Login:
Password:

EU: Remove Media Player from Windows

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

December 22, 2004, 11:46 AM

A European court has denied Microsoft's request to suspend antitrust remedies levied by the EU last March, ordering the company to immediately ship a version of Windows without its bundled media player. The WMP-free versions of Windows XP Home and Professional will tentatively go by the moniker "Reduced Media Edition," BetaNews has learned.

The new Windows XP RME will ship to European OEMs in January and make its way to retail outlets by February. Pricing will remain the same as current Windows XP editions, Microsoft says.

As part of the ruling, Microsoft must also begin licensing communications protocols from its Windows Server line to third parties. The company is expected to establish a Web site Wednesday for this purpose.

Microsoft was granted an initial stay of the remedies last June, but European Court of First Instance judge Bo Vesterdorf said that Microsoft failed to prove its claim of impending harm. "The evidence adduced by Microsoft is not sufficient to show that implementation of the remedies imposed by the Commission might cause serious and irreparable damage," the court said in a statement.

Microsoft has not yet decided if it will appeal the ruling, but noted the court agreed Redmond's arguments were "well-founded" and that it could win in a full appeal.

"While we had hoped that the Court would suspend some or all of the remedies in the case, we are encouraged that the Court has recognized that Microsoft has a number of powerful arguments that must be considered in the full appeal," the company said in a statement.

"We believe that the code removal remedy, obliging Microsoft to release a degraded version of the Windows operating system, will be harmful to consumers and competition and undermines the technology integration that has been the backbone of the IT revolution over the past 3 decades," Microsoft said.

Add a Comment (43 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By maxgagnon

edited Sep 30, 2005 - 5:30 PM

I need help removing windows media player. When I try to empty the trash it tells me that the HTM element is in use and that it can't empty the trash.

Score: 0

By doanket

edited Aug 4, 2005 - 9:29 PM

how do I remove windows media play 10

Score: 0

By madco

edited Dec 28, 2004 - 5:42 AM

I agree with Pete said down near the bottom.

I also work in the industry, 22 years worth as a network designer and consultant. And I tend to leave some critical comments from time to time, as you will see below.

But, as I read a lot of these threads all over the internet, I realize more and more that each and every computer is as different as a finger print. And, each and every user is just as different. That makes an infinate combinations of hardware and software to be supported.

Most of the people that seem to complain about MS are either Apple ministers or people who have enough experience to be dangerous. No offense is meant towards anyone, but, I have met a lot college grads in this field who don't know their butt from page 8.

Computers are meant to be fun to use. And with a little loving care, they are.

For the techie in us, you can choose from the tens of thousands of applications available for Windows and all the hardware you can dream of. For the novice amoung us, Windows works all by itself, right out of the box.

For those removing IE. Shame on you. You cann't get your security updates properly without it.

Also, RealPlayer10 is not supported in Firefox or Opera and neither are a lot of online security schemes, i.e. my MasterCard Bank and my merchant account vendor so I can take credit cards.

One last thing. Do we have to blame MS for everything? They are at fault for a lot but not all the problems we have with our computers, i.e. the infinate combinations I mentioned above. And take a look at this link, http://www.securityfocus.com/bid. Choose from the hundreds of software vendors in the dropdown. You can get an idea of how many security holes are opened in the OS by the software makers. Kind of interesting.

So goes the world. And so goes this thread. Enjoy.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

edited Dec 27, 2004 - 6:05 AM

To those that say MS should put whatever software they want in Windows, I disagree. Would you agree that they should be able to put tracking software in your MS Documents?

You probably think that comment is outragous, and that MS would never do bad things like that...
http://www.theregister.c...bles_word_privacy_scare/

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 27, 2004 - 4:16 PM

Technically you are correct, though I would call it more of a vulnerability than purposely imbeded software. I'm actually surprised you didn't mention the "tracking cookies" that specifically come with Windows Media Player, or hyperlinks to download the (in)famous Alexa adware. I hardley find tracking cookies to be a serious problem. If I did, I would never go to betanews as they have many, many tracking cookies (vibrantmedia.com, adtech.de, ad.doubleclick.net, netshelter.net, atdmt.com, to name a few).

