Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Businesses Microsoft Government The Courts News

PC Makers See Little Reason to Deploy XP N 791

Posted by timothy from the gee-wally-why-not? dept.
suitepotato writes "In this article, Ingrid Marson reports to CNet News that in a small survey of companies such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo, there are no real plans to deploy Microsoft's Windows XP N which was the version required by the European Union. It would seem that despite the rants of anger towards Microsoft that they were unfairly bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP, the public at large would not seem to agree and is not actually demanding any such stripped down version. Perhaps the EU's actions were unnecessary?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PC Makers See Little Reason to Deploy XP N More

PC Makers See Little Reason to Deploy XP N

Comments Filter:
  • More like wrong action when action should have been taken.

    • Re:Unnecessary my ass (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @03:54PM (#12826345) Journal
      More like wrong action when action should have been taken.

      Indeed. It's not Windows that needs to be broken up, it's MicroSoft that needs to be broken up.

      • Re:Unnecessary my ass (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alan_dershowitz ( 586542 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:21PM (#12826701)
        I just noticed that you got modded into oblivion. I don't necessarily agree with you, but a lot of people are thinking it, so I wish your post was still above zero... :-(

        How do you break up Microsoft? You can't break it up into regional offices like what was done to the phone company, because that doesn't make sense. But how do you break up Microsoft in a way that's not utterly arbitrary?

        I mean, everyone around here see Microsoft as selling an OS and bundling a bunch of extra apps with it like a media player and a web browser. The distinction being that they are providing both a platform as well as apps that run on that platform, and a breakup would be between the OS developers and the application developers. But that's not the only way to look at it, and not even necessarily the best way.

        If you look at Microsoft, they have purchased webTV and created the XBox, and have split off their OS into a consumer and a professional edition. It's pretty obvious that they are heavily pushing their wares as an "appliance", where people just want it to work. In that context, it's not unreasonable that they sell a complete working system with a web browser and a media player. The OS is secondary to the goal of providing functionality to the user. It's dumb to break off the media player and the browser, because that's what they are trying to sell to the public, a solution and not an OS.

        So, you could break off their app divisions that aren't related to their media appliance goals, so you'd have MSWindows+IE+mplayer, and maybe another company that does MS Office and the visio+sharepoint infopath stuff. That would make sense, but it wouldn't address the problems that competitors have with Windows as it is now.

        What I want to know is, when people say break up microsoft, what do they mean, and defend their position as to why they think it's a good idea.
        • *applauds application of logic*

          When you download and install the Linux kernel, you get an OS. When you download and install a distro, you get the rest of the goodies with it. Enough to make your system usable 'out of the box'

          People buy windows *because* it comes with the goodies already there, it just works. They don't have to waste time trying to install a seperate browser and media player. Many will, but they don't have to.

          What I would like is for things like Media Player and Internet Explorer (and tha
          • People buy windows *because* it comes with the goodies already there, it just works.

            Nonsense. People buy windows because their school taught them it, their workplace uses it, their friends use it, their last computer had it, and almost every computer on the market comes with it pre-installed. Oh and most commercial software is designed for windows alone.

            In fact, many clueless users are are outraged their expensive hardware _doesn't_ allow them to do basic tasks out of the box. E.g. many people buy mach

        • Timeline (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcc ( 14761 )
          1. Government[s] become upset at Microsoft for tying their web browser [MSIE] to the OS.
          2. Microsoft buries the web browser deep inside the OS and its DLLs, purposefully glomming the two together [as Windows 98] so that they cannot be extricated.
          3. Microsoft and its apologists announce that it is impossible, unfair and unreasonable to debundle their web browser from their OS, because the web browser is a part of the operating system.
          4. Government[s] become upset at Microsoft for tying their media player [WMP] to

        • Re:Unnecessary my ass (Score:3, Informative)

          by jonwil ( 467024 )
          One thing lots of people forget is that internet explorer is more than just a web browser.

          Internet explorer is a set of internet access DLLs (like wininet.dll for doing HTTP & friends), a HTML rendering engine/widget (mshtml.dll and shdocvw.dll with other dlls for JavaScript, JScript, VBScript, images and so on), ancillary dlls (like msxml.dll for doing XML related stuff) and then a web browser (iexplore.exe) that sits on top of the HTML rendering widget and the other dlls.

