Microsoft will reveal hundreds of pieces of proprietary computer code from its monopoly Windows operating system in the next several weeks to comply with an antitrust settlement it signed with the U.S. Justice Department last year, the company said on Monday. Get the scoop at ZDNews.
Microsoft to Reveal Windows Code
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
you can say goodbye now…
Don’t get me wrong, i’m happy about this …
but let us not forget, m$ is a mammoth in the pc industry, and we pissed them off :p
oh well, it’ll be interesting to watch things develop as they go.
Take Care
Kevin
While we don’t know yet exactly what “bits” and “pieces” of the cold will be released, this marks a good victory for open source. With several states still pushing for tougher sanctions against M$oft, we can look forward to even more code released in the future. Now with these proprietary pieces of software there is no reason equivilent and superior M$oft cloned products won’t spring up. Jump on the Open-Source train now…..
…which pieces will be released…old 16-bit compatibility modules…solitaire…minesweeper…maybe if we’re lucky we might get progman.exe and fileman.exe or the network stack…goody goody…385 bits of computer code sounds good…but just remember how complex windows is and how little of windows this represents…i wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for MS to release the good stuff
-bytes256
>Jump on the Open-Source train now…..
…and lose your investments, your credibility and make your software a total mess.
If it wasn’t for MS, you’d still be asking for permission to use that university mainframe. Instead, you have your own PC. You also work in a startup that brought you a lot of money because of the jumpstart the Internet received from MS.
Microsoft brought the IT to the top, Open Source will sink it all the way down.
Did anyone see this?
Microsoft has told the judge it would be catastrophic if other companies got too much access to the inner workings of the operating system.
It said that would allow them to “clone” Windows, prompting Microsoft to stop investing in research and development on the operating system.
Does that follow at all? Well gee, by that logic if the open source put more effort into Wine Microsoft would just stop developing Windows altogether, throw their hands in the air and go “That’s all folks. Show’s over, you can go home now.”
Wow.. thats almost one kilobyte…
It’s probably Autoexec.bat.
And it probably wont be opensource as they will maintain copyright and sole use over it.. it’ll just be there to look at
“Microsoft said in addition to 272 pieces of code it also would reveal 113 proprietary software “protocols” that computer server makers can license to make their machines work better with Windows desktops.”
This will probably include stuff like CIFS, COM+/DCOM/ActiveX, WMI, Windows Media, MAPI, perhaps even Active Directory etc… I heard that they are keeping 2 protocols private (probably security ones).
Some of the stuff will probably be pretty cool! Too bad Linux developers will not be able to license it.
I think this is a great opportunity and an incentive for Palm to bring BeOS out of the vault and into the desktop/server market! It will be easier to make things work in a Windows world!
ciao
yc
Don’t get too excited…MS is not about to release anything good…call me a pessemist, but i’m gonna take this announcement with a grain of salt…it’ll have no effect…hell they’ll probably just put out specs to stuff that the world has already reverse engineered…*YAWN*
-bytes256
>> this marks a good victory for open source.
On the contrary, it could be a blow to the GPL. Developers will not be able to license this code for use with any GPL code. If a lot of developers license MSFT’s stuff the GPL stuff may be left out in the cold.
I guess people could reverse engineer but MSFT’s legal department is very strong
ciao
yc
If it wasn’t for MS, you’d still be asking for permission to use that university mainframe. Instead, you have your own PC.
Don’t think so. MS didn’t invent the PC. IBM had some choice. Apple was already there.
You also work in a startup that brought you a lot of money because of the jumpstart the Internet received from MS.
Internet was already a big thing when MS saw it and said: hey! look out! This is the next big thing and we’re missing it. It tppk them 6 months to jump on the bandwagon.
The rest of your comment doesn’t deserve an answer.
If it wasn’t for MS, you’d still be asking for permission to use that university mainframe. Instead, you have your own PC.
———
I had an Amiga. A ‘multimedia’ wonder, at a time when PCs were chirping from their internal mono speaker.
You also work in a startup that brought you a lot of money because of the jumpstart the Internet received from MS.
———
The internet received a jumpstart from MS? Elaborate.
Microsoft brought the IT to the top, Open Source will sink it all the way down.
———
Elaborate.
Even if the announcement were everything it’s touted as, I’m disappointed. Where’s the punishment? How does one discourage this behavior in the future? “We’d better follow the rules. If we get caught breaking them, they might make us start following them.”
Wow!
“Microsoft has told the judge it would be catastrophic if other companies got too much access to the inner workings of the operating system.
It said that would allow them to “clone” Windows, prompting Microsoft to stop investing in research and development on the operating system. ”
The only part of the article that I thought was at all interesting was the above quote at the end. It speaks volumes that Microsoft is actually admitting to the government that they would consider it a “catastrophe” if a Windows clone appeared. It would be completely fair (in my opinion) for MS to be required to provide a complete specification of the OS such that any independently implemented OS that followed the specification would be guaranteed to be able to run all Windows apps, including MS office.
The old fear of DR-DOS must still exist.
“If it wasn’t for MS, you’d still be asking for permission to use that university mainframe. Instead, you have your own PC. You also work in a startup that brought you a lot of money because of the jumpstart the Internet received from MS.”
Heh, In 1985 I had an Amiga that could run 8 bit stereo sound natively(Up to 12 bit with programming trick), full pixel & sprite scrolling, 3D graphics capabilities (Anyone remember hotrod or battle wars?) 4096 colors display, and a full GUI. At that time, the best Microsoft could manage was blips and bleeps for audio, 8 shades (?) of green, and a text based UI.
I suspect you’re a lamer 14 year old or a 20 somthing who didnt get into computers until the mid 90’s.
– Kelly
It’s the art of illusion through distraction.
“See, we are so good. Here’s all this code; we even erred on the side of giving you more than we thought you’d need.”
“There’s hardly anything left… just a few security things”.
Like the Windows XPY monitoring code that watches you and reports back to Microsoft and the government. This is the secret deal that Microsoft cut with the DOJ.
For those outside the inner circle, there are still obvious discrepancies. For instance, how does this reconcile with the latest changes to the various EULAs? Microsoft can just download new code onto your system anyway.