I understand anti-MS, really. They control most of the computer market, so they CAN raise prices out of spite or greed and still compete. Heck, Windows may even fit the definition of a virus (it slows your computer, spreads accross networks, etc.), but people are still buying it. Granted, if MS decided to put a hidden ability to steal your identity or something, that would be a big deal, but why would they do that? If you don't like ms, don't support them...but tracking cookies have little to do with the subject in this forum anyway.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Dec 29, 2004 - 8:13 PM

You are the one that brought up tracking cookies lol. The point was that people think that MS Should be allowed to install whatever they want in their OS. Which is a bad idea. Though it might be a hasstle, I think OS's should be bare bones, just an OS. If they want to make other programs then have at it, but you should get programs separately

Score: 0

By jestempies

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 9:29 AM

I think we'll all agree, that a completely free market could prove dangerous -- if North Korea or Iraq could easily and freely buy nuclear weapons, or if anyone could buy anthrax off a street vendor for example. We place restrictions on the free market (which I think should be as few and as narrow as possible) to accomodate for certain dangers.

One of the dangers of free market lays in monopolies. I think it's reasonable to assume, that if OPEC countries decided to raise the prices for crude oil threefold, many strong economies could easily collapse, including those of the US and EU.

Microsoft isn't just any OS software vendor -- it's the leading one, and one leading by an enormous margin, exceeding 90% of the desktop market. For most practical application this equates with a monopoly.

A monopoly (as in "all power in one hands") is inherently dangerous. There are of course reasonable alternatives to using Windows (MacOS and Linux, et al.) but again, if Microsoft decided to make it very difficult for all it's users to continue using it -- as easy as not releasing patches for the next bugs found in Windows OS -- millions of people around the world could face an imminent threat to their way of life. That is why we regulate the markets.

Of course, this regulation is not perfect. I for one would rather opt for Microsoft to include competing products with its OS and offering the user a choice at installation -- "Would you like the IE browser, or Firefox? Do you prefere WMP or iTunes?" -- but that would also present us with dozens of problems, one of which would be choosing the products to bundle, and the ones to leave out.

While I agree that users can download and use alternative browsers and media players, Microsoft should be controlled. If not, they could gradually make it virtually impossible for other companies to create alternative applications. Not releasing the full API to Windows allowed them to grant Office and Outlook functionalities that other vendors were unable to use. Was that fair?

Yeah, yeah, I know, the world isn't fair and we have to live with it. But we've created whole civilisations trying to change that. Remember, there's nothing inherent in a murder that results in me being locked up in prison. It's an idea we've made up to make the world a bit more fair. It's idealistic, but it works.

So while I think we'll all agree that the EU-Microsoft decision was far from perfect, it's the best we've got for now.

Score: 0

By Shadow Rider

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 10:09 AM

Um, Iraq didn't want to build weapons of mass destruction under Saddam, you shouldn't have typed the rest of your long pointless argument without checking the facts of your first line. Imbecile.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 12:27 PM

I agree with most of the argument. It is far from perfect, but I still believe it was 'less perfect' to restrict MS. Has anyone ever noticed that the economy slows every time MS is sued? Look at all the money they make--yes, a monopoly, but if that monopoly collapses, it COULD cause very, very serious economic decline. (I'm ignoring that last rude comment, Shadow Rider)

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Dec 27, 2004 - 5:27 AM

money money money, there should be less of it and less desire for it, let the economy fall. Microsoft has to know what they are doing is wrong and they probably just hope there isn't a lawsuit coming because of it. For example, my Manager uses Star Office, and needed to install M$ Office 2003. After installing office '03, his Star Office would error on opening. He simply re-named the binary too "winoffice" and it opened right up! I sense another law suit coming up.