          Removing the HTML rendering

        • Re:Unnecessary my ass (Score:3, Insightful)

          by T-Ranger ( 10520 )
          MicrosoftOS: Desktop OS, Server OS
          MicrosoftHeavy: MSSQL, Exchange - Project server (with the Project API licensed to MicrosoftOffice)
          MicrosoftEnt: Games
          MicrosoftOffice: Office
          MicrosoftContent: MSN, Encarta ....

          And it could be like when they broke up Standard Oil. Any of the Micros~N's could call themselves Microsoft, in their given area. The could all immedeatly begin producing products in other areas (under a different trade name).

          To prefute the arguement that many of these products are cross developed,

  • Devils advocate... sort of? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zoloto ( 586738 ) * on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @03:52PM (#12826318)
    I don't see a problem with Microsoft bundling any software of their own with Microsoft Windows XP such as Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player, MS Internet Explorer and others. What I have a problem with is the inability to uninstall said media player and other programs without severely hindering the operating system to the point of crashing or worse, incompatibility with programs that don't themselves correctly interface to the default browser, IM client and media player.

    That is the real problem I see. Not the exclusion or inclusion of programs or their efforts to play favorites (come on... within reason!) with their own software. Hell, I'd do the same thing. But making it so you can not remove a software program by choice without resorting to some advanced (for the home user) hacking or third party (possibly buggy, problematic or worse - trojaned) program or scripts to do it for you.

    What we really need is Microsoft to allow removal of any and all programs that are not basic for an operating system. Yes, even Internet Explorer. By itself, if it weren't tied into the OS itself and able to be run in locked memory away from other programs (to eliminate potential points of attack) it's fine. Older versions weren't so bad because they were just that... stand alone.

    I'm not even a fan of the KDE Konqueror(SP?) browser being integrated. While it's great to have a browser by default, the potential problems that can happen (taking out your shell, yes it's happened, AND your X DE) are too great for my taste. The internet hasn't been safe for a LONG time. Even the bandaid of an included firewall with SP2 won't solve much in the long run.

    Correct engineering of software programs and their development, it seems, are almost lost. Where are the programming and engineering teams with good ideas with the skill and desire to pull it off?
    • What I have a problem with is the inability to uninstall said media player and other programs without severely hindering the operating system to the point of crashing or worse, incompatibility with programs that don't themselves correctly interface to the default browser, IM client and media player.

      The problem is that this is mostly an story told by those who do not like Microsoft products, while the vast majority of people simply don't have these problems. And, in many was, it's just plain hypocritical th

      • On the contrary... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zoloto ( 586738 ) *
        ...and no actual sudstance.

        I'm sure you means substance, but I digress.

        I must not be getting your point. True, many people don't care what is by default installed on their systems and will happily be using those programs. Most often, when I offer people choices and show them the differences, without a slant, and give them the opportunity (KEY WORD THERE), more often or not, they will go with something that is not made by microsoft - with the exception of the operating system.

        Yes.. even if it's' free an
        • Ok I don't get you're point...

          Whats the big deal about NEEDING to uninstall those apps? I have windows media player, IE, and windows messenger installed on my PC, do I ever use them? No. I use iTunes for music and VLC for video, firefox for the web, and trillian for instant messaging. Would I uninstall WMP If I had the choice? Probablly not, there are some sites online that use wmv, and imo wmv is the superior codec for websites(quicktime doesnt let you maximize videos and real just sucks imo) Not to

        • The problem is (Score:3, Informative)

          by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
          That MS's competitors seem to think that they should be able to make an inferior, or at best equal product that costs money and sell it, and if they don't it's MS's anti-competitivness that's stopping them.

          Personally I think it's fine, I think the goal should be to make a BETTER product, so you want to buy it. I've purchased a number of products to which MS has free included version, because the 3rd party solutions are better, and I use others that are free alternatives. For exmaple:

          1) Diskeeper. It's a d

    • Re:Devils advocate... sort of? (Score:5, Informative)

      by briancnorton ( 586947 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:13PM (#12826612) Homepage
      I have to agree with you to a point, but uninstalling system components is a slippery slope. Application developers need to rely 100% on certain components being available to them on all client platforms. Perhaps some of the higher level components could go, but a developers job is much easier when they know that EVERY user is going to be able to view XYZ object inside their application without having to write their own components that might conflict with something else.

