If we just nuke them they will shutup!

Amen to that :) No...really, though, who the hel* do they think they are, preventing MS from selling their own products? Is that not discrimination (er--yeah, it is Europe we're talking about here.)

You must have had to work those brain cells to come up with that tidbit.

is that everyone can do whatever they want to do.

Microsoft can bundle whatever they want in *their* OS, and the Europeans can regulate what happens in *their* market and *their* society.

If Microsoft doesn't like that, they can bloody well pick up their My Pail and My Shovel and shove off. But they won't. The money to be had is too great.

Typically I'm opposed to government regulation over things that aren't commodities, but a part of me would like to see those Europeans subvert the tyranny of Average Joe Moron who thinks IE *is* the Internet and OE *is* email. God help us all.

this is retardeded--a 5 mil. dollar fine to microsoft for not putting media player on it? what the hek are they thinking. no one cares whether there is or isnt the player-in fact almost every1 does. most streaming video-like msn or news or other places-play on media player. what in the hek is wrong with these europeans?

i totally agree-thes frikin ppl prevent microdoft and fine them 5 mill. for havin 1 good prog. on it?

microsoft is stuipid when fighting these monopoly suits what they need to do is bring a bunch of computers to the court room one with mac and the rest with all the different versions of linux and say look there is a choice out there if people dont like what we offer PICK ANOTHER OPERATING SYSTEM. nobody is forced to use windows.

I know some people will complain that ms comes preinstalled when you buy your computer but most versions of linux are free for download or pay a couple bucks for the cds it's that simple.People like windows because of the conveniences involved with it more programs easier to use ect so if you dont like what comes with it switch.

That's like saying everyone is not forced to use petrol to drive a car when they could use diesel. Get real and live in the real world.

I know i cant change my OS for serveral reasons, one including that these programs i use dont even have equivalent versions for Linux. Id be using Linux in a flash if it wasnt so limited.

MS is a joke. They still have the billion years old MSpaint that ive seen some of my "non-computer savvy" friends/relatives using. Comon! The money MS makes should manage to build just little better programs but i guess that would just crumple the profit margin.

The quality of the Windows isnt exactly following the size of the profit they make out of it.

That's like saying everyone is not forced to use petrol to drive a car when they could use diesel. Get real and live in the real world.

Here's a suggestion for you get a mac or do a search on linux oh wait by your post i take it your not intilegent enough learn how to use linux there are so many different versions of linux and open source programs for it that i can tell you i do live in the real world because atleast i can see that they're out there for almost every ms program out there an open source program for linux is out there too so get out of your hole and welcome to the real world

ur ranting about paint? whats wrong with it-and you kno-bill gates gives a ****load of $ to charity. he plans to give 95% back to society (his money) so dont have a fit about this

The real world is about freedom of choice. The topic of dicussion here is not whether or not Linux is better than Windows. I use Windows simpy because I choose to and saying that someone who doesn't use Linux is not intelligent enough to run it is highly unfair. Windows is convenient and does everything a standard user requires. The main way that Linux is better than Windows is security of servers. Are you running a server or are you simply running Linux because of a childish urge to not be running a mainstream operating system?

I am not a fan of wmp but this is just plain lunacy. Why should MS not be able to put whatever they want in windows, it's not like we have to use it. The real criminals in all these cases against MS are the prosecutors not the defendants. What ever happened to freedom? Why dont we sue KDE for including a media app in its distribution or sue MAC for incluiding all the tools needed to do computer basics. This is a joke. Maybe when we go buy a car, it should not come with an engine so we can have the freedom to buy an engine for it from another company. CRAP

i totally support that.

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't have a Lite edition it would solve allot of there legal problems.

they do-its called starter edition

http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/form/en/form2.htm

Just an idea

I see it in this comparison of 2 companies that sell GPS systems for automobiles. No government is crying foul-play when a manufacture includes its own developed GPS unit in their automobiles, when others can be purchased after-market. It is the same thing. They should grow-up and uninstall WMP if they don't like it.

