Monday morning, Microsoft announced the completion of Windows XP Media Center Edition, which will power new media center PCs from companies such as Hewlett-Packard and Samsung beginning next month. XP Media Center is the latest Windows version, and one of several products which rely on XP Service Pack 1 (SP1), which was finalized last week.
Microsoft Announces Completion of WindowsXP Media Center Edition
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’m a small form factor person, so this is where I see the consumer side of the industry going. Having your windows machine be just another input on the television, with streaming divx movies and mp3s as channels right along side your customized push version of cnn (it still repeats the same stories every 20min, but they’re the ones you picked.)
I’m working on putting together open source based versions of this. I figure when I’m all done all someone will need is an ebuild to emerge on gentoo once you’re done with the install, and a list of files to use with CompactBSD (really flashdist) on the OpenBSD firewall/access point. Hopefully I’ll be able to stream divx movies on my tv and control it all from my wireless laptop, all while ignoring CSS, Palladium, and DRM
Apple has done this exact same things for years, so what’s new here?
> so what’s new here?
It will be Windows (94% of the market), not MacOS (2.4%). You want more?
“It will be Windows (94% of the market), not MacOS (2.4%). You want more?”
What difference does it make? As long as my system runs ALL the apps and ALL the peripherals I want, who cares if most people don’t have what I have?
what difference? more market share, more people pirating media stuff.
I remember the MacTV set top box, but a 68030 is hardly enough to do what this is talking about. Yes Apple has been working towards that direction, but I doubt they are going to push for the disappearance of their hardware anytime soon.
I read where MS was coming out with this edition of XP, but I don’t know much about it. I’m sort of fuzzy on this – is this a replacement of Home Edition or a third edtion along with XP Pro and XP Home? Will it cost more than Home (I mean, even the OEM deals)? If it’s a third version of XP, I don’t know how successful it might be. This is a generalization, of course, but usually, if you start making more and more editions of a software product, especially an OS, it tends to confuse people. When Joe and Jane User go shopping for a new PC, it seems to me they may be confused as to whether or not Home Edition is for them or Media Center is what they want. As spoken of in the press release, students might really go for this though, that’s true.
It’s called an iBook! Aww The wintel world is always late to the party!
*big grin*
I wouldn’t touch this version of XP if it was the last OS microsoft made strickly because for one they claimed in their anti-trust trial that they could not make a custom version of windows, which means they lied. Secondly, can you say DRM?
Stick with 98se, 2000, or if you insist XP pro.
This is just another ploy for money just like 98 first release was a money ploy to get people to upgrade from 95b, and ME was a money making ploy to get people to upgrade from 98se, and XP was just a money making ploy to get people to upgrade from 2000. It’s just the same garbage in a new shinnier wrapper only with more “features” for hackers to break into.
>>It will be Windows (94% of the market), not MacOS (2.4%). You want more?<
Not sure where that number comes from… but in the US it’s 3.7% (up from last year) and the Europe it’s 3.4% (also up from last year with the UK making up most of that percentage).
Windows is harder to establish a real number percentage since it’s a forced marketshare and you cannot buy a PC from an OEM without a Windows license (except for IBM), and you are not entitled a rebate from Microsoft. Our Lead software Engineer tried that with one of the server boxes he purchased for the company, so now he just builds them from scratch and loads Linux!
Hunter:”I wouldn’t touch this version of XP if it was the last OS microsoft made strickly because for one they claimed in their anti-trust trial that they could not make a custom version of windows, which means they lied.”
It seems that you caught Microsoft. We have to warn the lawyers immediately to sue them again.
))
Microsoft doesn’t have to make a custom Windows, unless the judge orders them to do that. Moreover regarding making Windows custom, people confuse the issues and claims on the news. Microsoft was not found guilty of making the Windows the way it is. Microsoft was found guilty of using its monopoly for anti-competitive policies. So trying to force Microsoft to change Windows and even discussing this issue will only serve to amuse yourself. I believe that the judge will not accept what the 9 states were asking.
If you want to make a media PC, take a standard PC with TV-out or transcoder, and download some of the freeware for PC (media-box), or linux (freevo), etc. The really hard-up types can even use a bookpc, cubePC, or STB-style PC. Add HD tuner card, DVD player software, and you’re done.
