Inside Windows XP Reduced Media Edition 605
An anonymous reader writes "Flexbeta.net has got it's take on Windows XP Reduced Media Edition, which is basically Windows XP Pro stripped of its Windows Media Player. To sum it up, there is hardly any noticable difference between XP RME and XP Pro, except for the welcome screen and Windows not recognizing their own file format. The article hints how this may be the beggining to a Windows OS without any Microsoft applications. Bye-bye Internet Explorer?"
What is the point?? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were cheaper, than you might have something.
no one will make use of this.. (Score:2, Insightful)
What idiocy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who's happy about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'm saying is that this reduced edition really is superior, because it's easy to convert it into the full version, but not vice versa.
Yes, the majority of microsoft's evil annoyances are still there, but this is progress nonetheless.
With a name like that (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is the point?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows should be stripped down even more (Score:2, Insightful)
For pretty much every app included in windows there is a better 3rd party alternative, most of them free or even open source
id much rather not have paint but Gimp and Open Office instead of wordpad.
This is the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Performance improvement? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you do put on X11 and mplayer natively, it's faster than Windows and Media Player.
Bundled Software - oh how terrible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amazing stupidity! (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you think MS should be above the law?
Re:What is the point?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reduced MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Im sure you know what the chances of that happening are, at least within the next 4 years
Is Internet Explorer next? Browserless Edition (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual "If modem doesn't work download new driver from the internet." problem.
Re:EU giving American companies grief. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stupid bureaucrats (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU failed. (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU failed when they only insisted RME should be offered as an option. What they should have done was forbid the sale of the full version of XP in Europe. This is a remedy that is applied in other anti-trust/competition cases, and it should have been done here. Sure if people want to buy it outside the EU and ship it in for personal use then let them, but it shouldn't be available for sale in the EU at all. The EU Commission has displayed a remarkable, and depressing, lack of nerve.
Billg must be laughing into his wallet, he's won again. This is the reason MS aren't appealing the refusal to overturn interim relief until full trial: because they dont care it doesn't matter. XP RME will sell a dozen copies in Europe - tops.
Shouldn't Reduced Cost Less? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Think how good Windows could have been....... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What idiocy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, when you release your app, you release more than just "your" app ... on Windows, there are redistributable components that you should probably include in your release. These are detailed on MSDN, if you look hard enough.
What i'm trying to say is that it would be wise not to assume a component you need is already on the Windows box. This is why you either link statically with the C runtime, or redistribute the MSVCRT* stuff with your app. The same goes for media applications -- if you depend on WMVCORE.DLL, for instance, make sure you also ship the MS redistributable WMVCORE installer. This is just common sense if you're targeting Windows (esp. different versions). Nothing has changed.
Regards,
John
Purpose of RME (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm seeing a lot of posts today asking why anyone would go to the store and buy an XP without WMP installed or what benefit it poses to the consumer. I'd tend to agree with most of the posters that the benefit to the consumer is essentially none.
As I recall, however, the whole point of the RME edition was so that OEMs had greater flexibility in installing software on their Windows machines. This was supposed to foster competiton in the media player business since certain lines of computer would come with Real or maybe Quicktime or some other player.
The actual problem here is that media players are media specific since the file formats are all proprietary. You need Quicktime to view qti, Real to view rm, and WMP to view wmv files so unbundling WMP only screws the end user in that they've now lost default access to one kind of media. If the EU wanted to really foster competition they would mandate open standards on media file formats (I realize they can't do this- but hypothetically...) and make players compete on the basis of, well, being good _players_ and not by edging out the competition by creating proprietary de facto "standards" (.doc anyone?).
Re:What is the point?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:omg ! (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, the Slashdot editors rejected the story... obviously it isn't what they consider news for nerds, stuff that matters... but in my opinion, it shows that even Microsoft can occasionally be susceptible to an approximation to the truth.
Re:no one will make use of this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The points are:
- the "reduced media" XP will be cheaper (by mandate of EU)
- if you don't want WMP preinstlled, you can buy XP without, and pocket the difference, then go home and download the media player of your choice, or leave it out
- OEMs will be free to include alternative media players. Back before MS made IE compulsory, it was common to buy an "Internet ready PC" with Windows 3.1 + Netscape + Eudora + etc... preinstalled.