On the contary, if people want WMP then they should be given the option to install it. Not uninstall it. If such a product isn't required to use Windows to it's fullest potential then why bother having it on the CD at all?
WMP does have it's perks but you can find many other media players which rival and some of which outclass it.
Would you want video editing and playing software used for accounting? No. I find it offensive when a company enforces the installation of other products when all you really want installed is the product you bought.

I think you've missed the point that the_dman was trying to make here so I'll re-iterate.

Would you buy a car for its GPS system or it's stereo? An operating system should be like a modern car with Windows being an upmarket model. If you don't like the stereo then you buy a new one and install that instead.

People say that Microsoft aren't giving other companies a chance to rival them but I think that other programs are starting to come through to the mainstream that do indeed rival Microsoft's products. Mozilla Firefox is a case in point. There are many many people using it as an alternative to Internet Explorer. I think this competition is driving Microsoft to create better products and because they can afford to pour so much money into research and development, they come out on top.

I can't understand people that resent Microsoft for this. At the end of the day, the consumer market is getting billions of dollars a year spent on developing products for their use.

"if people want WMP then they should be given the option to install it. Not uninstall it."

- Hear hear!

Why just stop at WMP? I know - why don't we say in court that people are guilty until proved innocent. Let's go the whole way and get everything in life arse about face hey?

While a lot of the readership here can tell the difference between Windows, and bundled applications, i do run into a lot of people who think that bundled software is part of Windows.

The thing is not so much a matter of bundling, but making the first choice for everyone, and then using this first-choice to co-mingle code. For example, much of the UI does not even require MS-IE: Windows 95 was usable without IE. You can use the WinNT shell on explorer as well: that is, the code is comingled.

Whether something is "free" depends on your definition of it. MSFT bundled their MS-DOS free with Windows, which means that the Windows price is set to cover the DOS versions bundled for free. This is one of the principles of the cheap tool + expensive addins (eg free razors + expensive blades).

Based on the same thing, what is the "fair cost" of MS-Word? The thing sells to students for about $200 over here, but if you're not a student, there's a $400 microsoft-profit tax slugged on top of it!

The whole thing is not about "is this free" but "what's that hook that the worm is on?". It is trying to buy repeat custom and charge the world for it.

And it is using things like the placement of WME / MSIE / etc in Windows to do this.

wait till the EU discovers mspaint in XP, then MS will have to strip it so that GIMP, PS, DRAW and PSP have a chance.

"wait till the EU discovers mspaint in XP"

Like the name "Reduced Media Version". Microsoft could come out with a 'CL Edition' ("Crippled Edition") to satisfy the Socialists in the EU !

The DataRat

I've been guilty of slating Microsoft in the past but I see absolutely no problem in their shipping their own software with Windows. This whole monopoly thing is rubbish, I think the way to 'fix' the problem would be to ship PCs without operating systems and allow the consumers to choose which OS to install by shipping it seperately. However, this would make the process of purchasing a computer more complicated and possibly more expensive for those who just want a machine at home and who aren't necassarily technically minded.

Microsoft have their monopoly because they have worked to achieve their position in the market. Forcing them to not ship their own software is, in my opinion, stupid because, as other posts have shown, once this precident is set, other companys could stand to loose out and the functionality of many day to day items could be dramatically reduced.

If a person wants to use a different media player or web browser then that is up to them, with the capacity of hard disk drives increasing every day, the windows bundled software doesn't even make a dent in most hard disks and people who store a lot of data don't, on the most part, use Windows systems.

In all I don't think forcing Microsoft to ship a version of Windows with limited functionality will make any difference to the comsumer because, no matter what they call it, it will still be seen as a limited functionality version.

I think the EU are in the wrong here, as with many things (I won't get started on them here).

If people want WMP, they can download it. Excessive bundling is bad for competition. What are most users goign to use when they install Windows, WMP because it comes with the OS and why bother downloading another media player when you have one. This way, if people want WMP they can download it and it will give other media players a look in.

Your missing MString's point. Microsoft should be able to do what they want with their own operating system. It doesn't matter if it's bad for competition. I don't see them trying to start their own operating system, raising up to the point Microsoft have set themselves on.