Did I mention you don’t have restrictions with regard to copying your MP3s, movies, or whatever else you like? XP Media Center had some strict copyprotection, last time I checked.
My 2c: Useless for price (you have to buy a windows media center PC to get this), and useless for flexibility (M$ enforcing their copyprotection restrictions on you).
This is true, but they were asked if it was possible, under oath I might add, and they flat out said no it wasn’t.
They also said that if it were possible, the shear number of different versions of XP would be too much to service and would also be confusing to the consumer. So let’s count how many versions of XP there are out there. There’s home, pro, embedded, enterprise, and Media Center so far. That’s not even considering the number of users who will and those who will not keep up with the, no doubt, continuing lists of service packs which will create an even larger number of different versions of XP. This is just another ploy for more of your money. Anyone who cannot see that should waste more of their money because they deserve it for not educating themselves before making such an expensive purchase.
I understand what you say, but you need to consider the specific context of the question. What was the question about, and do you really think that they would answer whether they can customize Windows or not, by simply saying no. The context was whether Microsoft can get rid of IE or not?
Also your reasoning about the number of versions of XP is totally flawed. Here is why: You count embedded and enterprise XP as versions of XP that the consumers may confuse with others. But I don’t think that average consumer will try to order an embedded XP for his/her PC, or an enterprise XP. The consumer most probably will order home XP. If he/she is a little bit more experienced he/she may order pro. Media center only comes with specific hardware so it is impossible to order them. So where is the confusion here. Moreover nobody talks about there is confusion for consumers about XP so far. By the way saying service packs will create more XP versions is also unreasonable. It means that when you apt-get update, upgrade Linux you have a new version of Linux.
))
It seems to me that, if you are claim that the currrent versions of XP is a source of confusion, you are probably also wrong on what happened in the court too.
Here is a link to a story explaining what they are doing. Basically better IP protection in the hopes of attacting more media…. Without the full Paladium suite though I can’t see this really working.
theres a story there about this. basically.. the media Centre PCs will not be able to record Tv anyway due to copyright considerations!!!!
What a complete waste of cash this crap is…
I thought that the xbox will eventually have the same feature as the Media PC at one tenth the price. People are going to compare the xbox with the Media PC. I know that you will say they are as different as chalk and cheese, but they do the same job.
In this case I think Microsoft are competing against themselves. I would not buy an xbox for $200, but I certainly would not buy a media PC for $2000. Especially building my own PC.
MS have got to realise that if they want to succeed with the media PC they will have to kill some of the features of the xbox. That means, DVD playback, future TVR capabilities and HDTV support. That is the only way for the Media PC to work.
Likewise if they want the xbox to succeed they will have to kill games support on the Media PC.
Sergio said:I understand what you say, but you need to consider the specific context of the question. What was the question about, and do you really think that they would answer whether they can customize Windows or not, by simply saying no. The context was whether Microsoft can get rid of IE or not?
Did YOU consider the specific context? I’ve read almost all the documentation of the court case there is (this is why I’m so damn pissy and negative). You can actually simplify the court documentation on this topic to make the following analogy:
COURT: You draw squares. We think it would be reasonable for you to also draw circles.
ARTIST: I can’t do that. It is physically impossible. Even if I could do it, it would confuse people.
THREE MONTHS LATER: “ARTIST” draws a circle and a triangle in addition to his square. Even though he said it was impossible. He says that the context of the question did not relate to what he ended up doing so he didn’t actually contradict himself.
It’s like doing math. If you have a complex fraction, you simplify it so that you can see what you’re actually doing. Ignore the periferal distractions. Look at the logic. In this case, MS was clearly lacking logic and sense.
It seems to me that, if you are claim that the currrent versions of XP is a source of confusion, you are probably also wrong on what happened in the court too.
That’s a rather arrogant thing to say. Especially when you quite clearly are picking and choosing your own “facts” to support whatever attack you wish to make on whoever has made comments you don’t like (here and in other stories).