Advantages to users: save money; choice; and vendors cannnot assume everyone has WMP and so will need to supply media in more open formats; DRM hopefully has a spanner thrown in it.Just silly -- should a car come without tires? (Score:2, Insightful)
People say that by including these applications they become defaults. There are alternative media players and alternative browsers, but many people don't seek them out. So what? Why is that Microsoft's responsibility? It's not. When you buy a new car, guess what -- it comes with four tires! There are many alternative tires on the market, but most people just drive what comes with the car. Some may argue that, well, the tires are not made by the same manufacturer as the car. But how does this give the buyer any more choice? A single vendor has been selected by the automaker. Buyers aren't asked which vendor's tires they would like.
The argument that an OS doesn't "need" a media player or a browser is a slippery slope that fails the test of people's expectations. Does a car require a radio to move people from A to B? Nearly every new car today comes with one, made and/or selected by the car manufacturer. Again, there are alternatives on the market. Want a different radio? Go buy one, then.
In fact, the claim against bundling IE is weaker today than it's ever been. When the Internet was a peripheral utility, like a spreadsheet, there may have been some case that MS needn't bundle it with the OS. But now usage of the Internet is a primary reason most people buy a computer. Microsoft has every right to provide its customers with what they expect, including the ability to browse the web and play common media files out of the box.
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices have nothing to do with what they bundle. When they put up obstacles to alternative choices, *that* is a good reason to complain. Indeed, Internet Explorer should be easily uninstalled. There is no problem with bundling it, but the user should be able to remove it with ease. When they choose not to support common media formats *in spite of* user expectations, that is a good reason to complain. See, for example, their lack of bundled support for MPEG2/DVD playback (MCE notwithstanding).
For the record, I strongly prefer open source solutions to MS. But what should we make of the fact that the most popular Linux distributions include far more "out of the box" bundles than Windows -- including web, word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets, etc. Why doesn't the argument that users "will just use what came with it and not seek out alternatives" not apply here? Microsoft has every right to provide as much functionality that it believes its customers will want. Criticizing them for that is what is anti-competitive.
Given the variety of truly anti-competitive practices MS has undertaken over the years (OEM restrictions, software obstacles, embrace-and-extend-and-patent tomfoolery) it's sad to see the EU "take a stand" and demand MS stop doing one of the things that is actually entirely within its rights. Nobody is the better off for it, and MS gets to play the martyr and claim persecution.
-Aaron
Re:What is the point?? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the end user who would be picking alternative media players; it would be OEMs who sell the system with a different default player installed.
Strangely enough, with various companies using different incompatible DRM schemes to try to build up little media empires, some hardware manufacturers might now actually be interested in doing this. For example, they could choose to ally with Apple's media ecosystem rather than Microsoft's. Without the DRM schemes, there really isn't much reason to use anything other than the default provided by Microsoft.
Re:I'm sure consumers are really relieved. (Score:1, Insightful)
I personally don't mind wmp it works for what video clips i need to view with it and having it be one less thing to download is a bit of a good thing. Although xmms makes a much better mp3 player.
my isp has invisible caps and the less crap I gotta download the better.
Re:Is Internet Explorer next? Browserless Edition (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why IE should have been an add/removable application from day one.
1: Install XP with IE.
2: Download and install Firefox.
3: Go to add/remove programs, remove IE. (Profit!)
Re:This will play agains microsoft ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no one will make use of this.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the employee needs it, they will have to first request for it. If approved by management, then they get it. Otherwise, it's basic computer without stuff that can be distracting to work.
Now if only we can get the browser and email program out. Some employees don't need the Internet at all. So not having the applications removes distractions, temptation, and cruft.
This is actually the reason I like deploying Linux desktops for employees... because I can control whether or not they get certain applications. If they need it, they'll have to ask for permission first, rather than have it in by default without any good reason.
Re:Who cares about Media Player? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reduced MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Unbundling can be a BAD thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Unbundling isn't necessarily a good thing
One of the common fallacies of many software developers (and product designers of all types) is to assume that "everybody is just like me." "Allowing" someone to evaluate alternatives and make choices in order to use a tool they have purchased may not be a great idea. The consumer bought the computer and expects certain functionality--like the ability to play media. A stripped OS, to most consumers, isn't an opportunity to evaluate other alternatives and make the best choice--it's a broken OS. I'd be floored if European electronics stores don't start getting computers brought back because "it doesn't work"--because the consumer can't play MP3s. And when the poor stiff at the Customer Service desk explains that the consumer has to go online to find a suitable device and download it--instead of getting it in the box, for free, the consumer might just wonder what government bureaucrat thought this a better idea....
