimed towards the PC and its OS at the purchasing stage, maybe with a solution there to offer a complete alternative not simply a browser one.
Again, this IMO would bring problems with it, but I honestly dont think tackling MS in regards to IE will be of benefit to anyone (this would include Windows users and Linux users alike)
-
I dont intend to cause flame to anyone (Windows/Linux/Mac), and I know Chips and all others champion free, honest held opinion. But as I say about I believe that where the EU and anti-trust is concerned, UKrs would have great reservations in anything they are involved with.
I could be wrong. Id love to hear from fellow UKrs who think that the EU will make this a "pain free" solution out of this.
Posted by Goblin | March 8, 2009 5:23 AM
How about banning the bundling of PC's with Windows? Force retailers to show the price without an OS or with Linux/OS of their choice, then the price with Windows.
I think that would go a long way to teaching the general public that Windows is not free and that there are alternatives.
I suspect that their solution this time will be almost as useless as the N edition, but at least it will raise awareness and hopefully a big fine. We can give it to the French to spend on mushrooms and freedom fries.
Posted by billybob | March 8, 2009 1:13 PM
How about requiring MIcrosoft to ship win 7, with just a command line or even better ban Microsoft from releasing new version for 20 years. When this first started I had said that the way these lawsuits are progressing, the EU and other competitors will be the next window's version product managers. It's getting very close to that...It's a shame... Using the same reasoning anything on windows from the Window's Manager down to the kernel can be considered, as not part of the core OS and thus subject to a potential lawsuit.
Posted by evan | March 8, 2009 1:57 PM
If they weren't installed in every PC by default then they would not be subject to these laws so they can do what they like (like everyone else in the industry).
Posted by billybob | March 8, 2009 2:40 PM
I honestly don't understand all the hoopla about the browser. So we use it to access the internet so what? Using IE sure as hell doesn't make me any more likely to use other MS products or services, and it doesn't stop me from downloading Open Office or any other program competing with Microsoft. We are talking about a free browser where the competition is also free. Some people(like me) just want a browser that runs quickly and doesn't crash all the damn time. Whether that is some version of IE, Firefox or Chrome doesn't really matter one way or the other, and that decision has no effect on any other decision I make concerning what I do on my PC.
If web developers are not smart enough to develop for more than one platform then that hurts whatever business they are running, and I really don't see how that is Microsoft's fault.
As a security issue I can somewhat understand, but hello people we are talking about Windows and removing IE is not gonna all of a sudden make the platform secure, and having IE installed doesn't single handedly destroy the security you may have put in place using other tools.
I also don't really see what listing the price would do, I find many people pick windows for familiarity and for a sense of security(valid or not) that going with a well known product gives. People that know other OS are out there and are comfortable with choosing one already know the cost of Windows in comparison. Not that I'm against listing the price but I really don't see it as having any effect.
I don't know about everybody else but with the OS costing as much as it does, I want more in my OS not less. The option to turn off features is good enough, the option to completely remove it would be better yes but I don't see the difference as huge. Having it in the box in no way what so ever takes away my ability to choose another product that is better.
Posted by JMB | March 8, 2009 8:55 PM
@Goblin and Billybob:
Goblin,reading your second post, has me a bit confused, as I really don't see any areas of disagreement? Anyway, you were respectful about it anyway. If it appeared that I took offense at your statement, I did not.
Agreed we would rather have the fight over the M$ tax rather than IE. It wouldn't be that hard for OEM's to ship their laptops without a hard drive, and for the retail store to sell two identical (users choice) hard drives for that laptop, one with Windows and one without with the cost savings. Of course this would mandate some sort of gov to make M$ change its sale practices, and make the purchases agreements public just for starters. The M$ policy of trying a hard drive to a machine, would also have to be changed.
Now while I would prefer that the gov look into the M$ Tax, that is not what is happening. So we have to settle for the for the battle of unbundling IE from Windows. And maybe latter the one over the Office standards.
I tend to focus on the ethical, moral, and practical problems, but sometimes get a bit carried away. As such Billybob, I hope my post about the windows help did not offend you, as the "astroturfing" comment was not aimed at you. Actually, I respected your knowledge about the Windows help files, as it added an extra knowledge to the discussion. Billybob and Goblin, your posts here, are among others with many others, are the ones I most enjoy reading. A lot of thought goes in to your posts, I have noticed.
Posted by Chips B Malroy | March 8, 2009 9:36 PM
@Chips
-
I think with the amount of posts here, Ive probably confused myself.
-
Quote "If it appeared that I took offense at your statement, I did not."
-
Not at all and I hope my replies didnt come across like I did.
-
Chips, Billybob Philosopher and all other regulars here are all favourites of mine. The fact that we can have these discussions show that the dubious posters of the past (in the main) have run away from MSWatch with their tails between their legs.
-
I appologise I havent been here as much, but Twitter, Work and a little project of mine is taking up alot of my time.
Posted by Goblin | March 9, 2009 4:30 AM
Is there and end already with the EU unbundling case with IE?
Modular Windows plan 'welcomed'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7932149.stm
"Plans to introduce modular features in Windows 7 have been welcomed by the European Commission's former Microsoft monitoring trustee."
Posted by Chips B Malroy | March 9, 2009 12:59 PM
@Rennis:
You make a very good point, but it has been awhile since I've used a Mac. Can Safari be removed from OS X w/o causing issues with other parts of the operating system. If it can, then that is the crucial difference between OS X and Safari versus Windows and IE. If it cannot, then you're quite right: Apple should be subject to the same conditions that M$ is.
Posted by Isma'il | March 10, 2009 8:12 PM
@Isma'il :
Re: "Can Safari be removed from OS X w/o causing issues with other parts of the operating system. If it cannot, then you're quite right: Apple should be subject to the same conditions that M$ is."
Can you tell me of even ONE web site or ONE product that is as common as Microsoft Exchange that works well ONLY with Safari and is crippled or unusable by any other browser on any non-Mac platform?
You can't, because there isn't one. There are a few video playing issues here and there, but they all have fixes or workarounds.
Your statement is not true. It's a very commonly believed untruth, I'll grant you that. But the amount of people that believe a lie has no bearing on the truth of the lie.
Posted by Philosopher | March 13, 2009 3:37 PM