Thank you for your kind words.. I call it as I see it...

This is a free country and I will speak my mind thank you.

Why Java won't succeed:

1. An interpreted language will always be slower than native code. Speed is more critical than cross platform compatibility.

2. Cross platform compatibility is a mirage. I've never seen it work the way its advertised. The benefits are not as important as most seem to think. Especially, when for most business apps you can dictate the environment.

In my next post I will identify why the same is true for Linux.

No bashing just facts. Whether you choose to believe the truth or not.

BTW, I'm not a teenager, I'm a 34 year old project manager with over 10 years experience in the software field. I have built very large web apps that support over 1,000 cocurrent users and 1,000,000 members.

Good Day and be well...

"This is a free country and I will speak my mind thank you."

Just to be a prick =) ... I believe wendor or fewt can point you at the appropriate law which states that you in fact do NOT have a right to free speech or to speak your mind as you put it. This is a forum on the internet where you have to register and abide by the rules. This is not part of the United States of America. However feel free to speak your mind... just make it on topic if you can and try not to abuse people... your freedoms end where mine begin.

"BTW, I'm not a teenager, I'm a 34 year old project manager with over 10 years experience in the software field."

If that is in fact true, wether I believe you or not is irrelevant, I certaintly hope you don't call the members of your team complete idiots when they disagree with you!

Got to agree with chris on this one. Your "To all the microsoft haters..." post below either gives lie to your claims of who and what you are....or shows a total lack of professionalism and maturity, making me very very happy I don't do business with you.

Just installed a fresh copy of XP then Windows Update installing SP1. Nice to see no Java applets on any web pages load or prompt to install/load afterwards. Nice fat red X. Real swell for the consistency department. Good job SUN/Motz!

Too all are complete idiots... You claim that the integration of these features is a bad thing. Well, I disagree the integration makes the system better as a whole.

Get a life and get off the java, linux loser short bus...

Dear Microsoft Spokesperson,

Calling people names isn't likely to yield a nice reply back. If you feel like exercising your immaturity do it with your other teen friends who think you're cool. The fact someone has a different opinion to you does not make them wrong nor an idiot, and you telling them that they are wrong won't make it so no matter how much you say it. So I have a suggestion for you, take it however you will, if you have something of substance to say or you would like to express your opinion please do so we'd love to hear it. If on the other hand you have nothing useful to say but to call people names, keep it to yourself.

Thank you.

Unless you are a developer using Java, why do you care if Sun's Java is included or not in Windows? Personally, I don't care what version of Java windows come with. If you don't like MS Java because you are anti-MS and think everything MS is useless, then install Sun's Java. And if you still hate MS, then use Linux or Macs.

We care because it means the introduction of code into the OS over which Microsoft has no control.

If I buy the OS from Microsoft, install it, and then it crashes.....who is responsible for support? Microsoft or Sun?

How much finger pointing will occur as a result? How much harm to consumers?

And somehow you believe this hasn't been happening for years? How is this point even valid to the discussion?

How is it valid? Easy.

In the past when you bought and installed Microsoft Windows, all it contained was code supported by Microsoft. You could eliminate finger pointing by simply doing a "clean" install of the OS.

With this change that would no longer be true. A "clean" install of the OS would contain code not supported by Microsoft.

Point taken.

That a court feels it has a right to bundle 3rd party software into my OS, I should have a right to decide whether I want Sun JAVA or not, not some stupid judge on a power trip, ultimately this will hurt Microsoft, because they will have to put in 3rd party software which they cannot support, which will probably gork peoples computers on occasion, and it hurts the user, because now they are stuck with this crap on their machines.

Sun is playing crybaby, their software is such a pathetic joke, that they can't even give it away, their stock is worthless, and I guess they figure that by forcing all Windows users to install a copy, it's their last, best chance to save their business.

Do you feel insulted and b**** about Microsoft installing all their crap when you install Windows and they don't give you a choice of wether or not you want it installed?

No you don't.... funny huh!