      Internet explorer is critical amongst these as it is the foundation of the MS help system. Media player is critical as consumers expect at least a basic capability to view media locally and online "out-of-the-box."

    • "I'm not even a fan of the KDE Konqueror(SP?) browser being integrated"

      Konq isn't a web browser. It is a KParts container. It just so happens that a very popular Kpart is to load in it is KHTML. Though KHTML can ofcourse be loaded into other KDE apps as well. On top of that, you don't have to use KHTML as the renderer for Konq looking at web pages...there is a Gecko based KPart too (though not as mature). Or...heck, just tell KDE/Konq to use Mozilla/Firefox for .*htm* and it will happily do it.
      • In a very similar way, Windows Explorer isn't a web browser, it's an ActiveX container. It just so happens that a very popular control to load is IE.

        You can of course load IE into other apps via ActiveX, and load (or launch, depending on the control) file into it via a URL.
      • I see your point. Regardless of it being called an html viewer or KParts container, it still views web pages on the internet and is integrated... hence being a problem.

        Though your advice to change .htm and the like to a different browser is commendable, it missed my point and I believe you're splitting hairs with your reasoning.
    • Yah but then you get into a HUGE question as to what *SHOULD* be the operating system. Some people would argue that the OS only truly needs to be the kernel/drivers to provide a standardized API to the hardware. Everything else -- compilers, shells, graphical interfaces, web browsers, etc are "applications" and not "operating system" and hense should not be included.

      This is basically how Linux operates, even though most distros will include many of the same standard software parts that have become known as

    • Re:Devils advocate... sort of? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:58PM (#12827073)
      What we really need is Microsoft to allow removal of any and all programs that are not basic for an operating system.

      Who gets to decide ? I'd be pretty willing to bet money most consumers consider a web browser and a media player "basic" functionality (far more than would consider, say, a text editor and a CLI shell to be "basic" functionality).

      Correct engineering of software programs and their development, it seems, are almost lost.

      Where's the poor engineering in a reusable software module ?

  • Well, duh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @03:53PM (#12826332) Homepage Journal
    The public doesn't feel hurt. Most of the public don't know the difference between Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, QuickTime Player.... They just know that when they double-click something, they expect it to play.

    The people who really were hurt were the competitors. If they were hurt to the point of being driven out of business, -then- the public would be hurt. The whole point of protection from monopoly abuse is to catch these situations -before- the public suffers irreparable harm....

    • Re:Well, duh. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dyftm ( 880762 )
      Insightful?!? Come on... stop treating 'the public' like complete morons. Everyone I know, even the ones who know next to nothing about computers know whether they are using windows media player or real player. A got a phone call earlier from one of them asking me where realplayer had gone. 'They' are not all stupid, so don't be so damn condescending.

    • Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:05PM (#12826506) Journal
      The public doesn't feel hurt. Most of the public don't know the difference between Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, QuickTime Player....

      It's simpler than that! Even if people did prefer a player other than WMP -- why on earth would they want a version of Windows with it removed?

      I've been saying from the begining that this whole plan is moronic. The EU is demanding that Microsoft make a product that no one could possibly want, that can only be less functional and stable than normal Windows and that Microsoft has every reason to make work badly! And every time I said so, Slashbots chime in with "Well, I'd want a version of Windows with WMP torn out!" We'll see...

      • Why should it be less functional or stable? The apps call an API. What that API does - or whether it does anything at all - is immaterial. If the API just goes to a bunch of NO-OPS, followed by a return, how is the app (or the OS) going to tell the difference?

        By following such a road, they would not only make media functions removable, if someone did not want them, but would make it possible and practical for Microsoft to provide replacements as and when they want to.

        Making something uninstallable, the

    • Yeah, that's the whole point. So the idea of demanding a version of Windows without the software that is threatening to drive competitors out of business is quite right. But since the consumer isn't the one being hurt by having them included, the comsumer shouldn't be the one deciding whether that was the version they wanted - the EU should have mandated that only the N version could legally be sold to EU customers.
      • "the comsumer shouldn't be the one deciding...."

        My hackles go up when anyone says that. If you want to limit your own choices, fine.

