Do you approve of the EU fine for MS?

[Jon P. Inghram]

What really bugs me is the way MS integrates everything into the OS, it's the reason why it's so vulnerable to exploits. I'd much rather see them ship the base OS, and then have a seperate IE/OE/WMP package.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by spadnos
...Linux users won't be able to view the trailers for upcoming movies, for instance...

Have you ever seen a movie trailer in anything but quick Time?
I haven't.
chuck

[UtwigMU]

Originally posted by Kooldino
So where does that money go anyway? It should go to the consumers in the form of a rebate.

JOKE
It will go to EU to fund our inefficient socialist state, spread tree huggin hippy enviromental and pacifist propaganda and appeasing dictators.
/JOKE

[J1NG]

Uh, Microsoft might not support their hardware. But they almost always exhange it for the latest model for you as support. I have my Intellimouse Optical Explorer 1.0's replaced with the 3.0's a few months ago.

J1NG

[Ribbit]

I don't have much of a problem with MS bundling IE or whatever with Windows. Web browsers, media players and so on are useful pieces of software which are going to be used by practically everyone.

The issue is with their intent. IE and WMP are not bundled for the users' convenience, they are bundled to lock out competing software and file/media formats. That's why they're so "integrated" into the OS, and that's why it's very difficult to uninstall them in the case that you really aren't going to use them. That's also the bit which it seems none of the court cases have looked at - they've just said "Hey! They bundled a web browser with their OS!" and then wondered why they couldn't make anything stick.

Anyway, I'm going off topic. Apparently, the EU has made MS open up their APIs etc., but they've also given them the right to be compensated by anyone who uses the information. So they've probably done much more harm than good.

[spadnos]

Originally posted by cjolley
Have you ever seen a movie trailer in anything but quick Time?
I haven't.
chuck

At this point, most are in QT and/or WMV (plus MPEG for some). The ones from iFilm (like some that Jammrock posted) are in all three.

Of course, everything on the Apple site is in QuickTime format .

The question is, how long will this last? WMV9 isn't that popular yet. It hasn't been out for too long, and hasn't been included with Windows (it probably is on new CDs, but I'm not sure).

- Steve

[cjolley]

Originally posted by Ribbit
...So they've probably done much more harm than good.

A legal ruling involving software that has unintended consequences?
You've got to be kidding.

Every time I hear that a court is going to rule on anything that has to do with computers I get an almost uncontrollable urge to hide under my bed.

chuck

[Greebe]

... and when you hear the verdict is that when you come out and m00n them?

[VJ]

Originally posted by Umfriend
Only two MS products really impressed me.....Excel and their MS Sidewinder Precision Pro joysticks.

But if you work with a Dutch version (and I assume the same goes for other localisations), it turns out they have translated all the functions. For some, this doesn't matter, but other translations are extremely far fetched...

In the XP versions, IMO, they also messed up help and copy and paste...

Jörg

[bibble]

To be honest all this is moot as MS will appeal and it will be years before anyting is done by which time as usual the goalpost are light years away. Happened in the US - will happen here.

The only way to change the landscape is for a viable alternative. Linux afaik is good for servers but rubbish for the desktop (yes I know I am probably flame bait now but hey its friday - flame away - could be fun).

Some good to come out of it is bad publicity (maybe) which may push more people over to the dark side.

[Belwarrior]

Originally posted by Ribbit
I don't have much of a problem with MS bundling IE or whatever with Windows. Web browsers, media players and so on are useful pieces of software which are going to be used by practically everyone.

The issue is with their intent. IE and WMP are not bundled for the users' convenience, they are bundled to lock out competing software and file/media formats. That's why they're so "integrated" into the OS, and that's why it's very difficult to uninstall them in the case that you really aren't going to use them. That's also the bit which it seems none of the court cases have looked at - they've just said "Hey! They bundled a web browser with their OS!" and then wondered why they couldn't make anything stick.

Anyway, I'm going off topic. Apparently, the EU has made MS open up their APIs etc., but they've also given them the right to be compensated by anyone who uses the information. So they've probably done much more harm than good.

This is what i was going about with some of my friends..
There is nothing wrong with Windows being shipped with the windows media player.. however there should be a choice for the user to remove it (as it is only a media player for crying out loud) and use something which the user prefers. Same case with InternetExplorer -> anyone remembers the security patch which needed to be installed for any PCs with IE regardless of whether or not it is being used.

Microsoft was quoted (not sure where i saw this, could someone help me out ) as saying that by removing WindowsMediaPlayer 20 other applications would fail to perform properly. This is what i would consider utter incompetence. How could a media player be so critical to an operating system?

I feel EU has a case against Microsoft, but i am not sure of the intent of EU. Like i said, everyone has to have a choice.

but preferably i would that to be "You give us a good stable operating system which can come with its own applications but not integrated in such a way to exploit your market monopoly, (i think there is a law against monopoly, ain't it?) else we ain't buying it, as there are other alternatives, so what you going to say?"