Topic: Vista and planned obsolescence?

[FPF-DieHard]

Apple sales are going to go through the roof.  Jack, you might want to make a note of it!

I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.

Apples run great because they run great hardwars.  XP runs great on Apples with the Intel chips.   Install OS X on a $400 Walmart-special PC and let me know how well it runs.

[Nemesis]

Everything I've read says that Vista is loaded down with enough DRM that if I used it I'd be tempted to go postal at the nearest Microsoft office.

And where exactly is the bad part in all of this? 

The jail time?

[Centurus]

Everything I've read says that Vista is loaded down with enough DRM that if I used it I'd be tempted to go postal at the nearest Microsoft office.

And where exactly is the bad part in all of this? 

The jail time?

Nope.  Chances are you might get a commendation from the federal government.

[Nemesis]

The jail time?

Nope.  Chances are you might get a commendation from the federal government.

The U.S. Federal government?  The same one that had the DOJ hand Microsoft a defacto victory when convicted of being an illegal and abusive monopoly?  That federal government?  Can't agree on that.

Besides its the U.S. Federal Government and I'm Canadian.

[Nemesis]

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

To be fair a rebuttal from Microsoft though they don't actually refer directly to this article.

A conversation has cropped up since the recent publication of a paper scrutinizing how Windows handles digital rights management, especially for HD video.  I've since looped back with Dave Marsh, a Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows' handling of video, to learn from him the implications involved and to learn to what extent the paper's assertions are accurate.  The following is an article Dave has put together to address the misconceptions in the paper, followed by answers to what we expect will be the most frequent questions in the minds of our customers.  Leave us a comment to let us know what you think.  -- Nick

[Centurus]

The jail time?

Nope.  Chances are you might get a commendation from the federal government.

The U.S. Federal government?  The same one that had the DOJ hand Microsoft a defacto victory when convicted of being an illegal and abusive monopoly?  That federal government?  Can't agree on that.

Besides its the U.S. Federal Government and I'm Canadian.

Ok, the federal government, bad example.  In fact it's pretty much a bad example for just about everything.  How about this.  If you were to beat up Bill Gates, or at the very least tear down the nearest Microsoft office, if you were convicted, you'd have millions and millions of people ready to break you out.  :-D

[jualdeaux]

and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.

[Commander Maxillius]

and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.

Didn't they try that with ME?

[Centurus]

and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.

Didn't they try that with ME?

Windows ME did have one advantage that XP and now Vista doesn't have, no activation needed.  :-D

[Nemesis]

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

To be fair a rebuttal from Microsoft though they don't actually refer directly to this article.

A conversation has cropped up since the recent publication of a paper scrutinizing how Windows handles digital rights management, especially for HD video.  I've since looped back with Dave Marsh, a Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows' handling of video, to learn from him the implications involved and to learn to what extent the paper's assertions are accurate.  The following is an article Dave has put together to address the misconceptions in the paper, followed by answers to what we expect will be the most frequent questions in the minds of our customers.  Leave us a comment to let us know what you think.  -- Nick

The next stage from Gutmann against Microsoft.

In mid-January 2007, Microsoft responded to some of the points in this writeup. Some of the material was new and interesting (for example clarifying just what actually gets revoked when a driver revocation occurs), other parts seem more likely to have come from Waggener Edstrom (Microsoft's PR firm) than Program Manager Dave Marsh (The Inquirer wasn't too impressed by it either. I'll be updating the body text based on some of the clarifications, but for things that aren't directly relevant to the main text (which means the PR-spin items) I'll comment on them here. The important technical clarifications that affect the main body of the writeup are (1) exactly what happens when a driver is revoked, (2) what happens when a tilt bit triggers, and (3) which portions of the output are affected when content degradation takes place. The content- protection specifications were previously somewhat unclear about these various consequences of the protection mechanisms, so it's good to have this clarification on exactly what occurs.

Since the portions that I'll comment on here are PR-related rather than technical content, the following section is an attempt to respond directly and try and unravel the PR spin. The technical comments have been integrated into the main body of the writeup.

[jualdeaux]

Yeah. I already read that.

[Commander Maxillius]

and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.

Didn't they try that with ME?

Windows ME did have one advantage that XP and now Vista doesn't have, no activation needed.  :-D

XP and Vista don't have the "crash on boot" feature either.