This whole thing seems a day late and a dollar short.
#m
>In 1985 I had an Amiga
how many people had an Amiga in the 80s and how many people have PCs now?
While people are definately right that we don’t know yet what they are willing to release, I would wait to see what it is before I complain. While I wouldn’t be surprised if it mostly stuff that has been pretty well re-engineered already or plain out useless you wouldn’t know until the world gets a peek. Honestly I question why we need signifigant amounts of actually code of improve wine and other windows API based emulator. If one has all the specifications and some crucial kernal cource code I think one could dramatically improve wine.
“Don’t think so. MS didn’t invent the PC. IBM had some choice. Apple
was already there. ”
And cp/m and the Commodore PET before that. Visicalc was running on
Apples and Wordstar on cp/m long before Bill Gates got his big chance.
Microsoft’s business model is to take other people’s ideas and
ruthlessly commercialise them. BASIC and cp/m were the first to be
ripped off, then the Mac GUI, later on Netscape and Java. Their
dominance largely comes from exploiting others’ management failures
and weak selling. The Amiga is a clear example – it was streets ahead,
but lost out because of bad marketing and selling.
The point of this announcement that they will release a few tidbits is
to make the States appear obstinate and unreasonable. It’s a martial
arts move.
>how many people had an Amiga in the 80s and how many people have PCs now?
What exactly does that matter?? It took the PC world a long time to catch up to where the Amiga had been. Yes, Amiga is pretty much extinct now but, remember that the pilot and first few episodes of Babylon 5 were rendered on an Amiga. Microsoft is not some all knowing computer guru company. If Bill Gates had not been born, somebody else would have stepped in to fill the hole in the market. In a capatalist market, the winners many times are not the ones with the best product. The winners are the ones to the market first and who promote it best.
Randal Clark
This reminds me of Tom Sawyer– “I’ll let you paint this fence for me if you give me that Apple”. If MSFT makes life easier for MS developers– whom does that benefit? Be? LINUX? Apple? Java? Guess again– it benefits Microsoft. They have their key apps already in monopoly positions (office,exchange,etc). And they are all moving to a SUBSCRIPTION model. What’s it to MSFT if Joe Schmoe developer can now write a Windows game that crashes less, or gets a few more frames per second. No problemo! Some “remedy”.
>What exactly does that matter??
You contradict yourself in your own post:
>In a capatalist market, the winners many times are not the
>ones with the best product. The winners are the ones to the
>market first and who promote it best.
MS was the first to the Joe Blow market and they promoted it best. They got Joe Blow to like computers and invest money in computers. If it wasn’t for them, computers would still stay expensive and only for geeks. Now all of you have or had great jobs because Joe Blow invested in the computer industry because MS made it cheap and easy for Joe to use.
I won’t be happy till there forced to fully disclose the windows API.
Intel was force to release all the x86 instruction set by court order, I don’t see how this situation is much different.
Microsoft brought the IT to the top
No.
It’s the Windows API that’s important, so that programmers can not be tripped up by “undocumented features”. Still, having said that, I don’t think it’s fair that MS should have to release their source code. This decision means that *any* programmer can be legally required to give away his source code, his intellectual property, whether he wants to or not. That’s a bad precedent, not an appropriate remedy.
Microsoft was not the first nor the user friendliest. I think it is only logical that the PC market got bigger since the _hardware_ got faster, cheaper,… and computers became interesting for smaller companies and even home users.
If MSFT never put PC’s in Joe blow’s house someone else would have. Revealing source code might not be a good thing because it could be used as leverage in legal cases against various OSS projects down the road, whereas if no one has ever seen the code, they don’t really have a case. As far as the fear of someone “cloning” windows if they see the code, I agree with MS on that point. MS flames aside, if it was your product, would you want someone selling a clone for a 5th what you charge after you put forth the R&D? Tom’s apples comment is also valid. So what if other products will now interface more smoothly with windows, they will forever be playing catch-up to keep compatibility rather than focusing on advancements.
I think MS is hoping that, if they appear to be complying with the decision of the original trial, the other nine hold-out states will cave in. I hope they don’t cave in. All empires fall – as they exapnd further and further out, the center cannot hold it together. I have no real wish to see MS destroyed, but it would be good for all if they were vulnerable and could not wield the power they did over hardware companies, etc. It would be great to see computer makers tell MS to “stick it” if they try their old tricks of threatening them if the company wants to bundle another OS on its machines.
They are not open sourcing anything. They will still control the full rights of all the code that they will make accessible. I’m sure you’ll have to sign away all your rights and freedom to just see the code. If you are doing or planning to do any open source development, I’d stay away from their code so that you do not pollute yourself by signing something that may come back to bite you. This may be just another way for Microsoft disrupt open source movement.
> this marks a good victory for open source.
Yeah if you can’t compete with better code just whinge to the U.S. Justice Department till you get you’re way.
Microsoft seem to be changing their strategy of late.
Instead of trying to lock everyone into their products they lock them into their protocols and charge everyone a tax for the pleasure – this could even apply to GPL software especially if it breaks their patents (hello Mono).
Microsoft said it plans to disclose 385 bits of computer code and internal operating rules, previously kept secret, that outside software developers can use to write programs to run on Windows.
We always knew MS had kept some APIs secret for thier own products and here they as good as admit it.
Microsoft said in addition to 272 pieces of code it also would reveal 113 proprietary software “protocols” that computer server makers can license to make their machines work better with Windows desktops.
See taxing comment above.
Microsoft said the steps are based on several principles, including “erring on the side of reasonableness” and “listening to feedback and acting on it.”
So they are saying their principles in the past have been unreasonable and ignoring feedback???
MS was the first to the Joe Blow market and they promoted it best. They got Joe Blow to like computers and invest money in computers. If it wasn’t for them, computers would still stay expensive and only for geeks. Now all of you have or had great jobs because Joe Blow invested in the computer industry because MS made it cheap and easy for Joe to use.