Your average computer user doesn't use WMP because "they already have one, so why should they get another". They use it because it's all they know, they don't realize something better is out there. If you take out WMP, they won't know what to do, or how to go out and get another player. They'll just think media can't be played on their system. Same with if IE is taken away, they'll think they have no interent.

Even though I do not use WMP, I still say leave it in there. As MString said, Microsoft gained their way into the light. Why should they have to take their own products away? People still have a choice of what they want to use, this change being made will only confuse the average computer user.

"should be able to do what they want"

Michael Jackson should have been able to do what he wanted too right? Janet should have been able to show her boobie if she wanted too right? Lemme guess, drugs should be legal, and prostitution, and rape, and murder and all that other junk too right?

We have laws for a reason, MS is breaking them they should get in trouble for it just like anyone else.

That's a good idea, but how about do something like Anaconda...let YOU chose what MS components are installed. It gives you more choice, better publicity, and the EU can finally stop complaining.

so why bother even arguing the point :)

it seems to me i remember (in the US at least) a federal court ruling that stated that microsoft's os devision and their software division had to be seperated and the court ruling stated that the used of "bundled software" like internet explorer and others had to be seperated from the main os and sold seperately.
why bring this up in this thread? simple...
[1] microsoft was under one court ruling that forbid them from doing something, MS ignored that order from the federal court.
[2] years later, microsoft was found guilty of violating the above federal court order and was heavily fined and once agaion ordered to comply... ms ignored that order and paid the fines
[3] microsoft didnt work hard to become who they are today... that was the easy part... unscrupulous business practices and deals; market flooding; supporting software piracy to the point of pirating their own software; and bullyish tactics... KEEPING the position they have now is a lot harder... fending off lawsuit after lawsuit because their past keeps coming back to haunt them...

no matter what the EU decides, ms will continue to do as they please.

And they should. People like you are jealous that your company isn't as well as MS.

Dude you are lost! A software company that OWNS it's software and never sells it should be able to do as it wishes with it's own product. It's like saying that you can't put a tin can in the trash can with a empty chip bag. It's your junk to do what you want to do with it.

people like me are jealous our company isnt doing as well as MS?

stop talking out of your a** you moron. Not everyone gauges value in monetary figures. I do have a small company I own and operate and am MORE than happy and content with my share of the market. I got to where I am not stepping on a single person or business and deal with ALL people and business on the up and up. My company operates with honesty, integrity and efficiency. we have been in operation now for close to 20 years and have NEVER had a single complaint lodged against us, never once have we disreguarded any laws, never once have we had to goi to court for our business dealings. we have consistantly shown a major profit every quarter since we have been in business. so where you come off spouting this rhetoric about me being jealous I have no idea. why would I be jealous? bill gates is under constant attack from those he stepped on to get to where he is at, bill gates has the feds watching his every move and telling him how to run his company, is the constant brunt of everyone's ire and wrath, and has yet to deliver a quality product. Meh. ya, that is the goal of everyone... to be one of the most hated men on the earth.

Adding "dude" to your comments make you sound smarter.

If you are as happy as you say then why do you cry about a company that is run better and sells great products?

If you're so happy why do you seem so upset in your post?

I am upset with anyone who pawns off substandard products and services to the unknowning public and makes money off something that should have never made it past beta testing stage.

Here's the deal. In the old days when software developers cared about actually releasing a workable product, there was 3 stages of development. [1] aplha stage, limited to development and internal testing [2] Beta stage where after the developers were pretty sure they had a serviceable product on their limited hardwar architecture, they released a copy to selected people to ascertain any hardware/software compatibility issues on a more diverse hardware structure. once that was done, then came [3] GA where after extensive testing in both alpha and beta stages, where all major bugs were fixed and most minor bugs were as well, the product was released for sale. up until the GA level, the software cost nothing other than time and effort and research and development.