[Centurus]

and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.

Didn't they try that with ME?

Windows ME did have one advantage that XP and now Vista doesn't have, no activation needed.  :-D

XP and Vista don't have the "crash on boot" feature either.

This is true.

[Nemesis]

In further news:

Rivals attack Vista as illegal under EU rules

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - A coalition of rivals charged on Friday that Microsoft Corp.'s new Vista operating system coming out next week will perpetuate practices found illegal in the European Union nearly three years ago.

The group, which includes IBM, Nokia, Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Oracle and Red Hat, said its complaints made last year are yet to be addressed just days before Vista is due for release.

"We are in the process of examining this complaint," a Commission spokesman said. ECIS disclosed on Friday that the latest additions to its complaint were made only last month, after it studied Vista.

[Nemesis]

I hesitated over posting this one, but here it is

Link to full article

Barely a week after a U.S. judge approved a landmark antitrust agreement with Microsoft, company executives were swapping e-mails suggesting Dell deserved a beating for its growing interest in Linux, according to documents filed with a state court.

But Redmond representatives said Friday that the 2002 exchange, made public this week as part of an antitrust suit unfolding in Iowa state court, only tells part of the story. They said it omits evidence that Microsoft executives were simultaneously seeking legal advice on how to ensure they were responding to such competitive threats without shirking their antitrust responsibilities.

Link to full pdf of E-Mails

Very limited quote from the PDF

Sigh... Yes. I can disagree with your statement that Dell's behaviour won't change.  If it won't change, the we should just throw in the towel and settle for 50% market share at best.  We will change Dell's behaviour by thinking through their motivations and opportunities and being very creative.

We should whack them, we should make sure they understand our value, we should do all the things you and Brian suggest.

Notice how it is stated that they will lose 50% market share if they didn't act.  They didn't lose the market share so what acts did they perform to maintain it?  Were they legal and ethical?

[Javora]

That quotes in your last post Nemesis is subject to interpretation IMHO.  The way I see it is that they are trying to promote Microsoft as much as possible without violating the court order.  I fail to see the problem with that, any company will try and promote their company as much as they can without violating the law.  Microsoft should be no different.

I don't read the second quote as Microsoft will lose 50% market share but will settle for 50% market share, quite a difference.  Note that Microsoft doesn't have 100% market share now.  The second quote also sounds like the writer is being sarcastic, and nothing in the second quote says that what they plan on doing will violate the court order.  Now if the writer said that they would do something that would violate the court order and Microsoft had actually followed through on that then I would agree.  As it is there is nothing substantial about that quote in of itself.

Now the third quote if there is something that goes beyond Microsoft legally protecting their companies interest then Microsoft needs to be sent back to court.  When I read the PDF I didn't really see anything that was suggested which would violate the court order.  "Whack" Dell is a little to vague for any court here in the U.S unless it is stated exactly what that whacking consisted of.

[Nemesis]

I take into account the other famous lines from the DOJ trial.  "Knife the baby" where they tried to get Apple to kill off their media playback software and leave that market exclusively to Microsoft.  "Cut off their air supply" where they blocked Netscape from being preinstalled on computers.  They were in the habit of using violent metaphors for destroying competitors.   That makes "Whack Dell" seem more significant than otherwise.

Consider how well Microsoft has complied with the order to stop bundling Internet Explorer.  They were after alll convicted of using the bundling as an illegal (because of the Windows monopoly) method of competing with Netscape.  Can you buy a machine without IE?  Can you uninstall IE?  If you don't configure IE does it remain inactive and inert?  Consider how long Internet Explorer was at version 6 until Firefox came along and began (and continues) to erode their market share.  Then it didn't take long for them to start talking up version 7 and cancel plans to make it Vista only.

One thing I noticed is that they claimed further E-Mails made it clear they consulted legal before doing anything - but they don't seem to have actually presented those conversations as well.  Why not?  If those E-Mail discussions cleared them why not present them as well?  The only reason I can think not to present them is if there were other things in those "supporting" E-Mails that were bad for them.  As a what if, perhaps those E-Mails supported the very negative version of "Whack Dell" and the lawyers blocked the action.