The low cost of PCs has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with a very competitive hardware market. In fact the cost of the OS and Applications (both by Microsoft) form a considerable chunk of the price of a modern PC and this has been rising for year. They weren’t first to the home market by any degree, you could get small home computers 20 years go for a fraction of the cost of even todays low cost PCs. As many have pointed out the Amiga was powerful and easy to use a decade before Windows 95.
BTW who exactly is “Joe Blow”? sounds like a junkie or a rent boy…
Do you really think that they will turn over any code that is worth any value. Its probably Windows 3.1.
>The low cost of PCs has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft
microsft has a lot to do with acceptance of PCs because of the ease of use.
PS: Joe Blow is the guy who just buys stuff like the latest P4 just to surf the web. Joe Shmoe is a weaker variant and Joe Sixpack is the ‘Canadian’ Joe Shmoe
If your going to troll at least use a name, it would at least show you have some conviction in your wild claims.
I personally will not take the bait (no more than I just have anyway) and will refuse to comment on such childish arguments until you back it up with facts and logical reasoning.
Where is the actual liecencing will this be released under?
And it does just say that it will only help people write windows programs, while this could potentually cut down their application monopoly there is no evedence to suggest it will in any way ‘punish’ them or help any competitors in the OS market.
I also believe that the applications market that MS dominates is so intrenched with propreity stuff that probably isn’t being released (I.E. the .doc format for a start) that trying to battle them in that market will be a dead loss too. This only leaves helping people write software for the os with API that is tighly built into the OS which will only reduce the portability of the code and give microsoft more of a monopoly on the OS market.
Thank god, for a while there i thought MS was going to go unpunished.
>If your going to troll at least use a name, it would at least
>show you have some conviction in your wild claims.
Ooooh! I’m a troll now! Does every opinion that doesn’t conform to your opinions count as a troll?
The facts are all around you. MS is one of the leaders. They got to the top by the rules, they just kept their place there illegaly. If MS will be killed or split, the industry will be in deep ####. You don’t seem to understand that, you are too deep in your free-software-go-linux-M$-sucks world.
>Ooooh! I’m a troll now! Does every opinion that doesn’t >conform to your opinions count as a troll?
Anyone who posts anonymously trying to pass things as facts without providing any logical reasoning behind them, yes I would concider to be a troll. However the anonymous bit is just optional.
>The facts are all around you. MS is one of the leaders. >They got to the top by the rules, they just kept their >place there illegaly.
MS thought the internet was a passing fad, when they realised it was here to stay they then used their monopoly to help them become one of the leaders.
Wether or not they got to the top legally or not is not the problem, it is as you admit, they are now using their position to illegally keep others out. For this they deserve to be punished, or at the very very least forced to cease this behavour.
>If MS will be killed or split, the industry will be in deep ####.
Wether or not it will ruin the industry, it’s still justice. Letting them get away with it will only incourage more and maybe even worse companys to follow MS’s line.
Even if microsoft was vapourised off the face of the earth tomorrow, yes there would be a crator for a while maybe a few years, but it would fill in, and eventually no one would care. There is no evidence to suggest that over a few years, MS’s products couldn’t be completly replaced by competitors.
Also just because MS was vapourised does mean their products suddenly cease to exist aswell. These products can work for a few years while competors revamp and release products.
None of this matters though, as I’m not (nor is anyone else?) suggesting MS should be vapourised, and I have no confidence that even if this was what they deserved (im not saying it is) that the American courts would follow through with it.
There are plenty of ways MS could be punished without crippling them, hell they have $42b in cash reserves. Fining a little of that would only scratch the surface.
>You don’t seem to understand that, you are too deep in your free-software-go-linux-M$-sucks world.
Does putting words in my mouth make you feel better?
It sure doesn’t validify your argument.
in relation to the “Microsoft made PCs cheap and accessable” thing, I know thousands of people who were using Amigas they bought from department stores for $500, even before Win3.1 – and I still hear them complaining about ease-of-use issues that remain unaddressed today, 15 years down the track… unless you somehow regard the x86 platform as belonging to a totally separate industry…
note : I’m not an Amiga fanatic. I’m just pointing out that there was life in the industry pre-MS, and for a lot of people, a better one!
oh – and “anonymous” – if you post as anonymous, don’t get upset when people say you’re trolling! (which I think you are BTW, big-time)
>There is no evidence to suggest that over a few years, MS’s
>products couldn’t be completly replaced by competitors
So why aren’t they replaced right now? Is there a user friendly OS that is widely available? Looks like no. If MS is crippled, or fined too much, there will be gap that will surely make these competitors in demand, but their quality will be crap.
If amiga is so good, why isn’t it the #1 platform right now?
“Microsoft brought the IT to the top”
Microsoft shot IT in the ankle
“microsft has a lot to do with acceptance of PCs because of the ease of use.”
Obviously “Anonymous” has never been exposed to a pre-Windows 9X machine or knows how a 16bit Windows machine compares in use to an equivalent era Apple or other more advanced product of the time.
>equivalent era Apple
for three times as much money? no thanks
>If amiga is so good, why isn’t it the #1 platform right now?
it was at the top of its game at the time then fell. MS is at the top of its game now and it too will fall. then the next and the next and so on till computers are not needed in any form we can imagine now.
>>In 1985 I had an Amiga
>
>how many people had an Amiga in the 80s and how many people have PCs now?
how many people had a TV in the 70s and how many people have TVs now?
“>There is no evidence to suggest that over a few years, MS’s
>products couldn’t be completly replaced by competitors
So why aren’t they replaced right now? Is there a user friendly OS that is widely available? Looks like no. If MS is crippled, or fined too much, there will be gap that will surely make these competitors in demand, but their quality will be crap.”
OK, we’ll ignore the fact that this person has trouble with the english language. What I want to know is this: When is Microsoft going to introduce a user-friendly OS? Or at least one that doesn’t crash everyday? My guess? Never. They have no incentive, given that morons buy their crappy products anyway.
Anonymous, go to Amazon, order “Hackers” by Seven Levy, originally written in *1986* with this new edition from 2001. Many, many things happened that ignited the personal computing revolution and Microsft was just one of many start-ups after things started to gather steam. Get this book – you won’t be able to put it down, you’ll be riveted and amazed. I guarantee it.