MS initiated a change in all this with windows. How? bu calling the alphga stage just development, the beta stage, it called alpha, and it released a beta level product to consumers and charged them to be beta testers. Now there is nothing wrong with this provided that the end user is aware they are in a paid beta testing cycle (several companies do this but inform the user that to be part of the beta team, they must pay a fee. MS did no such thing)

Now then - here we have a few YEARS of consumers paying for a beta product that MS never truely efforts to fix and then a completely new product is released using the same philosophy and ms decries that they will no longer support the previous version (possibly because they realize how crappy the product truely is, possibly because they discoverd that the unsuspecting consumer is very gullable and easily used and manipulated.

I have a problem with ANYONE or ANY ENTIRY OR BUSINESS that profits off the ignorance of others. This in my eyes is akin to using mentally retarded people because they are so mallable; or using the term "community service" to get free labor when there are so many people unemployed and having problems paying bills. The whole philosophy of using people, in any respect makes me sick to my stomach.

and I am happy :) just that I have, and always will continue to voice my opposition to using people, as well as to the flooding of the marketplace wiuth unsafe or unstable products that should never have made it past quality control.

There used to be an old joke, years ago, about compariung windows to cars. would you want your car to be as safe and secure and stable as windows? I know that the car thieves and mechanics would. That is what it is all about.. making money off the poor unsuspecting populace for some company's lack of quality. Heck, comparing windows to a Yugo (remember those?) would be an insult to the Yugo.

I am not "crying" about anything. and as far as your saying; "a company that is run better and sells great products?" show me that company because it isnt Microsoft :)

umm no.. most communities have recycling laws and paper products go into a different trash can than tin cans :) there are laws about that :) and that means you cant do what you want with your trash.

Windows without media player shoud cost less then the version with media player installed, if not the people will buy it just like a full version and after that they must buy another media player!!!

I think wha MSFT is doing is fine if people do not want the free version of WMP then buy the striped down version of windows. It should not cost any more or any less since WMP is free to begin with. Why make the striped down version of windows without WMP cost less (THE PRODUCT IS FREE).

It should not cost less because you are paying for the OS, not the software that comes with it. Any software that comes with Windows is just accessories, not part of the OS.

I agree its a bit stupid to sell two windows versions (with and without wmp). It should be better to make wmp optional so you can install/unistall it.

It should be good to be able to unistall IE or at least let it lesser integrate it will the OS, the intergration of IE in windows is bad, it has caused a more (security) problems than solutions.

There has been more advantages to including IE & WMP with windows then there have bee disadvantages. I believe it was and still is a good idea to include a web browser and media player with the OS. If they are fosted to remove it then Apple should be fosted to remove the web browser and Media Player as well. Why isn't anyone complaing about them?????

Think about this. Media player can't be removed!
If it was easy to checkmark it out, this would be a non-issue. Redmond has the source code, the programmers, enough talent to write XP - but pays 497 million Euros. (That's half a Billion dollars). Seemingly getting rid of WMP is harder than writing Longhorn.

Actually, with the right options, there are ways to completely remove IE and wmp. Read MS's KB articles. Pain in the butt, but just so people know there IS a way.

I totally agree :)

The EU have lost the plot on this one.

MS are busting a gut making a special version of XP without WMP9, yet who is actually going to buy it?

2 boxes on the shelf, with the same selling price, 1 normal XP, the other XP without media player.

It's simply a EU p1ssing contest.

2 Boxes on the shelf is a rather stupid thing to do.. why not just have a checkbox that is by default unchecked for Media Player.. then its up to the user to install it or choose not to..

Also have an uninstall option inside windows for IE.. would it really take more than this to make the courts happy ?!

How about.. they just provide an uninstaller for Windows Media Player? It would make so much more sense that way instead of having to release this "reduced media edition".. That way people can either keep the media player or install one of their own.

EU needs to go to hell.. really. bas****s.

Agreed. This is just silly, it's not like M$ forces anyone to use WMP, it is just an option. If people don't like it they just have to download another player.

All the anti MS crap thats been going around is very annoying. I personaly do not use WMP and I have not used it in many years but it's not cuz the player is bad. Forcing it to be removed from the OS is a bit lame though MS should give an option to install it or not when the OS is first installed. I remember when Windows used to ask you what components to install but these days it does that less and less and you have to go do it after the fact.