M$ should be forced to be more compatible with other operating systems too. For example a dual boot with linux on the same hard drive, It would be nice to access linux partitions from windows. It would also be nice not to lose non FAT/NTFS partitions due to the twice-a-year necessity to reinstall windows.

Score: 0

By madco

posted Dec 28, 2004 - 4:09 AM

Hi spiffyjeff,

Should Apple OS X be forced to be compatible with Windows? How about Red Hat? Why should MS be the only one to be forced to comply.

Do HP power supplies fit in eMachine computers? Why not? I can keep going on.

I don't know what your background is, but, you can dual boot Linux and Windows on the same hard disk if you have enough room. And there are tools to allow you to share the file formats back and forth.

Heck, you could boot both Windows and Linux at the same time and network the OSes together! All on the same drive on the same machine if you wanted to!

Also, I have 7 computers, 6 running various flavors of Windows. I have not had to re-install an OS in at least 3 years on work related computers. Goofing around machines is a different story.

Your computers must be goofing around machines if you need to reinstall Windows twice per year.

The 7th machine is openBSD.

Score: 0

By ch0jin

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 5:26 AM

Someone should tell the EU that IE is also a risk for the costumers and that MS should make it optional to there Operating System.
regards

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Dec 27, 2004 - 5:37 AM

That would be hard, seeming how IE is used when you open up a directory. I know where you're coming from though. As mentioned above (after this message was posted) It would be nice to include alternatives but then the question is which to include. I would rather have it not install IE by default and have an option to install IE if I want. ActiveX should also be completely removed, and downloadable if desired. Along with being more secure against those evil sites that install crap.

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 2:19 PM

I'm sick and tired of Microsoft including everything under the sun in their OS. It needs to be a nice clean 600MB install. No need for all the bloat. I can add what I want when I want it.

Score: 0

By madco

posted Dec 28, 2004 - 4:18 AM

You should be glad you don't use an Apple. OS-X also includes everything under the sun just like MS.

How about using Lindows?

Score: 0

By yohimbe9

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 1:56 PM

anyone want to place any bets on there being a shortcut on the desktop to "Get Windows Media Player Free"?

anyway, like the other posts, this is completely stupid.

Score: 0

By dammit_I_changed

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 5:05 PM

And why the hell not?

Most ISP link you to there Home page (normally selling somthing from faster access to there shops)

Mircosoft as much as we ALL hate them HAVE done a lot for IT, without them there would be 25-30 different companies, business use would make ALL products cost too much for a lot of small businesses to either start or grow.

So if they wanna promote there own software let them, it may not be the best or fastest there is but the world is not dumb they WILL make up there own mind even if it means using WMP 1st they will still try others as that is the way humans work (and the reason PC's outdate faster then they are made), we always look to better outself, AOL, Adobe, M&S, TV channels, Films, Beer companies, and all the main companies do it so either ban ALL ads or don't stop MS for doing something that gives us all a right to see and make make our own mind up about a product or service.

Or we'll all end up like robots

Score: 0

By Pixelsmack

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 12:52 PM

You know, I understand people hate MS. I know other vendors find it unfair that they cannot make software that can penetrate Microsoft's market because of simalar applications already in Windows. I say...write better software!

If you write something that has features and benefits above and beyond what MS offers in Windows, people will buy it! DUH!

These court rulings are for the companies that only strive to release what is already in there. To keep their product at the minimum bar.

I can't believe we live in an era where courts can say "remove features and integration from your software!". THAT IS RETARDED!

What's next? Forced to remove it's file search tools because it's not fair to third party vendors search tools? Oh wait...Google Desktop Search is actually written well and people ARE USING IT even though Windows has built in search already! HOW ABOUT THAT!

I know, Windows should just become a naked base application that just presents you with a desktop. Start menu, task bar, folder view and other features will only be available from thrid parties....sorry!

Kicking out Media Player, Internet Explorer, and who knows what else is just so, "1984".