Microsoft claimed that it could not make different versions of Windows (with or without certain components such as IE). It’s an absurd statement that they backed up with “it would confuse consumers” when clearly the question was asked in reference to consumers and OEMs. And here we are, with different editions of Windows anyway which have different components in them and are offered for different situations (gosh, gee, I thought that was not physically possible – can they actually change the software they wrote? I thought there was some magical physical impossibility that they cannot actually change their code like once done it’s set in stone or something) and here we clearly see that consumers and OEMs are confused about who should use what version and what the differences are between them.
I think this is a fine product. The question of whether or not Micosoft should be allowed to release and support a customized media version of Windows is very different than what the Justice department wanted to to to Windows.
The basic precepts behind the government’s motivation were aimed at making Windows *FULLY* componentized. Let me say that again *FULLY* componentized. The trial wanted to make Windows as component based as UNIX, but it also wanted MS to continue with the same level of support as they provide today. Can you imagine, “Okay Gramma, do you have build xx.yy.zz of package foobar.lib installed on your computer? If not, you can download it from http://some.random.site.org/stuffyourgrammawontunderstand.html“. More than that, each component interacts with each other component on the system. MS provides support based on a *known* configuration, not a haphazard bundle of individual components. This is just too hard and expensive to support.
You’ll notice the XP Media Edition is very much a *known* platform. MS knows exactly what they are shipping and supporting with the customers. That is what makes it a viable marketing proposition.
In any case, I think it is cool that you can sit on your couch and have a fancy XP-ish UI controlled through a universal remote to manage music, movies, and pictures. This is exactly the type of pre-packaged (read: no downloads to set up) product that the American technophile in particular likes to buy. It is just like all those super expensive and totally featured out Dennon products down at Magnolia Hi-Fi.
Oh come now.
“Fully componentized” does not mean that it has to be as unwealdy and unfriendly as Unix! BeOS is the proof that it is possible. (Okay, go ahead, someone flame me for referring to BeOS or flame BeOS for failing and totally miss the point I am making.) Microsoft simply did not want to be told what to do by anyone, nor do they like the idea of re-engineering Windows from the ground-up (disrupting their status quo), which is what would really need to be done to make it “Fully componentized.”
It is NOT impossible. It is VERY possible. They simply refuse to do it because they believe that the most profit comes from the path they are currently on. Programming isn’t bound by a law of “it’s not possible because I say so.” You do the design , do the math and write the code.
>>In any case, I think it is cool that you can sit on your couch and have a fancy XP-ish UI controlled through a universal remote to manage music, movies, and pictures. This is exactly the type of pre-packaged (read: no downloads to set up) product that the American technophile in particular likes to buy. It is just like all those super expensive and totally featured out Dennon products down at Magnolia Hi-Fi.<<
Me can’t wait either… I had this in my own game plan 3 years ago when I bought the Mac. I’ve got the layout in my head and now it’s time to spend the money! I told my girlfriend about this plan and she thinks I’m crazy, oh well! Of course XP won’t be driving my ‘Digital Hub’ I’m afraid, but hey we still share the same technophile dream 🙂
Lets clue in:
M$ tried to do this market in 1995 (WebTV and analog datacasting in pre-Win95). Failed. Tried again to win over ITV with WebTV. Failed. Tried to become a big player in the ITV market (huge booth at NAB 2000 for WebTV, no booth in 2002). Failed. The only marginal success (just in terms of getting a few boxes out there) was WebTV. So M$ has failed in the settopbox market in all attempts up until now, and has attempted to make inroads into this very market they are talking about now in past years. This is nothing new, just the same stuff rehashed.
I remember sitting at the M$ WebTV technology launch at NAB in 1986 (or was it 87). At that time the blurb was that WebTV for Windows would be the new digital media hub and run in every home. So much for that idea.
If one can call a system componentized because it runs an application, then I guess every OS out there is componentized.
I am both an M$ user and a *nix user. I swing both ways, but your stupid bashing on *nix is really lame. Slight contradiction saying that the system will be used by a technophile, but this technophile would not understand *nix. I guess M$ users are a different level of technophiles then. Technophile wannabes, maybe?
As for cost, heads up – grandma will not be spending $1500 on a M$ home media PC. She will spend $0 on her free cable box. When will you guys grasp this minor detail?
Early adopters are likely to be techo-savvy folks who have a home network for A/V already in place and can fork out the cash for another toy. However, these are the same people slamming this product because of all the copyprotection limitations (see AVSForum). That could be a problem. You can do more with a ReplayTV or a Tivo than MS Media edition, for 1/3 the price. Pretty much a no-brainer who wins the market there.