I leave it installed and update it even tohugh I do not use it as many components of the player are required by 3rd party media players. This is the only thing I really dont like about WMP. WMP is for the most part nothing but a front end for DirectShow the same as any 3rd party DirectShow based media player and I think MS should treat it as so and ship the player without any codes and distribute there codecs in a installer of it's own. I should not have to install a huge media player just to get a couple MB worth of codecs to use in a 3rd party player.

In short... MS should not be forced to remove the program from the OS but they should change the way it is installed and give the user the choice to install only the codecs, install the codecs and the player, or to install nothing at all.

So lets be fair about this. Ask Apple to take iMovie and iTunes out of OSX.

Exactly. Heck, let's remove Explorer from Windows!

That's exactly what the US federal court ordered microsoft to do over a year ago... it's still there.. ms does what they want to

No, I meant the Explorer shell

Stop selling cars with XM radios!

And I sure wish that my Television didn't come with an HDTV tuner! Talk about the NERVE of some companies!

Bill gates this week gave $750,000,000 to africa out of his own pocket.

If this is a monopoly as you (the EU) claim then why would he GIVE his money away.

I hate Windows Media and if any MS WMP I use on the odd time I use Mplayer2(WMP6.4)

I have used Windows since 3.1 and not seen anyone else rival it.

I have used 90% of the public Linux releases, and some worked well. But not as good as a Windows system works. I love playing with PC's and everyday program my Linux box is my spare time but I will always go to Windows for the day to day use that 90% of PC users now use.

I remeber when the PC been turned in a games system problems, Now the PC is used as a games box in 75% of homes, I personally hate that but People, Games makers, and new programs look at Windows OS's as the normal home user can't/won't learn linux to play games.

If all the linux companies wanna grow which I DO wanna see then they should offer programs a system that is workable so that they don't just look at windows, It happened with Nintendo, Sega, PS so why not make it happen now?

If people but home users and the deveolopers woke up in 2 years PC's would be the BEST think on the earth as they all try to out smart each other till then...

LEAVE MS WELL ALONE.

They made PC's BIG now don't ask them to make themselves small for seeing a gap in the market, or u may as well sue Fox for not opening the Simpsons to EU writers

i completely agree with dammit_I_changed's post and couldn't have said it any better

He gives his money away so he can sleep better at night.

This is Microsoft's software, and they should be able to include or exclude any of their bundled offers as they deem fit. I thought this complaint would have been done away with by now. What next? Is Microsoft going to have to start selling their product with a "Customize Now" option? This is complete nonsense. If I were in control of Microsoft, and it were not a horrible idea business and ethics wise, I would just pull all support for and offering of any operating systmes in that area. Now we know I will never be in control of Microsoft now don't we? I just fail to understand why a company is not allowed to include their own software in their offerings. If other companies are upset by Microsoft developing and including their own software then perhaps they should make sofware that is more appealing than Microsoft's offers. Either that or they can spend the time they waste complaing about Microsoft and develope their own operating system and bundle in what they want.

"The decision, which was handed down in December, is intended to give consumers more choice as to what multimedia services they would like to use."

More choice? I thought we all had a choice in installing whatever media player or application we wanted. I didn't recall seeing anyone with a gun to my head while trying to install Winamp. This is absolutely pathetic. The EU guys who dreamt this up must be complete idiots. Do they actually think that just because WMP comes bundled that you are prohibited from installing any 3rd part apps. Get a clue. Are they fighting for RealPlayer? RealPlayer, give it up. You have sucked for an eternity. This is not the way to fight your battles. Just make a better media player and users will come. Make an inferior player, and they will look to Winamp, WMP, etc. Case closed.

technically, under the supreme court ruling, Microsoft's OS division and their software division are two seperate entities. let me explain this so the commoner can grasp what this means. it's like General motors owns cadillac, chevrolet, GMC buick, saturn and at one time a beastie called Oldsmobile. each eere seperate entities operating independantly of the others yet all under the auspices of General motors.