This punishing of feature rich programming is plain and simply WRONG. Even if Windows and all it's tools were FREE, so what? People don't have to use it if they don't want. We live in a Windows world because people chose this to be so long ago and have maintained it.

And it's NOT just a Windows world. Enough people have spoken up and spent more time being consumers instead of crying and filing court cases that Apple's market share continues to grow! See, you CAN makea difference!

Microsoft should make a public statement when ever these court rulings happen. It should read....."Hey Judge? F U!".

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 8:14 PM

I agree. Unfortunately that's not how Fair Competition laws work - you see, although the "If you write something that has features and benefits above and beyond what MS offers in Windows, people will buy it! DUH!" argument makes perfect sense, you have to remember it's only FAIR in a level playing field. Of course ISV's should stop complaining and release more-featured software than MS, but a massive amount of home Windows customers don't go looking for anything and choose "the best" out there, they use what they're given. The sad thing is, BECAUSE they use what they're given, they're likely to think Media Player, say, is 'all there is' to digital media, so they don't *know about* other features that might make them go out and look for better software :(

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Dec 27, 2004 - 7:03 PM

So what are you saying? Are you saying that people are to stupid to make an informed decision? I would agree with that. The law suit tells you that. Are you saying that people should use Real Player (as if anyone is really that stupid)? I still use Roxio's EZ CD 5 on my Windows XP Pro. It works just fine without the extra junk I don't use. When you installed win9x you picked what you wanted. If anything that is all MS should have to do it give people the choice, not take it away. >>posted by outofcoffee: "The sad thing is, BECAUSE they use what they're given, they're likely to think Media Player, say, is 'all there is' to digital media, so they don't *know about* other features that might make them go out and look for better software :(" If you go out and buy a junk car and the review all say that is sucks, thats your problem and your are the one at fault! Goodnight.

Score: 0

By madco

posted Dec 28, 2004 - 4:47 AM

People aren't stupid. They weren't born knowing this stuff either.

Of all the people you know, how many of them know how a refrigerator works. Not many i'm sure. So, why should general consumers know how a computer works and what software works better than another if what comes with the OS works fine when they plug the computer in?

That is exactly what happens in the general consumer's home when they get a computer. They plug it in and use it.

Oh, how silly of me. That's what the suit is about. Breaking Windows.

When an non-technical consumer trys to install some piece of software that they know nothing about, they crap up the OS.

Then they call a tech who charges them to fix it. Then they decide they hate MS. Even though it worked fine when they first pluggged it in!

If the general consumer, who does not know how a refrigerator works, had to choose browsers, email clients, music players, etc., they would be messing up the computers all the time. And, in turn, hate MS even more.

So, some OS companies, i.e. MS and Apple, sell them the whole thing so they can just plug it in.

Score: 0

By dammit_I_changed

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 4:55 PM

I agree 100%. After Using MS prducts since DOS 5.0 I can't see what ALL the problems are with Mircosoft adding there products to THERE os.

Personally I HATE WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER and don't use it, BUT if I could write better software I won't want people to rip my products just coz they don't like it.

If this was a car people wouldn't sue them, ie, Vauxhall wouldn't sue Ford coz the car has a Ford Gear Stick or ford Radio in it so why is it seemed to be OK that we expect Mircosoft not to add there extras in it?

There are 1,000's of different verisons that do the same thing from Windows, Linux, Mac and some i386 based products there is a chose now so why blaim MS for them using there own products?

Score: 0

By dkratter

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 1:56 PM

This is what happens when you let Europeans make decisions. ;) Their Socialist points of view are so foolish and misguided, and help no one.