Last point – Nokia, Ericsson, HP and others have been showing home media devices just like freestyle for the last 3 years. Most running on Linux. If I’m not mistaken, they have all failed and nearly every vendor has abandoned the market because the demand is not there. So, it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Jane said: “Did YOU consider the specific context? I’ve read almost all the documentation of the court case there is (this is why I’m so damn pissy and negative). You can actually simplify the court documentation on this topic to make the following analogy:
COURT: You draw squares. We think it would be reasonable for you to also draw circles.
ARTIST: I can’t do that. It is physically impossible. Even if I could do it, it would confuse people.
THREE MONTHS LATER: “ARTIST” draws a circle and a triangle in addition to his square. Even though he said it was impossible. He says that the context of the question did not relate to what he ended up doing so he didn’t actually contradict himself.”
I was always sure about my logic and reasoning abilities, but Jane suprised me with the fact that she read all the court documentation and her claim that I am wrong.
Anyway, since I am so sure about the basic reasoning that nobody is stupid, I took the extra step to go and read the documentation myself. Suprisingly I found out that Jane either didn’t read the documents or didn’t understand what it says. Actually I am very certain that she didn’t read it at all, because it is extremely obvious what states want and what Microsoft says about it.
Here is the link to the documentation for the court proceedings, especially what Microsoft and the States say. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/archive.asp
Here is what states say: They say that if you own 10’000 licenses of Windows, you are free to change the code of Windows and remove certain parts of it. But the problem is that Microsoft has to design such an OS that you can easily remove the code and not harm any other part of the operating system. It is not about designing a new OS, it is about desinging one in which you can remove code in thousands of combinations and still the OS will function. Again this is very clear, anybody who owns more than 10’000 copies of license of Windows should be able to remove code anywhere they want and the OS should be still functional. The question is not, whether you remove some code once and make sure that Windows will work. It may be hard to understand this, so I repeated several times.
Second about confusion. Once Microsoft allow OEMs or anybody else with more than 10’000 copies of Windows licenses to change the code, there will be numerous number of Windows on the market which are not interoperable. For example Winamp which works with one version of Windows will not work with the other one. There will be 5 different versionf of Winamp, assuming that 5 different versions are the mostly used one. One will be with Internet Explorer. One will be without. One will have one API which winamp uses, one will not have that and so on and so forth. Then the consumer has to select the winamp which can work with his/her windows. Of course, the windows at work may have Internet Explorer, but the windows you have at home may not have. So you will have different experiences with each operating system. Obviously this looks like Linux. In one linux you will have gnome, in another one you will have kde, or fvwm, cde or whatever. Moreover in one case you may have kde’s browser, eazel browser, in one case you may not have them. So overall they want microsoft to allow OEMs to change windows the way they want, and microsoft has to make sure that, they can do that, like writing an os similar to linux, so that anybody can change it. This remedy definitely kill windows, that’s for sure.
Jane:That’s a rather arrogant thing to say. Especially when you quite clearly are picking and choosing your own “facts” to support whatever attack you wish to make on whoever has made comments you don’t like (here and in other stories).
I have presented you the facts, and it seems to me that what you are saying is more arrogant, because you are simply saying that you read the facts, but don’t tell us any source of information which we can verify, and moreover you change those facts fundemantally.
“Microsoft claimed that it could not make different versions of Windows (with or without certain components such as IE).”
As I proved, Microsoft didn’t say what you claimed.
“It’s an absurd statement that they backed up with “it would confuse consumers” when clearly the question was asked in reference to consumers and OEMs.”
It is a no brainer logic to conclude that tens of windows version will confuse users, as it is the case with linux. The efforts in the linux community to set some standards for distributions clealy show that if you change the os the way you want, the average joe will get confused. Standards are extremely important. Consistent look and feel is extremely important.
“And here we are, with different editions of Windows anyway which have different components in them and are offered for different situations (gosh, gee, I thought that was not physically possible – can they actually change the software they wrote? I thought there was some magical physical impossibility that they cannot actually change their code like once done it’s set in stone or something) and here we clearly see that consumers and OEMs are confused about who should use what version and what the differences are between them.”