Jump on the Open-Source train now…..
The source code wouldn’t be close to being OSS. Instead, third party guys like Sun and AOL can look at the source code and make even more annoying applications.
Does that follow at all? Well gee, by that logic if the open source put more effort into Wine Microsoft would just stop developing Windows altogether, throw their hands in the air and go “That’s all folks. Show’s over, you can go home now.”
Of course, WINE would probably hit the speed bump as loong Longhorn is release cause the APIs are based on features not available on UNIX/Linux, like a database file system.
Wow.. thats almost one kilobyte…
It is closer to a byte than a kilobyte.
This will probably include stuff like CIFS, COM+/DCOM/
I thought CIFS, COM and DCOM was non-propreitary, as they were pushing for the UNIX guys to adopt it… Then later made it almost imposible to make a GPL implementation of them.
I guess people could reverse engineer but MSFT’s legal department is very strong
May be very strong, but very stupid. A case as simple as Lindows, they could foul up.
Don’t think so. MS didn’t invent the PC. IBM had some choice. Apple was already there.
Oh gee, you would have a desktop the price of a mainframe! Without Microsoft, IBM would be the only one making PCs meaning Moore’s laws wouldn’t exist. Apple would still be a major player as due to lack of competition, PC prices would still be high, unlike now.
Even if the announcement were everything it’s touted as, I’m disappointed. Where’s the punishment? How does one discourage this behavior in the future? “We’d better follow the rules. If we get caught breaking them, they might make us start following them.”
I wish the law didn’t exist in the first place. Notice Netscape/AOL don’t care what Microsoft did to Java and how they block other OSes from being bundled on machines, they just care about their product. Sun couldn’t care less about the lack of OS competition caused by Microsoft’s OEM deals, and Be in fact supports Microsoft decission to integrate IE into Windows. What i see here is hypocrisy, three companies using the court because they couldn’t compete with Microsoft using the normal way.
It would be completely fair (in my opinion) for MS to be required to provide a complete specification of the OS such that any independently implemented OS that followed the specification would be guaranteed to be able to run all Windows apps, including MS office.
That would be interesting, though. Well, on Windows, tonnes of annoying apps can become more annoying, making most apps for Windows not suitable for normal use (if you think Gator and Bonzi Buddy, just imagine what they would do if they know how stuff really works behind the scenes).
Perhaps WINE would become really good, good enough to run most Windows applications…
(DR-DOS isn’t a completely different OS with a DOS layer, unlike Linux).
Like the Windows XPY monitoring code that watches you and reports back to Microsoft and the government. This is the secret deal that Microsoft cut with the DOJ.
Until somebody could actually prove this, I would take this as a troll. Microsoft collects infomation the same way AOL does for AOL and Netscape users.
BASIC and cp/m were the first to be
ripped off, then the Mac GUI, later on Netscape and Java.
Microsoft didn’t rip off Netscape’s ideas, after all, Netscape is just the commercial version of Mosaic. Microsoft bought a Mosaic license the same way Netscape did.
As for Java, the concept of a bytecode language itself isn’t new with Java. It existed way before Sun ever thought of it. Sun extended C++ with the bytecode idea. Microsoft did the same for C#, but also did extend the idea by making it multi language.
The Amiga is a clear example – it was streets ahead,
but lost out because of bad marketing and selling.
Amiga died not because of that. It died because of Commodore.
MS was the first to the Joe Blow market ….
Flamewar, flamewar! (Apple was the first commercial GUI maker, after that was Xerox – it release its first commercial GUI later than Apple even though it invented it)
All empires fall – as they exapnd further and further out, the center cannot hold it together.
All empires falls by either being won over by another empire of an internal dispute. In Microsoft’s case, the empire would be brought down because they wanted to exercise their right over Windows. (It isn’t their fault it became the monopoly).
In fact the cost of the OS and Applications (both by Microsoft) form a considerable chunk of the price of a modern PC and this has been rising for year.
If you are saying ultra-cheap hardware that gives PCs a bad name, yes you have a point.
Ooooh! I’m a troll now! Does every opinion that doesn’t conform to your opinions count as a troll?
No, only post like from yours. Void from any historical fact.
MS thought the internet was a passing fad, when they realised it was here to stay they then used their monopoly to help them become one of the leaders.
Maybe. But I think it was Netscape’s downright buggy apps that gave way to Microsoft’s monopoly. Prior to my Linux shift, I have been using Netscape – mainly because it is the only thing I know. When I move to Linux, I still used Netscape, but later when Nestcape 6 was release, I ultimately dump Netscape. I picked Opera because back then it is the only usable Linux browser. On Windows, my brothers, cousins blah blah refuse to use Netscape anymore because accroding to them it is slow.
Most of the people I knew moved to IE because Netscape was buggy and slow.
Wether or not it will ruin the industry, it’s still justice. Letting them get away with it will only incourage more and maybe even worse companys to follow MS’s line.
Yeah, if Microsoft followed the rules, the Windows desktop would be much more fragmented. Heck, there wouldn’t be standard printer drivers.
it was at the top of its game at the time then fell. MS is at the top of its game now and it too will fall.
Microsoft’s fall would be caused by injustice, while Amiga’s fall was caused by mismanagement.
When is Microsoft going to introduce a user-friendly OS? Or at least one that doesn’t crash everyday?
Windows XP is relatively easy to use. And it doesn’t crash often, unless you are using incompatible hardware.
My guess? Never.
You are living under a rock then.
So why aren’t they replaced right now? Is there a user friendly OS that is widely available? Looks like no. If MS is crippled, or fined too much, there will be gap that will surely make these competitors in demand, but their quality will be crap.
————
OH, you know all about quality, don’t you, MS troll? Let me guess…you bought windows in 95 and have been with MS ever since, right?
Are you are aware of MS’ anticompetitive behaviour, and strict licensing terms regarding competitors products? Be tried to get BeOS preinstalled FOR FREE, in the end, on machines, and couldn’t. No OEM would agree to it. Why? MS is keeping competitors out, and punishing those that support superior competition. You can hate linux all you like, but you cannot tell me BeOS was hard to use and not superior to Windows, yet it didn’t get a chance to grow and develop further because it never got the chance to compete fairly in the market on its own merits. This proved that the market was completely rigged and competition kept firmly out, and helped kill Be.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that there isn’t “a friendly OS that’s widely available”…?