Score: 0

By shannon853

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 3:04 PM

first lets look at microsoft putting anything they make in their main product os windows. why not? hell they made it, own it and have a right to package it anyway they want. tell ford or gm not to put an engine in their cars made by them. unfair compation because others dont have a chance to compete? b.s. the old arguement netscape didnt have a chance because i.e. was in windows didnt stand up because one could install netscape and set it as default browser. momopoly? no, just plain good marketing. when a company doesnot have the right to put in its products what they want to make what they feel is a better product, and by another country, tennery exists. if i were gates, i would revoke every license for europe and tell the court to go to hell. then sue all europe for license violations. it probly would shut down more then 1/2 europe

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 8:09 PM

Go to bed. I'm pro-MS as far as the case for leaving them to choose what they put in their OS -- it's their product after all, but for Christ's sake, go dribble your "This is what happens when you let Europeans make decisions" rubbish somewhere else, Jeez, Americans might be reading :p

Score: 0

By sst

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 10:11 AM

It's not that MS includes MediaPlayer, IE, ImageViewer etc., it's how it is done!
Using the car analogy;
The 'Microsoft Wx auto' uses MS windshield washer fluid ( in a convenient container), You may use any fluid if ->
+ Hire a mechanic to replace the washer system
OR
- Get a can of MS fluid, and use it
- Cut hole in can to refill with generic fluid
- Check that cut doesn't release ink
- Now fill car's fluid reservoir
( I am aware that printers do this, but a printer is not marketed as a general pupose interface to all your needs.)
If Microsoft starts to market Windows as an application interface for Microsoft tools, they can do what they want. As long as they claim to be a general purpose operating system, they have to remain general purpose. And not a closed system, with impediments to any alteration that allows "better" use.

Score: 0

By madco

posted Dec 28, 2004 - 4:55 AM

That was a real bad analogy. If you don't like the product just say so and use something else, like an Apple.

Oh, you would have the same complaints about it except the analogy would be different.

Lindows!

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Dec 27, 2004 - 7:12 PM

"Re: This is so bad, I hate this! Crying sobs!

posted by sst
Dec 23, 2004 - 10:11 AM

It's not that MS includes MediaPlayer, IE, ImageViewer etc., it's how it is done!
Using the car analogy;
The 'Microsoft Wx auto' uses MS windshield washer fluid ( in a convenient container), You may use any fluid if ->
+ Hire a mechanic to replace the washer system
OR
- Get a can of MS fluid, and use it
- Cut hole in can to refill with generic fluid
- Check that cut doesn't release ink
- Now fill car's fluid reservoir
( I am aware that printers do this, but a printer is not marketed as a general pupose interface to all your needs.)
If Microsoft starts to market Windows as an application interface for Microsoft tools, they can do what they want. As long as they claim to be a general purpose operating system, they have to remain general purpose. And not a closed system, with impediments to any alteration that allows "better" use. "

You are just retarded. You can get so many different programs to replace most of the "add-ins" that MS bundles in your OS for free. Second, almost every program comes with a installer made for the worlds stupidest people to use problem free, so that you don't have to "Hire a mechanic to replace the washer system"... I am not even going to comment on the rest it's a waist of time.

Score: 0

By shannon853

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 3:10 PM

eu court and users too dumb to click start, control panel then add remove programs then click remove windows components. un check media player. player will be removed. same with ie and other things unwanted. eu court should be sued for stupidity.

Score: 0

By madco

posted Dec 28, 2004 - 4:59 AM

Not!

Your procedure is correct but your are only removing the interface for those products. They are still on your computer because things like IE are required for the OS to boot.

Windows XP is IE in sheeps clothing.

Score: 0

By jasonlim88

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 7:02 PM

yea... ms did nothing wrong

Score: 0

By Maestr0

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 1:25 PM

Wow. One of the smartest and most level-headed posts I've seen on this board.

Couldn't agree more.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 1:09 PM

Amen all the way. If Mozilla corp. made an OS, would they not bundle FireFox and/or Mozilla on it? Sholud MS be banned from selling Windows, since Unix invented file folders? This is BS.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 8:11 PM

I think the problem is more that they not only bundle these arguably inferior products (IE, WMP) but it's that you can't remove them. Borrowing the previous example, what happens if you Ford had a gearstick that couldn't be removed? Would you be a little bit annoyed that you couldn't replace it with a better model?

