Post #1,502
7/11/01 4:03:03 PM
|
Microsoft tosses a bone, will change startup, allow removal
of some "integrated" things:
[link|http://computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO62117,00.html|[link|http://computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO62117,00.html|http://computerworl...2117,00.html]]
Addison
|
Post #1,505
7/11/01 4:10:40 PM
|
Heh.
Well, even if the media doesn't realize what that ruling meant, someone at Microsoft sure did. :-)
Sort of a "let's do stuff now so the govt. look like jackasses for not settling with us" move, I think.
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #1,507
7/11/01 4:23:11 PM
|
Fear - the only aphrodisiac for Barbarians
That's all.. this is about. Motherfscking cretin bastards.
I left a 'bail-out' zIWE link to *here* in the er old- forum of this title, after an add-on to Mike's 'Icky' post ;-)
Wanna see 'em runnin so scared, they forget to grab the BMW in the parking lot, enroute to the train - steerage class, incognito because of the Crowds with Torches acomin..
|
Post #1,510
7/11/01 4:46:58 PM
|
Stop that Microsoft Barbarians stuff
It's insulting.
My ancestors were barbarians. Some of them still are. Before that first cup a' joe hits, you might even say I am one myself. Oh, yeah, we may occasionaly destroy a civilization, burn the odd monestary, villiage, city, whatever. We may even plunge a continent into a thousand years of stagnation from time to time.
But we do have a certain sense of dignity and style. And we know how to compete in an open marketplace, even if that does sometimes require a bit of sacking and pilliage.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
Post #1,512
7/11/01 4:52:41 PM
|
ObMP: Stop it! Stop it! This is getting ENTIRELY TOO SILLY!
|
Post #1,556
7/11/01 10:30:07 PM
|
Sorry: did you pay for argument? or just contradiction.
|
Post #1,541
7/11/01 9:21:48 PM
|
My apologies to Genghis, Attila, Beast of Belsen too.. :[
|
Post #1,508
7/11/01 4:23:29 PM
|
Well a
"Ok, Ok, we're sorrrrrry, we won't hit Bobby in the head with a shovel anymore" (while they have a 1X4 behind their back).
Sort of thing, I take it.
Funny thing. Ballmer didn't mention how they'd accomplish the "removal" of IE, which, as I recall, he has said, and there is testimony to the fact, that its "impossible" to remove now that its "integrated?"
Addison
|
Post #1,525
7/11/01 5:56:05 PM
|
Removal of IE
Maybe Microsoft is trying to put the [link|http://www.98lite.net|98Lite] people out of business by including a utility with the latest Windows that does the same thing? :)
Just think, who will need to buy [link|http://www.98lite.net|98Lite] if the ability to remove IE and other junk is built right into Windows? FBOG!
| "I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!" | Moe Howard |
|
Post #1,544
7/11/01 9:29:44 PM
|
Watch it! fella - that's *my* 98lite yer dissin
And My IE IS removed of course - but there's more that Shane Brooks has done than that. In er 'modularizing' some of the other detritus, you can add it in effortlessly (for that 5 min/ year you might want it) and also dejunks many directories of their referrer links and other Eye-Arsenic you thought.. would be restored if you got them out via DOS.
Besides - last thing BallyCo would want to legitimize by stealin and assimilatin - would have to be: the mere *IDEA* that you Could eliminate the Shill Links effortlessly.
A.
|
Post #1,533
7/11/01 7:08:01 PM
|
The Register doesn't have kind words for MSFT
Did you think they would?! :)
[link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/20327.html|
MS surrenders! IE not integrated with WinXP after all]
By John Lettice
Posted: 11/07/2001 at 21:55 GMT
....