When unbundling is positively BAD
I've been working with computers for more than twenty years. In that time I've learned a few truths, and one of them is that 99% of the people who use computers are not the slightest bit interested in computer technology. They are interested in doing something, and use the computer to help them do it. A lot of people (I'd estimate more than 80%) have a certain amount of fear about that computer--they've heard all sorts of horror stories, and have all kinds of mental images of launching missiles or causing electrical blackouts if they "press the wrong button." (Digression: I'm also convinced that network admins routinely mention dire consequences like missile launches and urban catastrophes if their instructions are not followed to the letter.) My point: the typical user does not trust the computer. And that's a crucial issue for anybody interested in implementing technology solutions on any platform, anywhere.
You only get one chance to make a good first impression...
I'm a software architect--I design software for lighting control and building automation. As part of that my team needs to present information to the user: some of that information is presented as PDFs, some as HTML, some as JavaScript, some as text, and some as SVG. In order to seamlessly install systems on an end user's computer we depend upon specific applications being present. We don't depend upon Windows Media Player (memo to staff: write a jingle that plays "your lights are on!" Or not.) But we do depend upon having Notepad.exe there (text editor), and we depend upon Internet Explorer being there. They're crucial parts of our product--if they're not there, our app won't work. Take them out of the standard load of every Windows-based PC in the world, and I suddenly have a substantially harder (and more expensive) problem to solve. My customers are far more prone to see errors. My ability to deliver a seamless solution to customers who have an innate fear of the computer is compromised.
The consumer isn't the winner here...
The end result of forced "unbundling" is not that consumers get more choice. It is that consumers are forced to make choices that they have been perfectly content to ignore up till now. And they will be forced to pay higher prices for any technology that, heretofore, depended upon bundled technology to exist--because vendors will now have to write all kinds of additional code to deal with all the possible versions that might emerge.
Re:Windows should be stripped down even more (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows should be stripped down even more (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just silly -- should a car come without tires? (Score:3, Insightful)
With windows having a 90% monopoly on the desktop, by bunding IE and WMP they do make it very hard for alternative providers to compete, because there's already a player on there. Worse, I can't remove it even I want to. Let's say I want to improve the security on my windows server by uninstalling IE and WMP. I can't. I'm stuck with the included vulnerable libraries and processes.
Because up till now, all windows machines came with windows media player and the WMP codecs, they could go to online media providers and say "Don't use realplayer, quicktime, or ogg-vorbis files - they all need your customers to download some software. Instead use our bundled DRM codecs, they're already on there!"
Assuming media providers do take the easy way out (which isn't hard, given how many WMP streams and videos I see out there now compared to a few years ago) then that makes it much harder for non-windows users to use the WWW for music and video, as it's all in a locked up proprietry format that's only legally usable in software patent countries on windows.
There is a similar problem with IE and activex or broken css websites; Microsoft have tried very hard to make people code to their default, and lock people into windows.
Personally, I would have like to have seen microsoft forced to allow people to really uninstall WMP and IE from standard XP, but the EU action will have the same effect:
Media providers cannot assume that every customer has windows media player and it's codecs, thus they have more of a reason to use more open and cross platform formats. Plus it gives the OEM builders much more reason to bundle alternative players that are better and don't have DRM turned on by default.
Yes, customers might have to undergo a little pain to choose a media player rather than have a non-removable default one forced upon them; but it will hopefully have the longer term effect of keeping media files available to all users, not just windows users. And making it easier for people to switch platforms benefits everyone in the end, as microsoft will be forced to innovate to compete, not just rely on their desktop monopoly.
And speaking personally, I will be installing this at my school. Getting rid of WMP and replacing it with a player that doesn't have bundled browser+adverts+unfiltered search engine will be much easier with WRME. I'd get rid of IE too, if I could.
Re:Is Internet Explorer next? Browserless Edition (Score:3, Insightful)
If microsoft were forced to release a browserless windows (oh please! please!) then OEM's could put their own browser (probably branded firefox) on the desktop.
Failing that, you'd grab a handy ISP cd and install a browser from that, just like a few years ago when IE wasn't mandatory on windows, or grab one from a mate. Using your logic, you could argue that it's impossible for a newb to sign up for any ISP that isn't bundled in windows, as they've no way to get to register an account online...
Having windows with IE as an optional component wouldn't make life impossible for newbs, it didn't in the past. It would however allow people to make their boxes much, much more secure by really getting rid of the vulnerable components, not just hiding them. It might also have the side effect of making microsoft compete on features and security to get IE back on the desktop, not just rely on their existing monopoly.
Who says that competitors lose? (Score:3, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree--I think you are giving software vendors far too little credit for ingenuity. And I think, perhaps, that you're not recognizing the ways in which bundling helps putative competitors, and helps the consumer.