For me, Windows has waaaay too much bloatware shipped with it. And it really annoys me that I have to have two browsers, two media players, two of everything because Microsoft has integrated these products so they can't be removed. All I can say is 'Thank god for n-Lite'. The best way of creating Windows the way you like it.

Ultimately this is what Microsoft should do. Give you the option during install to not add the crap to you fresh install. Uncheck IE, OE, WMP, Security Centre, etc. Wouldn't we all like a little more choice?

Score: 0

By madco

posted Dec 28, 2004 - 5:06 AM

Yep, your right. Scrub that machine down.

Did you know that after you run nLite the IE core is still on your computer? The .dll files remain because the OS needs them to render the GUI.

Also, you appear to be somewhat technically inclined. Do you also know that more than 75% of consumer users don't know a hill of beans what your are talking about?

So, therefore, the two best known OSes bloat the OS with their products so the computer is plug and play for these customers.

BTW, the OSes are Windows and OS-X.

Score: 0

By Pixelsmack

posted Dec 22, 2004 - 9:30 PM

I must address the comments in disagreement with my post as I do, at heart, agree with your reasons.

Yes it is full of BLOAT. But to be told by a judge what you can and cannot have in your software is the key issue. It is not that MS products are filled with inferior bloatware.

I also agree that most components should be optional on install.

However, that diffuses the issue at hand; a judge or commision telling YOU what you can put in YOUR product.

Score: 0

By yuppysniff21

edited Dec 23, 2004 - 4:52 AM

I don't believe its fair for the court to refuse this software program in xp. Your all right in saying they can put what ever they like in there OS.

But it think what the euro's are trying to do is let some people like us in this post, get our programs off the ground offer something else apart from Microsoft. And maybe creating our own (cheap)OS
Microsoft are hoarding all the resources and IT market which is bad! Once overpower the market they can charge what ever they want for anything they have!! thus making us POUND/ DOLLER signs to them. Think!! they don't give a sh*t now do you think they will give a sh*t when they own everything?

Listen and read up on businesses take overs ppl.
I mean you americans have seen loads of business takeovers in the US look at wallmart for instance there now over here in the UK as ASDA superstores

Microsoft have got the money now to create and do anything they want within a couple of weeks.
Stop thinking microsoft! Bill gates is far to rich!! I mean WTF is he going to do with the billions he's got? Come on what would anyone spend that kind of money on??? Ahhhhhhhh a country!!

Its the end of the world ppl!!!!!!!!

Rofl !

I HATE MICROSOFT!
Linux OS's all the way

Anyway!! to the point of the post.

They should as stated above make a basic windows install so we can add our own programs that we want on our PC's.
Compare this...
example..
You want to buy a car you go down to your local garage, you look at the car priced 7k as standard guy comes over to you "want it?" ... "yes". You go to the check out "thats 14k please" ... "14k?? its labeled up as 7k??"

"well sir it comes with heated seats,heated screen ,heated wing mirrors,heated back screen,LCD speedo's,gold stering wheel, auto pilot, wings, personel polophonic horne" lol

you dont have the choice to take anything away at a reduced cost you have to buy it as it is. This is my point, we do not have a choice its microsoft ramming there software down our throat.

Score: 0

By mukerjee

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 6:52 AM

Seriously the ruling makes no sense. I myself am not too much of a Microsoft freak but what i dont understand is, no one is forcing you to buy microsoft product then why cry over competition.

As far as Media player is concerned, I mean by removing Media player will the price of OS reduce? If it does then remove, but if it doesnot , I dont see the harm. As far as bloat is concerned, at the present day is hard disc space really a concern ? Average user has minimum 30-40 GB and most high end users (who do download other softwares like winamp etc) have way above 80GB hdd space. So where is the harm of having another 10-12MB on disc? Moreover media player 10 is infact a great player and many of the so called "tech guys" also use that these days.

