MS Monopoly

[hornet]

I'm not a Linux Sandalista, but if Ubuntu can come with things like the Restricted Driver Tool, which pops up on first install and says "Aha! You have an nVidia card, do you want to install proprietary driver xyz?", surely Windows can do something similar for browsers, media players and whatnot? If I can fire up Mint and apt-get install Firefox / Epiphany / Midori or whatever, why can't Windows have a similar tool? Set up a MS repository and just have a terminal pop up at first boot to point you to at their browser with a "other browsers are available" message. I have no objection to IE existing, just the fact it's so entwined into the OS.

As for choice, when I got my laptop last year, I had zero intention of running Windows on it, but could I buy one without Vista pre-installed? Could I hell. I know Dell have some Ubuntu stuff buried on their website, and I also know there are a few niche retailers doing ready made Linux laptops, but nothing matched the spec I wanted, so I had to buy the machine with Vista then immediately lob Linux on it. Unless I'm prepared to jump through all manner of hoops to decline the EULA and get a refund, that gets reported as a Windows sale, so the whole thing is an uneven playing field before you even start. Why can't I walk into a shop and say "give me a naked machine please, as I'm going to put the OS on there myself?". That would be choice.

Oh, and just upgraded to Mint 7, and it looks really rather nice

[TeamD]

At this rate this topic will get shifted to the geek forum.

Back to the point...

Different operating systems are different. They should not have to pretend to be each other, otherwise they become each other. If I write some code that does word processing does this mean that I have to be Word compatible? No, it doesn't. C'mon folks, get off your eutopian dream kick and accept that not everyone agrees that software should be written the same way. It's horses for courses. And if you use something that is free then you get what you pay for.

...and don't even get me started on endians.

[cazzer]

TeamD said:

...and don't even get me started on endians.

Or Cowboys

[Alfa_75_Steve]

UncappedTag said:

They are where they are primarily for the better OS/software they offer nothing else.

[gamefreaks]

TeamD said:

...and don't even get me started on endians.

I don't think we can blame Microsoft for Endianness.

I blame Intel. Oh...good we can follow this dicussion up with x86 is crap, but we have to use it because Intel's monopoly!

[cazzer]

You mean something replaced 6502?
Damn, must get my 68000 books out.

[scorp]

gamefreaks said:

TeamD said:

...and don't even get me started on endians.

I don't think we can blame Microsoft for Endianness.

I blame Intel. Oh...good we can follow this dicussion up with x86 is crap, but we have to use it because Intel's monopoly!

Little endian is smarter, you can (for example) read a byte from a 32bit word from the same address. For big-endian you would have to read the 4th byte along (or 2nd byte along if converting from 16 to 8 bit), so bigendian is more fiddly in some ways..

And yeah, it amazing how intel have become so popular considering how stty they are, certainly a case of being at the right place at the right time rather than having a good design. ARM seem to be catching up these days, in the mobile market at least.

Edited by scorp on Friday 3rd July 03:00

Edited by scorp on Friday 3rd July 05:12

[scorp]

gamefreaks said:

No cross-platform software until the OS market is more distributed, and no OS migration until the software is available.

Problem is, it's not smart or easy to standardise an OS. Things have changed so much in the last 20 years. Linux already has more than 1 threading library, several competing APIs for playing sound and driver hell when it comes to video support (for example). Microsoft have to constantly keep revising DirectX because of how 3d cards radically change over time as it's impossible to predict ahead of time how to design an efficient API for them. We now have both linux and microsoft looking into better multi-processor APIs to take advantage of more parallel processing which of course means adding heaps of new tech and new APIs. Some things like servers can be made cross platform without too much headache, but get into something complicated that hits on a lot of hardware, like a game or something and it becomes a huge engineering effort. I can't see how a 'universal OS' is practical, unless it's designed by comitee, which having worked with some ISO stuff before is a complete mess in my experience..

Edited by scorp on Friday 3rd July 03:09

[TeamD]

scorp said:

gamefreaks said:

No cross-platform software until the OS market is more distributed, and no OS migration until the software is available.

Problem is, it's not smart or easy to standardise an OS. Things have changed so much in the last 20 years. Linux already has more than 1 threading library, several competing APIs for playing sound and driver hell when it comes to video support (for example). Microsoft have to constantly keep revising DirectX because of how 3d cards radically change over time as it's impossible to predict ahead of time how to design an efficient API for them. We now have both linux and microsoft looking into better multi-processor APIs to take advantage of more parallel processing which of course means adding heaps of new tech and new APIs. Some things like servers can be made cross platform without too much headache, but get into something complicated that hits on a lot of hardware, like a game or something and it becomes a huge engineering effort. I can't see how a 'universal OS' is practical, unless it's designed by comitee, which having worked with some ISO stuff before is a complete mess in my experience..

The "Universal" OS concept is as anti-competitive as monopolistic situation. It stiffles innovation and results in flawed solutions, after all, we know what a camel is don't we?

[Mr Whippy]

So, how the hell do you get on the web to download a browser if the OS doesn't come with one to start with?

An internet browser IS part of an operating system in my view. You can freely download any browser you want anyway. I run FF and Chrome on different machines, and IE for certain tasks.

AND, they are all free anyway, so it's not like they are losing out.

Much less chance of you finding these more obscure browsers on CD/DVD and installing them for your first web browser too, than the more common IE too.