“If amiga is so good, why isn’t it the #1 platform right now?”
Commodore was run by two old men who had no interest in or knowledge
of computers and wanted to retire. They bled the company white and
allowed it to fold. Money that should have been spent on R&D was
siphoned off into their personal bank accounts.
However good the product, it can’t withstand that kind of management.
Bill Gates is intensely interested in computers, as well as being
ruthless and paranoid. It helps.
> You also work in a startup that brought you a lot of
> money because of the jumpstart the Internet received from
> MS.
Sure, if the startup you work for happens to be a company
that makes anti-virus software. The Microsoft attitude of
security as an after thought (if at all) has permitted
various computer viruses to course through the internet the
way red corpuscels flow through through blood.
Be tried to get BeOS preinstalled FOR FREE, in the end, on machines, and couldn’t. No OEM would agree to it.
Right, put all the blame on Microsoft. If Be was a smart competitor, there won’t be a such thing called Apple. When Apple announce that Copland would be killed, all of their major ISVs got really pissed off. This was a golden oppurtunity to get them to move to Be OS. Did they even try that? Nope.
If I was the CEO of Be Inc., I bet I could have kept Be afloat longer. How? I would target the niche I would want to get to, I would survey my target audience to see what *they* want, I would twist and bend Be OS to fit that niche and be the major player in that niche. For example, if I wanted to target digital video creation, I would survey the studios, big and small, for what features they like in their current OS, what apps they need, what feature they need, and I would try to provide it for them. After successfuly getting the market, I would move on another related niche, say 3D animation and design. After that, I would move to the next related niche, audio studios, and the list goes on.
By time that, I would have a stedy flow of money, I would have profits. Be wanted to get bundled with new machines so they would get market share, and therefore would get apps. They took the shortcut and they paid for it.
You can hate linux all you like, but you cannot tell me BeOS was hard to use and not superior to Windows, yet it didn’t get a chance to grow and develop further because it never got the chance to compete fairly in the market on its own merits.
Well, nice OS. It had a good networking stack, OpenGL support, multi-user support etc…… wait, it doesn’t. People immediately think Be OS is the most superior OS on merit terms because it had some cool features like the file system, and also ran very fast, but it wasn’t the best out there
But have you notice that you don’t have to have a insanely great product to sell? VHS won over Beta. PCs won over 68k based Macs and Amigas. Windows won over Mac OS and OS/2. It all boils down to good marketing and knowing your target market. Linux companies in China are successful because they know what the government and the Chinese companies want. Be had no clear cut target market.
This proved that the market was completely rigged and competition kept firmly out, and helped kill Be.
Have you notice tier-one companies can’t use Intel 3D chipset, if they have an additional graphics card like GeForce? Is that anti competitive? Hardly.
For me? If I was Be or Microsoft, I wouldn’t allow my OEMs to bundle my competitor’s OS with mine. Of course, Be just wanted to take the short cut to success, what could I do?
Anyway, notice that Be support’s Microsoft decission to bundle IE in their OS. They didn’t care at all by what was happening between Java and .NET. All they cared was their own skin, they couldn’t care less about others. The court was their last resort.
I doubt you could of kept Be up longer, they needed OEM support
Niche markets couldn’t sustain the cash burn required to keep up.
The entry into the OS market is hard for so many reasons (Drivers and Apps to name a few). BeOS was always going to be a risk. However MS artificially raised the barriers of entry by using their monopolistic force to squash the OEM deals.
Of course you would try to stop them bundling other OS’s, but do you really think its right to threaten them, and have contracts which prohibit this?
They should of stuck to competing on marketing and products. However they went past these and used the monopoly to force OEMS to do as they wanted, and for this they should be punished.
There are good reasons for antitrust laws, as draconian as they may be. Competition benifets consumers and is the foundation of capitalism. When companys can sustain their monopoly by using their monopoly somthing must be done to bring back the competition and make a free market for all.
Hmm…why should Microsoft, a corporate entitiy, be forced to release source code to it’s commercial operating system?
And why shouldn’t Apple’s OS X? I’m sure they have some nice secret undocumented APIs yet they are not being forced to release them.
Just wondering….?
>No, only post like from yours. Void from any historical fact.
Common sense ins’t historical enough for you?
here are the points I have told in my posts:
1. Amiga died, it’s technology didn’t save it. oh wait, that didn’t happen
2. MS made an OS for a cheap computer that was much more popular than Apple. wait, macs cost pennies back then
3. If MS will be killed, or punished too hard, their products would fragment and that won’t be good. wait, I was incorrect
4. MSs products are not crap, but products that had years of research behind and are stable enough to use, wait WinXP is worse than KDE and crashes all the time, right?
You said many of these things in your post, yet you still call me troll. Your herd instincts are really showing. At least, your post is a product of independent thinking, unlike others.
“””2. MS made an OS for a cheap computer that was much more popular than Apple.”””
There were plenty of cheap CP/M workalikes back then for the IBM/PC simply because the OS did next to absolutely nothing. A basic CLI giving way eventually to a GUI would’ve happened whether MS was there or not, and the cheap PC would have happened if MS was there or not.
“””3. If MS will be killed, or punished too hard, their products would fragment and that won’t be good.”””
It honestly wouldn’t matter, nor would it matter if they even went out of business tomorrow. Their exisiting products would remain on the market and become the defacto standard until something better showed up. Drivers would still get written, software would still be made; and amazingly enough the world wouldn’t end. AT&T was a massive breakup, I can’t see this being any worse.
“If I was Be or Microsoft, I wouldn’t allow my OEMs to bundle my competitor’s OS with mine. Of course, Be just wanted to take the short cut to success, what could I do?”
If I was Goodyear, I wouldn’t allow automakers to sell cars with Michelin donuts [spare tires].
If I was Kenmore, I wouldn’t allow landlords to rent apartments with Maytag dishwashers.