Now I am 100% sure that you didn’t read anything about what states want, and what Microsoft says. Microsoft doesn’t say you can’t change Windows. What they say is that, they can not design and code windows in such a way that many number of people can remove code and windows will still work. As a matter of fact, they say that even it is not impossible, which I believe that is extremely hard or near impossible, they say that it will confuse the users which is true. I have been programming many many years, and if you didn’t originally designed something for such a purpose, you will have code all over the place depending on each other. Removing one of those codes will make up mess which you can not deal with it. Especially if you design something like Windows which has millions of lines of code, you have very small chance of accomplishing that. This is not even about removing Internet explorer, which the court found Microsoft not guilty of. It is about chaning the code anyway you want. Microsoft has to make sure that the changes will not cause Windows that doesn’t function properly.
It seems that some people are lying, but obviously this time it is not Microsoft.
Here is one of the court proceedings you may find helpful for understanding what’s going on.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/mswitness/2002/billgates/b…
After reading these documents, I am 100% sure that states has no way of getting exactly what they want, because what they want is that Microsoft will develop windows under such ridicolous constraints that it will simply halt the development of windows, because microsoft can not easily add or remove code, because it has to make sure that anybody with more than 10’000 licenses can remove code from windows and the resulting windows version has to work.
I hope this post makes everything more clear for you Jane. By the way, if you post any response, please show us the exact court proceedings and the statements by a link, instead of circles and squares.
Jane said It is NOT impossible. It is VERY possible. They simply refuse to do it because they believe that the most profit comes from the path they are currently on. Programming isn’t bound by a law of “it’s not possible because I say so.” You do the design , do the math and write the code.
I am pretty sure you can easily redesign millions of lines of code and make it modular! You just made all the software engineering courses useless. What they were saying is that, design it very well, otherwise you may need to redesign everything from ground up which may take too much time to make it work. As a matter of fact, there are such cases that it is simply not possible to rewrite everything from ground up, and these are mostly for very large programs.
How many years it took Microsoft to write the current version of Windows, let’s say 20 years. Now you want Microsoft to write it from ground up, because you think that they think that the current version of windows is the right path for making the most profit and you think that they don’t deserve to make profit, because you don’t like them. How many years it will take to rewrite it, say 10 years. Now is it possible? yeah, sure, of course, why not.
Another thing, which I didn’t even mention is that, why does Microsoft has to do this? The original fact finding doesn’t include anything about integration of different features to the OS. The court didn’t find Microsoft guilty of designing the OS the way it is. The court found Microsoft guilty of totally other charges. Now this is like, if you are charged for stealing and a murder and you are only found guilty for stealing, Jane wants you to got the remedy for the murder too. It is not important whether you only stole something, you are guilty so Jane thinks that you should also get the penalty for murderers. You are not a murderer, but who cares. Mob wants you to be killed.
By the way Programming isn’t bound by a law of “it’s possible because I say so.”
<<<By the way saying service packs will create more XP versions is also unreasonable. It means that when you apt-get update, upgrade Linux you have a new version of Linux.>>>
i think you are wrong….
Potato 2.2r1 is different of 2.2r2 for example.
so, that change of number is just like just xp, or xp service pack 1.
¿you got?
rigurous: 2.2.r1 is another version like 2.2r7
chris: Apple has done this exact same things for years, so what’s new here?
One is made to replace your VCR, the only is made to ultilise your new 23″ Apple Cinema display.
Jay: I read where MS was coming out with this edition of XP, but I don’t know much about it.
It is a version of Windows with a UI that is suitable for TV screens. It is meant to replace your VCR, and this is especially useful if you have a HDTV. This in no way replaces Home Edition.
Ronald: It’s called an iBook! Aww The wintel world is always late to the party!
Hey, i didn’t know that! (LOL, comparing this version of XP running on that Compaq or Samsung to an iBook is really funny).
Hunter/A3: I wouldn’t touch this version of XP if it was the last OS microsoft made strickly because for one they claimed in their anti-trust trial that they could not make a custom version of windows, which means they lied.
In the anti trust case, Microsoft claims that it cannot remove IE, and other middleware without breaking the OS. This is in no way trying to remove the middleware. It is a completely different UI on top of XP SP1.