Theres a big difference.

I chose to purchase and Install Microsoft Windows.

I did not chose to purchase or install Sun Java.

well u should...M$ tries to force u to use their crap...now $un also wants u to use their crap...why can't u just buy a stripped down os and add whatever u want...personally i would use the $un version...its just better...but the fact that M$ will treat u as a stupid person and force u to use what they want is a crime...good call by the judge...

"I chose to purchase and Install Microsoft Windows."

Exactly. However, you (I) don't just get Windows. You get Messenger, you get Media Player, etc. A lot of those programs cannot be safely removed in XP either, even according to Microsoft, due to their integration.

A stripped down version of windows would be nice i'm sure, but everything that's in there is because people asked for it. And since MS owns and makes the OS they can put whatever they want to in it, it is theirs to begin with isn't it.

I don't see any difference really then from typical linux distros which pick what packages they install when you do a normal (not and Expert or Advanced) install, the fact that you get 5+ of the samething with linux and only 1 of MS's to use makes them different. People wanted to browes the net and check e-mail, so MS put IE and OE in. if you didn't have these to start with, how could you get on the net to d/l mozilla or opera or whatever you want to use insted?

Some people might say that MS could offer you to install these when you install the OS, but MS isn't GPL, they want to make money, shen did you see Sun Offer Office or IE for Solaris? You know they never will because that would be helping the compitition wouldn't it, and who helps their own competition when money's at stake??

"Exactly. However, you (I) don't just get Windows. You get Messenger, you get Media Player, etc. A lot of those programs cannot be safely removed in XP either, even according to Microsoft, due to their integration."

Correct. Microsoft has intergrated them intot he OS. Therefore they ARE part of Windows. So I do "Just get Widnows"

Sun Java is not part of Windows.

Neither was Internet Explorer.... times change, things get included, things get integrated and yet no uninstall button is added.

Evidently you haven't paid much attention during the install (if you ever had done it), but there's options to choose the components to install. Just because you're ignorant of it, doesn't mean its not there.

Sorry my mistake, could you point me to the option where I can select wether or not I install IE or Messenger on XP?

"Correct. Microsoft has intergrated them intot he OS. Therefore they ARE part of Windows. So I do 'Just get Widnows'"

I disagree. Regardless of how they have been needlessly integrated, they are NOT part of Windows the operating system. They are applications, not integral operating system modules or components. Windows would be no less Windows if you deleted those programs.

Those are not "components", they are intergrated portions of the OS.

Kind of like asking where the option is in a Solaris install to not include IDE disk support.

"They are applications, not integral operating system modules or components."

Microsoft says differently.

Since they developed them and have the source code to them (and you do not), I'll believe their answer a lot more than yours.

Unless you do actually have the source code to them and can show that they are separate applications?

Why would an uninstall button be added? An integrated function is integrated. By definition.

So unless Sun Java becomes an integrated function of the Windows OS, I should not be forced to take it.

MSN Messenger is not integrated (yet).
And don't make me laugh, wether or not you include IE or Messenger is not the same as wether or not you include IDE disk support. I'm suprised you didn't use the example of being able to decide wether or not you install a file system! Either point to the options I have asked for or don't bother replying with silly comments.

A lot of people buy into what companies tell them and call facts. That's how people lose their nest eggs.

You can believe whatever you like. It still doesn't make you any holier than thou thinkest thou art already. :)

"MSN Messenger is not integrated (yet)"

Wrong. Microsoft now considers it to be an essential component. So forgive me for taking their word over yours.

As for your comments regarding Messenger -vs- filesystem, in this context they are exactly the same. Integrated components of the OS that the user does not have the option to install or not when the OS is installed.

You may personally disagree with what functions are and are not part of the OS, but it's not your choice. It's the OS vendor's.

But now, apparently, you support that it's not even the OS vendor's choice. Aprrarently that choice belongs to the courts and competeing vendors as well.

Ooooh, this is so difficult.