As far as Linux is concerned, Microsoft didnot ask Linux not to come to its competition, but till they can, I guess as a "buisness" I dont see any harm in what microsoft bundles. Any version of Linux that you buy comes bundled with browser/media player etc so where is Microsoft wrong in doing that?

Coming to the last example of the car. That example would be definitely right if media player was with a charge. It is freely downloadable and till a day it is free, Microsoft has every rights to put there own software in there developed OS.

Score: 0

By peferling

posted Dec 23, 2004 - 9:52 AM

Sorry folks. Microsoft gets the job done. As a multimedia developer whom releasing many corporate interactive and training programs on CD, windows media player wins.

First, encoded video clips are 1/10th the size of a comparable mpeg1, and vastly better even at full screen resolution. Sure there is divx, but the media player and encoding tools are free and already installed on the vast majority of PCs out there.

Second, our IT folks were happy when we selected the MS Media player as the defacto standard, it has the fastest and least intrusive install when compared to finicky quicktime and 'twenty questions before we begin' real player (and you thought MS Media Player takes over your machine). Using the Media Player helps our in IT department implement lock-down standards corporate wide. This translates into less down time and abuse on corporate PCs.

Thirdly, in the real world, when given the choice, not once have I nor our customer service depart received a request for a real or quicktime version of our media. In fact, our install playback issues have drastically fallen off since we've switched to the media player.

Finally, microsoft has to model their OS in considering for the minimum spec: the adverage user whom knows nothing about computers. Your grandmother, for instance. I would be most upset if my new pc came installed and not ready to play the video clips of the grandchildren. I could care less what the video player was, only that when I inserted the CD, or clicked on the file it simply worked.

I believe the real issue is choice with more knowleadeable users, and providing a clean uninstall via the control panel should suffice.

I am not a great fan of microsoft. I refuse to use IE, and use firefox instead for instance. Otherwise, I feel that MS has done a good job with the media player.

Pete

Score: 0

By madco

posted Dec 28, 2004 - 5:15 AM

Here here.

Well said Pete. I agree 100%

Score: 0

By rpavl

edited Dec 24, 2004 - 11:37 AM

Hate to be the outsider, but folks face it, without Microsoft you wouldn't be here whining and crying over a software program you want to complain about...so be happy you have the opportunity.
Personally, I only use software that fits my needs regardless of its code, source, or developer. Microsoft has made my like easier and more enjoyable, why would I complain? Get a life.

Score: 0

By blckshp

posted Dec 26, 2004 - 6:41 PM

Okay, so you guys keep using cars as an example, and being the gearhead, computer freak that I am, let me shoot some holes in that theory. Yeah, you can buy stripped down models of cars, but you can't go to the autoparts store and by just any part to put in there. It has to be made to fit that specific model with the right screws to attach it and the right wires to make it run. It's the same thing in the software world. And auto manufacturers don't make cars to use the same parts from year to year either, so quit yer complaining about having to upgrade.

I agree about being able to install the accessories that you would like to install, but I can't buy a Chrysler Hemi with a third party Mass air flow sensor installed, just because I don't want to have to take the old one off.

MS should be allowed to make their software as General Purpose as they would like. Yes, they are an OS, but if they want to add components, they should be allowed to. And what you people claim as them leaving pieces behind, are actually the API's that most third party software programmers need to run their software.

Going back to the Car Scenario, or any other manufactured product for that matter, if you replace an original part with any third party part, you void your warranty, and you have to pay for support. Hmmm I could just hear you scream now if Microsoft stated that they would not post any hotfixes or patches to anyone who installed third party apps in their OS. Same difference!