The OEMs should be able to retail the software however they want (legally). The problem is that Microsoft would not let the OEMs sell computers bundled with their competitors software. Thats where the big legal issue is.
Anonymous laid the bait and too many of ya bit. Now, this thread has become useless.
The next time someone tosses out a little bait, ignore them so intelligent conversation can be had.
Wasn’t the deal that Microsoft let the OEMs sell computers with optional OSs installed, but you weren’t allowed to select which OS to boot? It would just boot into Windows.
I read (can’t remember where) that some asian company sold computers with Windows and BeOS R5 PE, but since you couldn’t select BeOS in any boot menu, half of the users didn’t even know that they had BeOS installed..
… back to the subject…
what subject?
Hey anonymous, the reason people are calling you a troll is because you are using ‘anonymous’. Same words are used in every forum on the internet.
Now onto the subject: Who cares? We all know it will be useless information which will not be included in the next release of windows (XP Media).
I think it would be funny as shit if Microsoft, said f-u to all the people that hate them and want them to open up their code, by just cashing out and close down its doors. The computer world would be fucked. Come on Bill do it!
Who to thank? It was Compaq who reverse engineered the BIOS of the ‘standard’ IBM PCs back in the day and became the very first real competitor to IBM as a result. Once IBM’s BIOS was cracked and shared (licensed?) by Compaq, everyone was able to make PCs (clones) and compete with each other. Note that this would be totally illegal now with the DMCA laws that are in place today.
IBM’s response was to create the MicroChannel Architecture (MCA) as a replacement for the aging ISA bus and achieve a proprietary lock-in on the PC world that way. Compaq and Microsoft responded by creating the competing EISA standard which was supported by everyone else in the industry and IBM had to fold MCA and accept EISA because they lost that war too – and now you have the competitive multi-vendor PC universe of cheap hardware that exists today. Compare this to the evolution of Apple’s (expensive, crappy) hardware. And before you tell me how great Apple’s designs are, take a look at a Sony PC system (notebook or desktop), or a Voodoo.com custom PC and think again.
That should be http://www.voodoopc.com/
“Be tried to get BeOS preinstalled FOR FREE, in the end, on machines, and couldn’t. No OEM would agree to it.”
Right, put all the blame on Microsoft.
———–
I never put *all* the blame on MS, but tell me if Be would have moved to the IA market if their OS had shipped preinstalled on major OEMs, like they intended, and this had been paying their bills.
If I was the CEO of Be Inc., I bet I could have kept Be afloat longer. How? I would target the niche I would want to get to, I would survey my target audience to see what *they* want, I would twist and bend Be OS to fit that niche and be the major player in that niche. For example, if I wanted to target digital video creation, I would survey the studios, big and small, for what features they like in their current OS, what apps they need, what feature they need, and I would try to provide it for them. After successfuly getting the market, I would move on another related niche, say 3D animation and design. After that, I would move to the next related niche, audio studios, and the list goes on.
————–
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Personally, I doubt any of these niches will have kept Be up like you assume.
By time that, I would have a stedy flow of money, I would have profits. Be wanted to get bundled with new machines so they would get market share, and therefore would get apps. ————
I doubt you’ll have any money left to pay the power bill, actually.
“You can hate linux all you like, but you cannot tell me BeOS was hard to use and not superior to Windows, yet it didn’t get a chance to grow and develop further because it never got the chance to compete fairly in the market on its own merits.”
Well, nice OS. It had a good networking stack, OpenGL support, multi-user support etc…… wait, it doesn’t. People immediately think Be OS is the most superior OS on merit terms because it had some cool features like the file system, and also ran very fast, but it wasn’t the best out there
—————————-
Yeh, it didn’t….but they were *all* coming in the next update, weren’t they? The foundations were all there, and they spoke volumes. Absolute volumes. Where was Windows a few short years after release? Would Windows have succeeded if the market was rigged against it as was the case with Be? You bet it would have no chance.
But have you notice that you don’t have to have a insanely great product to sell? VHS won over Beta.
———-
VHS had a longer playing time. Any resolution or visual superiority claims with Beta were lost on most consumers. I dunno how many would have noticed on those old TV sets, or found it important. I doubt many would care today.
PCs won over 68k based Macs and Amigas. Windows won over Mac OS and OS/2. It all boils down to good marketing and knowing your target market.
————-
And the target market for Windows was….? General-purpose, CrapOS preinstalled with x86 machines. The chance be never got to compete on fairly in the market.
Have you notice tier-one companies can’t use Intel 3D chipset, if they have an additional graphics card like GeForce?
——–
No? I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here. Intel doesn’t let you use their 3D chipsets (?) if they sell Geforce-based machines? Assuming you have a point here, I sure as hell aren’t labelling MS as the only anticompetitive company on planet earth.
For me? If I was Be or Microsoft, I wouldn’t allow my OEMs to bundle my competitor’s OS with mine. Of course, Be just wanted to take the short cut to success, what could I do?
———
Shortcut to success? They had NO way of competing, AT ALL. Big difference.
Anyway, notice that Be support’s Microsoft decission to bundle IE in their OS. They didn’t care at all by what was happening between Java and .NET. All they cared was their own skin, they couldn’t care less about others. The court was their last resort.
————
JLG thought they had every right to bundle the OS with their OS. I’m sure he has strong thoughts about their claims that it’s “tied” to their OS, though. We all know it isn’t. Hell, BeOS came with its own browser. I doubt his opinion had anything to do with vested interests, rather his genuine thoughts on the topic at hand.
I fail to see how wanting to compete fairly in the OS market can solely be labelled ‘vested interests’. It’s a basic right in a capitalist market. If I’m a cookie shop owner, I want to be able to sell to local businesses, even though they currently sell competitor’s cookies. I don’t want Big Bad Cookie company sending me broke through its anticompetitive practices, threatening shop owners that they’ll lose their ‘incentives’ if dealing with Small Cookie Company and saying that “nobody gives a damn…whe have great cookies already!”.
Of course, these strong-arm tactics of the big companies happen with any industry in an underhanded way, but the more severe ones need to get some attention and be stopped.