Can't believe they are still whinging about it. Next they will be whining about defrag companies losing business, remove defrag. How about disk management tools, virus tools, firewall tools, Outlook Express, MSN messenger?
An OPERATING SYSTEM should be able to come with everything you need, if wanted, to operate the bloody system! If you want other stuff, no one is stopping you. When M$ ban installs of random software then that is when we should worry!

Rant over

Dave

[cazzer]

Bet they wouldn't give a rats arse if it was Le Microsoft and based in Rouen.

[anonymous-user]

TeamD said:

The "Universal" OS concept is as anti-competitive as monopolistic situation. It stiffles innovation and results in flawed solutions, after all, we know what a camel is don't we?

Camel? A wonderfully evolved animal capable of surviving and 'prospering' in extreme environments around the world?

(That or the result of an MoD committee developing an armoured polar attack vehicle)

[miniman]

wsurfa said:

Camel?

[TeamD]

miniman said:

wsurfa said:

Camel?

Horse designed by a committee. Keep up chaps

[tinman0]

Mr Whippy said:

So, how the hell do you get on the web to download a browser if the OS doesn't come with one to start with?

An internet browser IS part of an operating system in my view. You can freely download any browser you want anyway. I run FF and Chrome on different machines, and IE for certain tasks.

AND, they are all free anyway, so it's not like they are losing out.

Much less chance of you finding these more obscure browsers on CD/DVD and installing them for your first web browser too, than the more common IE too.

Wget.

The internet browser is not part of the OS. MS have made it part of the OS by using it to control virtually everything on the machine. You only need to see OSX and the Linux desktops to see that the browser does not need to be part of it.

The creeping use of IE as a basic part of Windows is to ensure its unfettered use across the web.

There is nothing stopping MS from having a tool that allows you to download and install any webbrowser you want from the start.

[tinman0]

UncappedTag said:

Someone else come up with a alternative software that is just as good or the EU just need to STFU and use my tax money for other petty pursuits.

You do understand the concept of a "monopoly" don't you?

[Mr Whippy]

tinman0 said:

Mr Whippy said:

So, how the hell do you get on the web to download a browser if the OS doesn't come with one to start with?

An internet browser IS part of an operating system in my view. You can freely download any browser you want anyway. I run FF and Chrome on different machines, and IE for certain tasks.

AND, they are all free anyway, so it's not like they are losing out.

Much less chance of you finding these more obscure browsers on CD/DVD and installing them for your first web browser too, than the more common IE too.

Wget.

The internet browser is not part of the OS. MS have made it part of the OS by using it to control virtually everything on the machine. You only need to see OSX and the Linux desktops to see that the browser does not need to be part of it.

The creeping use of IE as a basic part of Windows is to ensure its unfettered use across the web.

There is nothing stopping MS from having a tool that allows you to download and install any webbrowser you want from the start.

Haha, so now M$ are made to provide Wget, and make sure it works, auto-updates and all other manner of things it will need to do, to provide a service for people to download internet browsers?
This is M$ who are not apparently not allowed to provide a browser as it is not part of the operating system, but have to provide Wget, a limited internet downloading tool? Why should they bother, that is no more a part of an operating system as an internet browser.


IE hasn't really infested Windows at all. I never see it unless I run it.


I'm really don't get what the fundamental problem is. Why is the browser a big issue, and EVERY other product in there not?

Why not sell Windows with nothing on it, having to download a media player from someone, a calculator, a firewall, an internet browser, a paint program, an ftp app, an email program, an internet chat program!?

What defines an operating system? Why don't we just go back to DOS, and have to load hundreds of apps/modules to get a nice UI, decent graphics drivers, no DirectX, no nothing. Everything has to be downloaded and no one knows which bits to get, taking days to setup a system with random apps that might not work with each other.
It's nice to put M$ Windows down on the browser, an easy target, but no one is whinging about all the other standards that it has put in place that has allowed IT to leap forward massively over the last two decades!

And as much as anything, M$ have just allowed things to focus where they naturally need to, but in a standardised manner. Ie, DirectX has allowed manufacturers to build to one standard a great deal for lots of applications (DirectPlay, Sound etc), while also being driven as much by the manufacturers of the hardware and users of the software! They don't stamp their feet and say 'no' to anyone, the stuff they offer is shaped by others, by the industry generally!


I see them far from the dinosaur of monopolies many do. They have, imho, helped the lot get off the ground twice as quickly as it would have done!
They don't limit any installations. If Windows forced it's own internet browser, fine, we have a problem, but it doesn't, it just comes in the box as a handy tool, just like the list of 50 other handy apps that it comes with that make life easy for 95% of people who don't give a crap about the latest whizz bang geeky crap, and want a product that does everything they want out of the box! (like my dad)

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 3rd July 23:31

[grumbledoak]

tinman0 said:

The creeping use of IE as a basic part of Windows is to ensure its unfettered use across the web.

Yes, and no. Windows is a very different paradigm to the various Unices. Building new functionality into the existing system calls has long been a favourite tactic- it gives existing applications an upgrade, sometimes for free.

Though, they aren't thick, they will also have realized that this made it hard to remove. But, then, removing the icon has the same effect for many users, in truth, and that is easy to do.

It isn't like they prevent you installing a different browser.

[scorp]

tinman0 said:

The internet browser is not part of the OS.

Hmm.. Never realised there is a law defining what constitutes an OS.

[TeamD]

Quite simply put though...

Since noone pays for a Web Browser these days, Why the feck does anyone care? It's not like the writers of Firefox are losing money. The upshot of this is the whole thing is about vanity and politics. Go figure.