And it'll apply to previous operating systems, not that previous operating systems will survive much beyond December, if Redmond has its way. Today's statement essentially (and cynically) splits Internet Explorer out from Windows again. Exquisitely, you'll recall, the very appeals court that Microsoft is now doing obeisance to is the one that ruled that Microsoft did have the right to integrate IE with Windows. If Microsoft hadn't insisted that it could do this very thing, the DoJ antitrust action might very well not have hit it with quite the enraged velocity it did. This is a very, very weird legal action, and it's getting weirder.
|
Post #1,690
7/13/01 11:25:15 AM
|
Read the release carefully
From the Reg article:
Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the Internet Explorer components of the operating system.
(Emphasis mine.)
Doesn't say it'll take it out. Just that it'll remove end-user access to it. I imagine the OS and all apps will still be able to access it.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #1,585
7/12/01 9:56:43 AM
|
My understanding is...
...that the warm, steaming heap that is IE is not "removed"; that all the OEMs can do now is exactly what users can do if they had one iota of grey matter functioning: Remove the Insecure Exposer icon from the desktop. The "integrated" Insecure Exposer is still there, just waiting for activation by your friendly neighborhood Trojan (horse).
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #1,518
7/11/01 5:34:26 PM
|
Does it get them off the hook though?
It appears to me as an outright admission of wrong-doing!
They will still have to suffer penalties for the damage their licensing schemes have caused, won't they?!
It looks like the main thing Microsoft wants is to ship XP on time?
Why is that sooo important to them?
|
Post #1,602
7/12/01 2:49:10 PM
|
No.
It appears to me as an outright admission of wrong-doing!
Doesn't matter, they've been convicted. Admission here isn't of wrong-doing, its of acceptance that they did get convicted. (And try and make some points for "conceeding".
They will still have to suffer penalties for the damage their licensing schemes have caused, won't they?!
We'll see.
The main issue is this should give the guys who want to hammer M$ more nails. They're betting it takes the hammer away.
"But look, they're being nice, they've stopped kicking the dead guy"
Addison
|
Post #1,517
7/11/01 5:22:15 PM
|
CNN's version: MSFT changes the rules
I think it's a "miracle" that all of the sudden Internet Explorer can be removed without causing the OS to implode. The Microsoft geniuses figured out a way after telling the courts it couldn't be done. Or were they lying to the courts? (:
[link|http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/07/11/technology/windows/|
MSFT changes the rules]
In wake of court ruling, software leader allows PC makers more flexibility
By Staff Writer Richard Richtmyer
July 11, 2001: 4:39 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Further signaling its willingness to settle its antitrust case with the government, software maker Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday said it will give PC manufacturers more flexibility in configuring desktop versions of its Windows operating system.
The announcement comes just two weeks after a key appeals court ruling in the company's landmark antitrust case.
In response to the ruling, which upheld a lower court's finding that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly power in desktop operating systems, the company said it will now allow PC makers licensing its operating system software the option to remove the "Start-menu" entries and icons that provide end users with access to its Internet Explorer Web browser.
Further, Microsoft said it will include Internet Explorer, which is included with its operating system software, in the "Add/Remove programs" feature in Windows XP, scheduled for release this fall. Current versions of Windows do not allow users to remove the program.
The company's announcement represents a major shift in the way it licenses its Windows operating system to computer makers. Previously, it prohibited manufacturers from changing the desktop or Start-menu in any way. Later licenses allowed manufacturers to add icons such as the one to rival Internet browser Netscape Navigator.
|
Post #1,551
7/11/01 10:14:04 PM
|
Effectively Meaningless
Now that Microsoft has 85% of the browser market, what OEM is going to take Internet Explorer off the desktop and replace it with something else. This is Microsoft's main tactic - stall until the remedy is meaningless, then accept it.
[link|www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #1,552
7/11/01 10:25:27 PM
|
We may hope.. that the court sees it, as succinctly.
|
Post #1,653
7/12/01 10:57:48 PM
|
Looks like New Mexico is the reason.
Looks like New Mexico defected. After the battle is all but won, they surrender.
[link|http://biz.yahoo.com/st/010712/27896.html|news article]
"New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid has announced a settlement with Microsoft to end her state's participation in the government's historic antitrust case against the software company."
Alex
|