Remember that they were convicted of being an illegal abusive monopoly and ordered broken up.  The appeal still found them guilty but reduced the sentence.  They were given 5 years to document certain things for competitors.  They are now past that point and have been given a further 2 years.  In the EU they have also been convicted and heavily fined and ordered to document things once again and still have not been judged as being in compliance and been fined for being late.  They have also very harshly criticized the adviser who reviews what they have done in the EU even though they chose him.  Does this show that they have learned to comply with the law and court orders?  I don't think so.

Depending what market they are in they have up to nearly 95%.  The Home and Office Desktop is where they seem highest.  Right now the Web Browser market share is being eroded by Firefox to a significant degree, mainly because Firefox is immune to Microsofts methods.

I find it significant that Dell has always made it hard to buy a non Microsoft system and made the prices equal or higher than the Windows option.  I think it unlikely they wouldn't pass on at least some of the savings to increase their profit margins by reducing payments to Microsoft.  I think that Dell needs to subpoenaed on this to provide information on how Microsoft has tried (or not) to affect how they sell non Microsoft PCs.  Specifically the prices charged by Microsoft before during and after each time Dell has "flirted" with Linux.

Read up on Microsofts anti Linux "Get the facts" campaign.  Pay attention to those who debunk the facts in the campaign.  Look up the ad campaign they had in England where they quoted a "study" as saying that Linux cost 10 times as much to use as Windows (ignoring that they were comparing an obsolete Windows/Intel PC versus Linux on a Mainframe).   Look up their history of trying to claim Linux is "Anti-American", "Communist" and "viral".

Another one to look up is the current furor over how Microsoft has been trying to hire editors to change entries on Wikipedia that Microsoft claims are in error.  Considering how fast and loose they have played with the law and the facts do you trust them to only correct errors and not include new ones that are pro Microsoft?  I don't trust them that far.

Things like these are why I take the "Whack Dell" from a very negative perspective.  Microsoft has always demonstrated the willingness to do anything in the market to succeed and to heck with the law and ethics.

[jualdeaux]

Another one to look up is the current furor over how Microsoft has been trying to hire editors to change entries on Wikipedia that Microsoft claims are in error.  Considering how fast and loose they have played with the law and the facts do you trust them to only correct errors and not include new ones that are pro Microsoft?  I don't trust them that far.

While I pretty much agree with you on most of the above statement, I do have a small disagreement with this one. First of all, I do agree that whoever at MS came up with the idea to pay some guy to change the wiki entries was a complete idiot, even the guy who they approached said that he was to take a fair look at the posts and find any inaccuracies and change them. Nothing else.

[Nemesis]

While I pretty much agree with you on most of the above statement, I do have a small disagreement with this one. First of all, I do agree that whoever at MS came up with the idea to pay some guy to change the wiki entries was a complete idiot, even the guy who they approached said that he was to take a fair look at the posts and find any inaccuracies and change them. Nothing else.

That is what was said by the one who came forward.  Was he the only one approached?  We don't actually know.  Remember we know of it because he chose to be public with this.  Microsoft was silent about the idea.  If more were approached (as seems likely to me) who were they and what instructions were they given?  Why the sudden interest in "correcting" Wikipedia and why only on the OOXML vs ODF topic? 

Given Microsofts various deceptive comments about ODF (Open Document Format) such as it's designed for integration only with OpenOffice/StarOffice and therefore they can't be compatible (but they later sponsored a plugin that gives ODF compatibility).  Microsofts whole behaviour towards Mass.  adopting ODF and creating their own competing "standard" (all 7000 pages of it).  Given all this can we trust that he is the only such editor.  If not can we tust  that the instructions he was given are shared by the (hypothetical) others?

Microsoft is attempting to get OOXML on the ISO fast track to becoming a standard (approval or not to be decided by early Feb).  That could be derailed if conflicts within the OOXML proposal are brought forth.  The timing of this combined with attempts to get the Wiki entry changed by a "friendly" editor makes it appear that they want to cover something up.  Do they?  I don't know, only Microsoft actually does.  It appears very suspicious to me.  Only time will tell though. 

[Grim]

I think I will be sticking with XP for the foreseeable future despite the fact I’ve had my fair share of problems and gripes with XP. From what I’ve read and heard I have no desire to upgrade to Vista.