As I see it, there are three ways in which bundling affects the marketplace:
Creating a marketplace
In simple terms, Microsoft isn't in business to sell any of the tools they bundle. They're in the business of selling the OS--and a key part of that is convincing ISVs (like me) to develop for their OS. To that end they want to provide tools that I know will be there. Case in point: Solitaire. Back when Windows 2.1 shipped (might have been 3.0) the Windows API included support fo a function called StretchBlt. A lot of video drivers claimed to support it--but didn't. A simple way to test the video on the box was to play a game of Solitaire--if the little animation with the cards at the end worked, you knew that the video driver correctly supported StretchBlt. (Windows Hearts did the same thing for Network DDE.) No game vendor lost a dime of revenue or a point of marketshare because of those games--to the contrary, the presence of those games drove support for GDI (Graphical Device Interface) features that essentially created the computer games industry.
Promoting third-party products
Back in the 1990s I had a terrific consulting gig with a database modeling tools vendor. Our most fervent hope was to get a limited version of our flagship tool bundled into Microsoft's Visual Studio tool. Sure--we'd essentially be giving hundreds of thousands of copies of a $4000 tool away--but we expected tens of thousands of new customers who recognized the benefits of the tool and wanted to upgrade to the real thing. Alas--we lost: a competitor paid Microsoft big bucks to get a competing tool included. They went on to fame, glory, and a big buyout from IBM. We never got our stock price above the options threshold, and ended up at the back of the CA catalog. My point? A lot of companies have had their fortunes made by getting bundled into Windows: Rational, Crystal Software, Kodak Imaging, Hilgraeve Software, and a bunch of others.
But you don't have to have your product bundled into Windows: lots of vendors compete directly with bundled Microsoft apps and do just fine, thank you. TextPad, Eudora, Opera, MusicMatch, Real (despite their whining), and oodles of other products directly compete--successfully--with applets that are bundled into Windows. The market for those products exists because Microsoft bundled the applets into the OS--and people thus discovered the tool and some of those people decided to look for something better.
Viciously crushing competitors who deserve what they get
Sometimes Microsoft has, plainly and willfully, wiped out small vendors by bundling something into the OS. Two examples spring to mind: IP stacks and ODBC drivers. Back before Windows 95 you had to buy a third-party IP stack--generally for about $100 per seat. You had to buy a third-party ODBC driver for each database to which you connected from that same seat. A client of mine, considering a PC-based client/server system for a major customer service project, was faced with paying over $500 per seat (for over 400 seats) for licensing of IP stacks and ODBC drivers. And the client was not guaranteed that the drivers would work with the next version of the OS. I had divided loyalties--I was also doing work for the vend
I do not want my customer to have flexibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Um--yes, I do. The "thingie" in question is a life safety system. We don't want to get in the customer's way--but we absolutely do want to get in the way of the customer's employee who decides that he'd rather have Firefox installed on the box, and clobbers our real-time control interface. We're not out to create a mass-market application that can be installed anywhere--we're selling a suite of tools that are directly tied to dedicated special-purpose computers that control lighting equipment. My focus (and my budget) is oriented toward providing effective support for lighting control equipment--not supporting every browser in the world. If I get budget for two additional developers next week, I'm going to focus them on supporting additional functionality of our products--not worrying about whether our web-based interface functions on Lynx.
Re:Who cares about Media Player? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want IE, find wherever iexplore.exe is stored and delete it. Now you can't run IE anymore.
Guess what, that's all IE is -- it's a bunch of HTML rendering libraries (and Javascript libraries, etc.) with a small wrapper application called iexplore.exe. Microsoft was right all along about IE (rather, the libraries that constitute it) being an integral part of the system. I mean really, don't you think Windows, like any other modern OS (I'm thinking Mac OS X here) or UNIX desktop environment (KDE, GNOME), kinda NEEDS to be able to rely on SOME sort of HTML rendering library?
There are various bundled applications that embed an HTML browser. Lacking IE, what do you propose they use instead? You can't just arbitrarily embed any browser's rendering libraries into any application without the application somehow understanding how to do it. The APIs are all different, some browsers lack embeddable browser components, etc.
The day a Linux zealot can take KDE, remove all the Konqueror libraries, and magically have EVERY application that embeds Konqueror as a KPart instead embed ANY browser WITHOUT recompiling the application, I will be impressed.
However, I think you'll find the above challenge quite difficult to accomplish. Why then do you insist that Microsoft be able to pull off the same impossible task?
Re:Who cares about Media Player? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, you're neglecting to consider the case where an application embeds an HTML browser as a component of the application (for example, Winamp's minibrowser, etc.). The only way to allow for arbitrary renderers to be used in such a situation is to develop a unified browser API and hope that every browser implements it.