Score: 0

By Doctordb

edited Nov 12, 2005 - 4:59 PM

To Madco:

I think you're getting a little too carried away in the self appreciation of your skills. I too am a very well seasoned geek. I will agree with you on one point. The typical user needs to cut the crap and do some learning. It's not that hard. However, Adobe Audition and Itunes, prove that integration of audio into an OS has no merit. Adobe Premier and Quicktime prove the same for video. Even the integration of IE it completely bogus. Remember way back, before Apple sold the rights to Windows to Bill Gates, we had Zmodem and PCPlus, and with a simple script, we used it to handle updates. I guess what I should have said here was that Java, Norton Antivirus, PcCillen, Quicktime, Itunes, and about 5,000 other programs have proven that Browser Integration is also not necessary for Automatic Updates. Integration is the marketing position. It makes it sound like all the headaches are taken care of for us and its the only way it can be acheived. Hogwash. What it is really all about, is LOCKOUT. It is the ability to lockout these other companies from having a chance to bring their products to market. So many of them DO write better applications than Microsoft, but due to proprietary protocols and non-standard implementations, they other companies look like halfwits. Their tactics are SO obvious, they dont belong in civil court, they belong in jail. You should read the long article at GRC.COM (the guy who wrote spinrite) about the intentional insecurities built into Windows XP, that as a guru beta tester, he FLEW to Washington to meet with several bigwigs to tell them what a horrible mistake they were making, and they squashed him. 18 Months later, with hundreds of thousands of people with injured machines, after scores of Security updates, we get to SP2, and that subtle-as-a-brick message, "Windows Can Not Verify That You Have Virus Software Installed." I had Norton Antivirus installed correctly and still got that message. (Oh, and I could click here if I wanted to make an online purchse.) Look at how they have played with W3C's HTML. They intentionally go outside the lines, intentionally break the standard in FrontPage, so that they can turn around and support it in IE, and encourage people to install "best when viewed in IE" banners. The operatin system isn't all that special really, it seems to offer so much because there are four or fives ways to do everything. If you want to change your DNS servers, you can do it on the taskbar icon, or control panel network expanion, or rightclick network places, and probably a few other ways depending on if you've switched to classic view or not. This is also what makes it so difficult for new people to learn, because each time someone helps them, god forbid over the phone, there will be a different approach in to the settings. It creates the illusion that it is incredible. But think what there really is. Dos, Xtree Gold, PcPlus, Lantastic, Soundblaster, PCTools, and the ability to change the settings in those programs, albeit, with much nicer graphics. Its corporate greed. Lock everyone out, and charge $199 for an OS or triple that, if the person wants to run apache with more than 10 ports open. (funny, the had to write code to lockdown the other ports.) Imagine buying a new stove for the kitchen and only once it was installed, you found out that you had to buy the matching pots and pans, because your old ones wouldn't work on the stove. Once you went to put the new pots and pans in your potscrubber dishwasher, it turns out that you have to buy the matching dishwasher, and then new dishes, and if you wanted to store leftovers, you'd have to get a new fridge. This is the first time this world has seen a company called Microsoft and things called computers. Kids know how to use them at the age of 2 or 3 now, to an extent, and let me tell you, when they get to be our age, it will be painfully obvious to them that this has all been a scam. To us, when we are told that if we want to view a WMV file, we must have Windows Media Installed, and if we Want Version 10, we have to be on SP2 and have Windows Genuine Advantage installed also. Remember how obvious it was when we were FORCED to rent our telephones? Well, the software industry in this country needs the same treatment that the EU gave them. If you're going to be in the business of selling electricity, you can't force people to buy your model of electric stove. If you're in the business of providing dial tone to a residence, you can't force them to rent a phone, or force them to use your long distance service, or even create an unfair advantage for yourself. I personally would LOVE to buy a copy of the RME (Reduced Marketleverage Edition). I smile everytime I think that it might someday be here. Becaue then we as customers, can "Integrate" Itunes, Firefox, and all kinds of well written apps without conflicts, *sabotage*, or scary warnings. Face it, it all started with the "hardware abstraction layer". Also, think about it, you plug your computer in, you want to get on the internet first just to make sure it works, but first and foremost, you have to agree to the statement "Always Trust Microsoft"... let me tell you, if it ever instructs you to drink the kool-aid, for God's Sakes don't!! :-)

Score: 0