        • If you go to the supermarket and have the choice between a gallon of milk and half a gallon of milk, from the same company, for the same price, which one do you choose? Do you care if by taking the full gallon, you actually support someone's anticompetitive behaviour? Would you even *know* that? How is the average consumer supposed to know why there even is a stripped down version of Windows? All they see is that they get less, for the same price, so why should they take that version instead of the "full" o
    • You are right that the public would be hurt as well. And whether they know the difference between the various media players, what *very* few of them understand is the long term economic ramifications of monopoly and bundling and such. And it's not really their job to understand it.
    • The people who really were hurt were the competitors.

      Care to elaborate on how they were hurt ? This is something that's never been quite clear to me.
      • The suppliers of other media players are hurt because Microsoft, by bundling Windows Media Player (a product in a competitive market) with Windows (a product where Microsoft has a monopoly) forces customers to pay for Windows Media Player whether they want it or not. Microsoft can roll the cost of WMP in with Windows, and make the customers pay for both when they only wanted Windows.

        Suppliers of other media players cannot force customers to buy their product. So they are at a disadvantage. Anti-monopoly

        • Re:How were the competitors hurt ? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by tshak ( 173364 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @05:10PM (#12827197) Homepage
          The suppliers of other media players are hurt because Microsoft...

          Who cares? It's not Microsoft's fault that a companys business model is on commoditized software that people don't care enough to switch to let alone pay for. There's no market for a media player because there shouldn't be. I understand that Microsoft is a monopoly so things are different, but you can't expect Microsoft to stop adding value into its products so that consumers have to continue paying for hundreds of dollars of addons just to do something as "1990s" as playing a video on their computer. I agree that because MS is a monopoly that they should be forced to allow third party alternatives, but not remove value from their product.

          If there was a competitive Operating Systems market, then Microsoft couldn't force money out of customers' wallets, either, because customers could choose an OS supplier that did not inflate the price of their OS with a Media Player.

          When Windows came out it was very competitively priced. Actually, if I remember correctly it was cheaper than any product offering from any other company (IBM, Apple, etc.). When taking inflation into account Windows is actually cheaper now than it was before it was a monopoly. The price never went up even when IE, Windows Media Player, and a slew of other features were added to the product. Software has never followed hardware pricing (droping like a rock after a year) nor should it, it doesn't lose value over time (unless a new version is released) and it's the reason you have the hardware in the first place.
    • The public doesn't feel hurt. Most of the public don't know the difference between Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, QuickTime Player.... They just know that when they double-click something, they expect it to play.

      Bullshit. Typical geek bias that non-geeks have no idea.

      Anyone who has ever used Real knows that it is AdWare, it's hard not to notice. Quicktime and WMP don't seem to come with a truck-load of ad crap. And, WMP is a very nice product, you must get over your "I-Hate_MicroSloth" bias, and look

    • Re:Well, duh. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by suitepotato ( 863945 )
      Let's take on some competitors, shall we?
      Real Player: latest incarnation will not uninstall from Windows, will not install correctly, will not run correctly. Will not work on Fedora Core 3 either. On BOTH machines is dies as soon as it attempts to run a REAL MEDIA file. If a media player cannot play its own proprietary format never mind work at all, how is it being hurt by another player that works being installed? This is like saying that kids who drop out of high school are injured by those who stayed a

  • Yeps... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rwven ( 663186 )
    I figured this would happen... All the EU did is waste millions in taxpayer money tracking down the evil microsoft for something that no one even really gives a rip about. Not to mention the people who DO get XP N will likely go to the MS site and download the media player as soon as they realize it's not there...

  • My favorite quote... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zoloto ( 586738 ) * on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @03:54PM (#12826353)
    I like this quote myself...


    Microsoft said it bears no responsibility for making PC manufacturers use Windows XP N. "Microsoft has made these products available through its standard distribution channels," a company representative said. "Whether or not customers or distributors offer this product in Europe is a decision for individual computer manufacturers, enterprise customers and retailers."

    Microsoft has been known to strongarm companies to carry a certian version of their Windows Operating Systems, with pricing or threats of removing licences so the statement of "...is a decision for individual computer manufacturers...", is in my opinion, a lie.