You didnt go to a cadillac dealer and expect to get chevrolet cars or parts, you expected to get cadillac parts and cars.

the same applies to microsoft. you dont go to their os division and expect to get some app or game, you expect to get an os. Now if there are games or apps there as options that might be fine however as long as it was not intrusively and automatically placed inside your os or right out there for all to see in front of or surrounding the os.

Go to a software store, you see windows there and you see linux there and mac os there all under the os section... under a different area away from the os's you see applications and games. this is how it should be.

It truely is just pathetic. MS is successful and making money. And the EU has seen a way of getting some of their money. And can legally do it because it sets the laws. Will the money go to all the companies that 'lost out' due to WMP being 'bundled'? Doubt it.

"Windows' multimedia features must be removed from versions sold in the EU" is not the same as "fixing Windows", as the headline implies.

On the same note, General Motors could face an EU fine if they do not 'fix' their cars by removing the in-car stereo.

Tell the EU to stick It

It's a non issue, the stereo in GM cars is uninstallable.

That's why they are uropeans, and we r americans. when they figure it out, longhorn will be here with a different player.

What about Windows Movie maker?

I'm sorry but MS created Windows, MS should be able to put whatever they want on it. It is their product. The car example was great, can I sue GM for putting in DELCO stereos? No, I went out and bought an aftermarket stereo. People just see a big company making money and what to sue them. Remember, you can switch to the open-source world. Oh yah, it doesnt hold your hand like MS, yet you still want to sue them. Welcome to the wonderful USA, and apparently EU also.

Let's be realistic. Microsoft is a monopoly. It became a monopoly due to excellent marketing, intelligent engineers, and, as always, some shady practices. However, that is not necessarily such a horrendous thing. Microsoft has the capital to put into research and development, which drives technology forward with innovative products (look at the Win 3.1 to Longhorn progression). However, they can also use that capital to buy and incorporate any newly started company with a technology that Microsoft finds appealing (they've been doing that for years). That's really the fundamental problem. When one company dominates, it has the power to stifle any new project, eventually slowing progress. So, the question of monopoly is not so black and white.
Take Apple, for example. Mac OS is such a wonderfully stable system in large part due to the fact that Apple controls most of the hardware in their computers. Mac OS doesn't have to support every half-assed hardware attempt from cheap Taiwanese card manufacturers. And yet, no one cries "monopoly" when their newest MAC comes with Apple hardware, Mac OS X, Apple iMovie, iTunes, iLife, iWorks etc. Bundling makes life simpler. Including software from the OS maker ensures compatibility. People realize that. However, more experienced users thrive on customization. I, for one, love to uninstall bundled software to make the OS "lighter". So it's a paradox with only one solution -- the OS must be designed with a "compartment" architecture in mind where each component can be freely removed without affecting stability. That, by the way, is much easier said that done. Microsoft makes the attempt in Longhorn. We'll see how that turns out.
Now we come to the question of Windows Media Player. WMP is just a front end for the Windows Media platform, which Microsoft developed and is currently advertising. I think it's idiotic to ask Microsoft to rid the OS of WMP. That will not remove the Windows Media, which actually is essential for such things as viewing WMV HD. However, you are not required to run WMP at all. Windows Media is far from dominating the multimedia market. And by the way, Microsoft simply markets WMP as a "free feature" to make the OS more enticing. There are many companies out there that advertise their player software quite effectively -- WinAMP, iTunes, etc. Firefox's marketing department did an excellent job at pulling market share away from BUNDLED Internet Explorer. So, Microsoft does not own the market. There is still opportunity for growth and healthy competition.
Also, I wonder, who benefited from Microsoft's fines? Was it the government, or the poor struggling competition that the government defends so adamantly?

Microsoft became a monopoly by riding the limits of the law, and retracting only when legal issues have been raised.

The decision to rent software was hastily reversed when it was revealed to them specifically what the price of being a landlord was.

On the other hand, however one becomes a monopoly, the rules change. Just like when you go from small business to big business.

The evidence here is that Microsoft is using one monopoly to create another. Plain and simple. The idea that Microsoft is something like Google or RedHat is plainly wrong. It has, and is willing to use (as far as legally possible), the full extent of the law to quash competition.

It is only fitting that the law should be applied.