Hunter/A3: Secondly, can you say DRM?
Yes, I’m pretty sure some average Joe would be concern that he can’t download music and video from some warez site, or can’t upload his *.wmas to KaZaa.
Hunter/A3: This is just another ploy for money […]
Tell me one PROFIT BUSINESS that releases doesn’t a product that isn’t another ploy for money?
Not sure where that number comes from… but in the US it’s 3.7% (up from last year) and the Europe it’s 3.4% (also up from last year with the UK making up most of that percentage).
These are the global market numbers. US market is getting more and more irrelevant, while EU’s market is already irrevelant.
Kon: If you want to make a media PC[…]
Your method only applies to geeks, certainly not the target market of this version of Windows.
Hunter/A3: There’s home, pro, embedded, enterprise, and Media Center so far.
The home user would only know the existance of Home, Pro and Media Center, whose’s edition names pretty much tell what market they are targeting.
Plus, Media Center is only available to OEMs – that’s right, no retail packs.
BeOS is the proof that it is possible. (Okay, go ahead, someone flame me for referring to BeOS or flame BeOS for failing and totally miss the point I am making.)
BeOS wasn’t fully competenize. Sure, you can replace components, but you recieve no help from Be. You could do the same for Windows. You can delete IE, and use Litestep, for all I care.
>>These are the global market numbers. US market is getting more and more irrelevant, while EU’s market is already irrevelant.<<
So who’s relevant? Of course I still don’t care about marketshare (hey that rhymes:-)
Windows XP Media Center Edition was brought to you today by the letters O, E, and M! That seems to be what it is intended for, not really for people to actually buy. That’s all for now.
–JM
“It is a version of Windows with a UI that is suitable for TV screens. It is meant to replace your VCR”
Uh, a $1500 PC is not going to replace *any* VCR any time soon. Or even sell a fraction of that market size. Why can’t people do the math and look at the market?
“and this is especially useful if you have a HDTV. This in no way replaces Home Edition.”
Tell me how it is useful for my HDTV. Does it have HDCP over DVI support? Does it do ATSC demod? Does it have component outputs? Does it have a PSIP decoder? Does it timeshift HD and output 1080i? What VSB demod does it use? Can I take the signal and pass it out to a DVHS box over firewire? I will bet you that the boards I have now beat out whatever this has to offer. Namely a MyHD and AccessDTV board. Top of the line for $200-250.
See, you can build your own HD tuner using one of these and a $500 cubePC. And you’re at half the price of this new M$ system, apparently.
And news flash, it still won’t own the HD market because it a. can’t receive directv HDNet (you can buy a DTV HD STB for $700 tops anyway) or E* (RCA in the same range *with* an RF output) b. is twice to three times the price of any ATSC decoder box out there.
Thank you drive through!
Dang, that was more acronyms than necessary for one post. Is there an “current and future HDTV tech guide for clueless” out there? I mean, I understood about half of them, but gawd.
Anywho, wait for version 3.x. following the tradition of MS platform releases it will be actually useful then, and get better afterwards, and they’ll be loading it on very high end set-top boxes that do that stuff.
–JM.
Uh, a $1500 PC is not going to replace *any* VCR any time soon. Or even sell a fraction of that market size. Why can’t people do the math and look at the market?
I NEVER once said it would be successful. I NEVER once said people would buy it.
I just said that’s is their target market. Not retail boxes, not PCs that pee at the sight of an Mac, NO!
If it isn’t useful for you, DON’T BUY IT. My point wasn’t that it would be successful, my point it that it isn’t a mac copycat.
gawd. talk about a hdtv geek….
That has been their thing for years. They never ever get it right the first time and they continue to try and try and try until they get it right. They will spend millions into anything they beleive can make them money. And they will get it done right eventually. Hopefully someone else will get it done better before MS.
True, true. There is one company that could beat this, I forgot their name. I remember they getting awards like Best of the Show blah blah blah as a setup box. Never did work out.
Besides, I don’t think there is a mainstream market for this kind of device. I don’t think the PC would be the hub of the digital lifestyle. (Because I’m planning to enter this market as soon as I finish my education, get some business experience and get venture capital for it).