    Since when has MS taken a lax approach to what version of Windows OS retailers and OEM's install on their systems?
    • Microsoft has been known to strongarm companies to carry a certian version of their Windows Operating Systems, with pricing or threats of removing licences...

      Microsoft has also been known to make things buggy for anyone who's dumb enough to use their software in a way Microsoft does not want. They have promissed this will happen [tunexp.com], and we can imagine they will follow up.

      Why would any vendor install the version of M$ OS that M$ has promissed won't work? Their customers won't be happy and that makes the E

  • much ado about nothing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by udderly ( 890305 )
    So,it looks like this whole action by th EU adds up to about, hmmm, let's see, NOTHING.

  • The problem is, Microsoft is still allowed to offer its version that includes all the programs that were stripped from the N version in the EU as well. And the EU sanctions are not a reaction to customer demand for a stripped down version, but to complaints by competitors. In that regard, the EU decision seems a bit schizophrenic - they demand a version without all the media player stuff, but then they don't make sure that that's the only version available. And since, I guess, the N version is probably not
  • EU citizens are not wild about MS's dominance. In fact, they are not wild about anything from the USA dominating. But, if you ask them to do away with the item, they will of course, say no. And BTW, it is no different here. For all of our freedom fry talk, etc. French Wine is still served in a big way, as is French Pate, French Brie, French Frog Legs (delicious), etc.

    From a friend of mine who was recently at a GOP fund raiser that had Cheney there, they told me that there were several french wines and that

  • The ends don't justify the means. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mellon ( 7048 ) * on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @03:56PM (#12826380) Homepage
    The problem is that the prosecutors (plaintiffs?) were trying to achieve a certain result - spanking Microsoft. To accomplish this, they used the method to hand: demanding debundling.

    This produces the weird result that people want the opposite of what the prosecutors claimed they wanted. The prosecutors knew this at the beginning. But they pushed for the unwanted thing anyway, to punish Microsoft. Who probably don't care.

    So anyway, it's absurd, but absurd for what at least some people probably think is a good reason. Personally, I think they should just tweak the laws so that they produce the desired result - open APIs - without some kind of weird, tortured legal theory. That, or just don't prosecute this kind of case.
    • So anyway, it's absurd, but absurd for what at least some people probably think is a good reason.

      Sound like that describes lot of European policy in a nutshell. :)

    • The problem is that the prosecutors (plaintiffs?) were trying to achieve a certain result - spanking Microsoft. To accomplish this, they used the method to hand: demanding debundling.

      Well, "un"bundling, but yes. The problem was abuse-of-monopoly, and bundling was just one part of that. Unbundling couldn't possibly "make right" the damage. What ever happened to "Justice"? In the U.S.A. I know it's sold to the biggest corporate bidder, but it's sad that the rest of the world is being forced into that s

  • It is (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Approaching.sanity ( 889047 )
    Because the monopoly is working. People simply do not know better.

    We have to get the word out. We have to tell people why this option is better.

    The EU laid the path, we have to do the footwork.

  • People don't care what media player they're using (Score:4, Informative)

    by m50d ( 797211 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:00PM (#12826440) Homepage Journal
    Most people don't care if they're using quicktime, realplayer, windows media player etc. They probably won't even notice the difference. But if there wasn't the choice, then they would notice, because the media player available would suck if it had no competition to drive it on. People don't realise it's important to them that there's competition between MS and real (if they did, there wouldn't be any need for the EU to act, people could sort it out themselves). But that doesn't mean it isn't.

  • RIGHT != Public opinion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:01PM (#12826443)
    The right or ethical thing to do not always equals what the public deems necessary. For example, most people are not aware of the patent issue, just when they bump into it. I'd hazard the guess that one of the foundations of a government or union is ideology. To give a exaggareted example, if you could jail 10 man, 9 guilty and 1 innocent, would you do it? It would certainly seem economically good, could even meet public support, but is it the right thing to do?
  • Well, of course nobody is going to re-deploy. Thats expensive, time consuming, etc.

    Basically, MS should have been punished by market regulators and brought into compliance. They have been. Under or over punished, maybe, but thats another thread.

    I don't think the amount of people who actually use it really matters; the fact that its wasted MS money in developing this version is just punishment, and I can't see anybody but corperate apologists and MS shareholders whining about that. If they do have a proble
    • Well, of course nobody is going to re-deploy. Thats expensive, time consuming, etc.