I doubt you could of kept Be up longer, they needed OEM support
Niche markets couldn’t sustain the cash burn required to keep up.
It sustained Apple for a long time. Once you gathered up a lot of niches, you are already a powerful force.
What Be wanted is to get market share fast. They didn’t care if in new machines the user doesn’t know that BeOS is there. They figured that with that, ISVs and IHVs would come. Of course, if I had a ISV company, i wouldn’t be too stupid to port it to Be OS because I know that most Be OS users aren’t using Be OS nor knew Be OS’s existance.
If Be got OEMs like how Amiga got them, just a few dedicated ones, they have less drivers to write. Then if they target a niche, they would try to get software from that niche available on Be OS. They would make the OS the best solution for that niche. They would have money in their banks faster than the way they choosed. After that niche had been conquered, they go to another one, and yet another one , and after awhile, the niches would come to them and not the other way around. You have to start with a small target, you have to start with baby steps. If Dell had the same mentallity as Gassee, Dell wouldn’t be close to being #2 (and close to #1).
Of course you would try to stop them bundling other OS’s, but do you really think its right to threaten them, and have contracts which prohibit this?
Microsoft had contracts that prohibit this waaaaaaaaaaay before it had become and monopoly. It was merely to make sure Windows becomes exclusive, not just a mere choice. It worked for them, I might add.
There are good reasons for antitrust laws, as draconian as they may be.
And with you draconian laws, you don’t have oil as cheap as back then during Standard Oil’s days. The anti trust laws wasn’t there for consumers. It was there for incompete competitors. For example, during this anti trust case, did Windows’ userbase was ever surveyed? Nope. Did oil users back then in Standard Oil’s day was ever surveyed? nope.
Competition benifets consumers and is the foundation of capitalism.
Bad competition don’t benefit. If a competitor just gets market share just because of the court, that isn’t good. Besides, if your government is really seeking for competition, why not have competition for the US Postal Service – an highly lucrative and profitable business? If you really support capitalism, you wouldn’t support anti trust laws. Pre-capitalism was the paternal laws, which seems to be like anti trust laws to me.
When companys can sustain their monopoly by using their monopoly somthing must be done to bring back the competition and make a free market for all.
If the world had anti trust laws back then to govern countries, Portugal wouldn’t be as rich as it would be now. The Arabs monopolize the spice trade. They charge really high prices, and were the richest people back then. Portugal wanted a piece of it, did it go to the courts, or did it find another route to the east? They choosed the later, and Portugal right now is one of the richest European countries.
Common sense ins’t historical enough for you?
Back then, the world being flat was common sense.
1. Amiga died, it’s technology didn’t save it. oh wait, that didn’t happen
Amiga died the same way Enron died. Commodore killed it and itself for its owners could have a luxurious retirement. After Amiga’s death, the sale of Amigas was still hot. In the US, the price shot up as studios tried to get their hands on it.
2. MS made an OS for a cheap computer that was much more popular than Apple. wait, macs cost pennies back then
True, Windows won that way.
3. If MS will be killed, or punished too hard, their products would fragment and that won’t be good.
The same reason why I don’t support the court case right now.
4. MSs products are not crap, but products that had years of research behind and are stable enough to use, wait WinXP is worse than KDE and crashes all the time, right?
Sorry, I have never seen KDE 3.0.2 nor Windows XP crashed before. I use them both a lot. I didn’t say Microsoft’s apps were terrible, but I’m saying their products back then wasn’t the best. It won, like you said, just because it is the cheapest.
At least, your post is a product of independent thinking, unlike others.
Thanks :-P.
I just don’t agree with your #1.
The OEMs should be able to retail the software however they want (legally). The problem is that Microsoft would not let the OEMs sell computers bundled with their competitors software. Thats where the big legal issue is.
Well, the sale of Windows should be an agreement between the buyer and seller. If the buyer doesn’t like the terms, he doesn’t have to buy Windows. Did Dell got punished by Microsoft for having options to buy machines with Linux instead of Windows? Nope. They still do have that options in Asia and with high end workstations and servers.
I never put *all* the blame on MS, but tell me if Be would have moved to the IA market if their OS had shipped preinstalled on major OEMs, like they intended, and this had been paying their bills.
Well, if Be was smart enough and look back at history, it would already knew about the deals Microsoft have with OEMs. Microsoft had these deals so that Windows would be exclusive. If Be had just stop and wondered why IBM didn’t put OS/2 on its Windows 95 machines.
Plus, I don’t think Be would have paid the bills. Why? If the ISVs and IHVs are smart enough, they would know that most of the Be OS user base don’t even know what Be OS is. Developing software for Be OS isn’t cheap too, there is a high cost for development tools (Be planned to make money this way), and porting Win32 apps to Be API wasn’t the easiest thing on earth.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Personally, I doubt any of these niches will have kept Be up like you assume.
They certainly had kept Apple profitable.
Would Windows have succeeded if the market was rigged against it as was the case with Be?
Actually it did. If you rewind to the days Windows was new, wasn’t a monopoly, most people put their money on OS/2 to succeed. It is easier to use than Windows, faster than Windows, more stable than Windows, and have a really big company behind it. Windows had no special appeal over OS/2.
This is an almost capitalist world. If the best product wins, everyone would have been driving a Merc or a Porche.
And the target market for Windows was….? General-purpose, CrapOS preinstalled with x86 machines. The chance be never got to compete on fairly in the market.
The market was created by Microsoft and Compaq. If Be actually made their own market, their own OEMs etc. they probably could have succeed. If the market wasn’t fair, BTW, you wouldn’t find profitable Linux desktop vendors in Asia.
Assuming you have a point here, I sure as hell aren’t labelling MS as the only anticompetitive company on planet earth.
Then why is Microsoft the only company being the target of this draconian law? Why not Apple? They done much more anti competitive stuff before.
Shortcut to success? They had NO way of competing, AT ALL. Big difference.
My point was they did. You haven’t said how my plan to grab small niches wouldn’t work out.
If I’m a cookie shop owner, I want to be able to sell to local businesses, even though they currently sell competitor’s cookies.
But you competitors do have the right to cut of supply to that local shops when they start selling your cookies. Does McDonalds franchises sell KFC chicken anyway?