      What? To change one disk image for another one? How much overhead does that entail? It's not like they have to retool the production line. They don't even need bigger disks.

      What I don't understand is why the EU didn't prohibit the sale of the WMPlayer inclusive version. How complicated would that have been?

  • XP N (Score:2, Interesting)

    by alnjmshntr ( 625401 )
    Is that the worst name possible for a product? What does it mean?

    If I recall correctly the EU specifically requested that MS change the name to this from "Reduced Media version".

    All it does though is make it incrediably confusing for the consumer, the one they are trying to protect.

  • Maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bitkid ( 21572 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:02PM (#12826478) Journal
    ... the EU should have mandated the new edition to be cheaper than the Home XP? If I'd have to pay the same (or even a higher) price to get less, then guess what I would do. Without mandating it to be cheaper MS will probably resort to this kind of tactics to push their media-player.
  • *taps foot, looks at watch*
  • As a citizen of the UK, I feel the need to point out that the EU taking action on any issue is always unnessecary, and therefore this does not surprise me in the slightest.

    Not to troll, but the EU is out of touch with the general population of at least this country on practically every issue, I don't see why they would make the right decision on this.

  • I'll certainly be investigating installing this on our school network machines when we move to windows xp (we're now licenced, but running windows 2000 still as we've only recently upgraded the last of the legacy machines that only had win2k oem licences)

    Right now, the students use windows media player, and the integrated search to constantly listen to online radio and browse lyrics etc, completely crippling our bandwidth. A lot of the material is not suitable for the pre-teen kids in the prep school, eith

  • monopoly+bundling=bad, EU solution=useless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:13PM (#12826613)

    Perhaps the EU's actions were unnecessary?

    Or perhaps the actions were useless because they were poorly designed and did not address the real problem? OK bundling is bad because it allows a monopoly to extend their monopoly. Forcing MS to offer a version without the bundled application is useless because everyone who buys Windows still has to pay for it.

    Here comes the inevitable analogy...

    The electric company has a monopoly on electricity distribution in any given area. If you want electricity you have to buy from them or go to great lengths to create your own. Imagine if the electric company raised everyone's rates by $10 a month. Now imagine they took that $10 and bought ice cream which they gave away for free to all their customers. Not all of their customers wanted the ice cream and but some liked it. Now the ice cream manufacturers all lost all their business, complained, and sued. The government, in its infinite wisdom decreed that the electric company had to offer electricity without free ice cream, they did not, however, say it had to be cheaper than the other package. The result is nothing. The solution does not stop the bad behavior.

    The media player part of the settlement was completely useless. The only parts that were not useless were the parts requiring sharing interoperability information and even those are severely watered down. Obviously if your choice is $60 for electricity or $60 for electricity and ice cream most people will choose the latter. What needs to happen is MS needs to be required to offer the media player only as a separate application. OEMs can add it or Realplayer or both or neither but MS can't give incentives or breaks to OEMs that include windows media player. That would fix the problem. That will likely never happen because MS has too much money and politicians are too corrupt.

  • That countries like France who currently hold the head position in EU have no faith in the EU as indicated by there NO vote (same vote they told the UK they couldn't have few years back, bless them).

    So what can we conclude, europeans (me included) who care about our media player are intelligent enough to sort it ourselfs and those that are not intelligent enough to take the windows XP CD out of the sealed envelope would rather have something that
    just works out of the box.

    Now if the EU had given us an inst

  • No duh! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jherek Carnelian ( 831679 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @04:49PM (#12826987)
    Of course no one wants the stripped down version because it costs the same as the full-blown version .

    This isn't vindication for MS - it is just proof of the stupidity of the EU bureaucrats who did a half-assed job of imposing the punishment on MS. If they weren't so incompetent, they would have mandated that not only must MS make a stripped down version, they also gotta sell it for proportionally less too where "lots" is equal to some value of proportional...

    reference: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22283 [theinquirer.net]

  • And just exactly WHERE did .... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jerry ( 6400 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @05:08PM (#12827173)
    we see any Micrsoft ad campaign promoting "XP N" ?

    A couple of media stories and some hype by sychophant 'analysts' and 'journalists'.

    No wonder it died.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close