“Niche markets couldn’t sustain the cash burn required to keep up.”
It sustained Apple for a long time. Once you gathered up a lot of niches, you are already a powerful force.
————————–
Are you forgetting Apple’s ease of use when the other computers were in the stone-ages? I’d hardly call an easy to use gui a niche. They were first to the masses with that.
“Perhaps. Perhaps not. Personally, I doubt any of these niches will have kept Be up like you assume.”
They certainly had kept Apple profitable.
————-
No it didn’t. Apple’s computers were easy to use and configure. The developing desktop market/creative market flocked to it. The machine existed before the whole DTP/audio markets ‘flocked to it’. The hardware was excellent for the time too.
Would Windows have succeeded if the market was rigged against it as was the case with Be?
Actually it did. If you rewind to the days Windows was new, wasn’t a monopoly, most people put their money on OS/2 to succeed.
————
When exactly, wasn’t windows a monopoly? I remember seeing the OS/2 commercials. I don’t know who you call ‘everyone’ but Windows was well-entrenched everywhere when OS/2 came out.
It is easier to use than Windows, faster than Windows, more stable than Windows, and have a really big company behind it. Windows had no special appeal over OS/2.
————
Except for being very, very, well-entrenched, right?
This is an almost capitalist world. If the best product wins, everyone would have been driving a Merc or a Porche.
———–
No, we might be doing that if money, fuel efficiency & pracicality & cost of spare parts & service was no object.
“And the target market for Windows was….? General-purpose, CrapOS preinstalled with x86 machines. The chance be never got to compete on fairly in the market.”
The market was created by Microsoft and Compaq. If Be actually made their own market, their own OEMs etc. they probably could have succeed. If the market wasn’t fair, BTW, you wouldn’t find profitable Linux desktop vendors in Asia.
————-
I don’t see Linux vendors creating an OS from the ground-up, do you?
Then why is Microsoft the only company being the target of this draconian law? Why not Apple? They done much more anti competitive stuff before.
———–
Like I said, MS isn’t the only anticompetitive outfit on earth. Apple tried to stop the Amiga too. Commodore did a good job of that by itself, in the end.
“Shortcut to success? They had NO way of competing, AT ALL. Big difference.”
My point was they did. You haven’t said how my plan to grab small niches wouldn’t work out.
————-
You haven’t said how your plan *would* work. I simply stated you wouldn’t be able to sustain it. You said you think you would. Quite simple really. As far as I’m concerned, this question can only be answered by doing, and not by theorizing.
If I’m a cookie shop owner, I want to be able to sell to local businesses, even though they currently sell competitor’s cookies.
But you competitors do have the right to cut of supply to that local shops when they start selling your cookies. Does McDonalds franchises sell KFC chicken anyway?
————-
How do you figure they have that right? Part of being a franchise is agreeing to do things a certain way from the get-go when ESTABLISHING the business. A supplier has no right to tell a private (non-franchised) business how to run their shop, and they know that. That’s why most of these actions are behind closed doors and made easier to swallow with incentive ‘sweeteners’.
kreechah: Are you forgetting Apple’s ease of use when the other computers were in the stone-ages? I’d hardly call an easy to use gui a niche. They were first to the masses with that.
I’m not talking about 1984 Apple. I’m talking about 2002 Apple. Sure, they aren’t vocal about it, but they are actually building up their collection of niches. Apple had lost a lot of market share since 1984, and Steve Jobs was kicked out in the first place because of a huge market share drop to 12% (of course, the drop got more rapid after his dismiss).
kreechah: No it didn’t. […] The hardware was excellent for the time too.
Again, I’m talking about modern Apple. The Apple that almost went bankrupt before Steve Jobs came back to what Apple is now is what I’m talking about.
When exactly, wasn’t windows a monopoly? […]
You are confusing early OS/2 and OS/2 Warp (which technially are very different). OS/2 could be a dominate force if IBM didn’t skrew up so bad with its marketing. It ran DOS and Win16 apps much better than Windows.
Except for being very, very, well-entrenched, right? […]
This might have been the case for Windows 95 and OS/2 Warp 4, but I’m talking about pre-Windows 3.1 days. Hello? When I say pre-monopoly days… I mean pre-monopoly days.
No, we might be doing that if money, fuel efficiency & pracicality & cost of spare parts & service was no object.
That’s not my point. My point is technical merits isn’t the only thing that influence the success of an product in ANY market.
Besides, a Merc has better fuel efficiency than most cheap Japanese cars.
I don’t see Linux vendors creating an OS from the ground-up, do you?
Why do they need to? To waste money? There is a market for Linux is Asia, and they are extreemely clever not to write an OS from scratch. Why do they need to anyway?
You haven’t said how your plan *would* work.
There is an 8000 character limit. Besides, you don’t need the whole business plan to actually get the idea. You haven’t told me how would Be still had fail if it grab one niche at a time.
I’m actually planning to open my own OS company. I already have my business plan, I’m waiting to complete my studies (a few years time), work to get some working experience, and start my own company. I know what I’m talking about, because a lot of people have seen my business plan and had express interest in investing in them (rich people, I mean, and we are talking millions of dollars).
Part of being a franchise is agreeing to do things a certain way from the get-go when ESTABLISHING the business. A supplier has no right to tell a private (non-franchised) business how to run their shop, and they know that.
I would actually put OEMs under franchising, not as stores. However, a supplier does have the right to sell a product at any price it likes, and any condition it likes. If the OEM doesn’t like it, they don’t have to buy it. The seller do have the right to make the conditions. (And in fact, in 19th century America, the right was protected, until anti trust laws came about).
That’s why most of these actions are behind closed doors and made easier to swallow with incentive ‘sweeteners’.
Most deals happen behind closed doors, whether it is legal or illegal with anti trust laws. That’s common sense.
Damn I have like a whole friggin book to read now.
Thx
Damn your posts are long….slacking at work again??
Damn I have like a whole friggin book to read now.
I’m a student with lots of free time. Except even more after September (after my exams and a month before my summer holidays).
All I can say is GET A JOB!
Good Luck on Finals