Do I believe the company that wrote and developend and supports the product. That has all of the source code to the product?

Or some guy who has no access to any of it and is just making things up off the top of his head because it's the way he "wants" it to be?

Sorry, but YOU lose.

You see, lots of people buy into what individuals with no evidence whatsoever tell them and lose their nest eggs too. It's the oldest con in the book.

So unless you have some EVIDENCE to back your claims, the rest of us will go with what the evidence does show.

Do you have problems reading? Exactly what part of the following don't you understand?

"Cullinan noted that customers are not required to do anything to meet compliance, and will always have control over what software is installed. "Even when the updated service pack includes Sun's technology, customers have the option to load or not load Sun's technology," he said. "

Ooooh, this is so giving me a rash.

"Do I believe the company that wrote and developend and supports the product. That has all of the source code to the product?"

So because they have it, you believe what they tell you? Just because they have the answers doesn't meant they're telling you the truth. Surely that's not what you implied, though. Otherwise I would have to add gullible to the list.

"Or some guy who has no access to any of it and is just making things up off the top of his head because it's the way he 'wants' it to be?"

Again, believe whatever you want. I don't remember ever saying I "wanted" anything. Nice try, though. :)

"Sorry, but YOU lose."

Wow. It's official now. You've told me. I better take my toys and go home. Thank you.

"So unless you have some EVIDENCE to back your claims, the rest of us will go with what the evidence does show."

Well I'll make you a deal. You start producing some evidence and I'll start believing you're something more than Just Another Idiot. Because I've seen none from you. Not one piece. All I've been hearing is 'Oh yeah...well I KNOW it's true because they TELL me it's true. So take that!' Amazing.

And here I started to believe you might actually have been ready to throw me a curveball and tell me how you're justifying your wild claims any more than anyone else on this message board. Good stuff. :)

"Wrong. Microsoft now considers it to be an essential component. So forgive me for taking their word over yours."

And if Microsoft told you tomorrow that SQL Server, Money, Frontpage and Visual Studio were also essential components which they were integrating into Windows, you'd take their word for that too huh? Do you think for yourself at any stage or do you just trust blindly anything MS tells you?

"You may personally disagree with what functions are and are not part of the OS, but it's not your choice. It's the OS vendor's."

It's fairly well documented what the functions of an OS are or rather what functions something has to provide for it to be defined as an operating system. These are quite clear and this definition has been around for a long time, take an engineering course if you like. As much as Microsoft may say and as much as you may want to believe, IE, Messenger etc are not core components of the OS. They can be stripped out (especially Messenger at the moment!) and the OS would still function as an OS. Just becuase Microsoft decided to integrate a browser (a seperate application to the OS) and then use it everywhere doesn't mean it has anything to do with the functions of an OS. No other OS requires a browser to be imbedded and yet they all work fine... funny that. Take Microsoft's comments with a grain of salt!

"And if Microsoft told you tomorrow that SQL Server, Money, Frontpage and Visual Studio were also essential components which they were integrating into Windows, you'd take their word for that too huh?"

Yes. It's their product and they can redesign it to include whatever they want as part of it. IF you don't like it, you can choose to not buy their product. But you have no right whatsoever to dictate what is, and what is not, part of THEIR product.

"It's fairly well documented what the functions of an OS are or rather what functions something has to provide for it to be defined as an operating system."

And nowhere are those definitons exlusive. They say what HAS to be there to be considered an OS. They do not ever say, "No OS can include any functions other than these"

"These are quite clear and this definition has been around for a long time, take an engineering course if you like."

So have the definitions of automobiles. So let me know when you get back fromt hat engineering course and are willing to concede that by your own definitions, your windshield, windows, airbags, seat belts, mirors, brakes, lights, windshield wipers, etc. are not parts of your automobile and that your car manufacturer should remove them immediately.

Real simple.

You claim one thing, they claim another.

They actually have the necessary information to back their claim. You have none.

You claim that they are lying, but can't provide any information at all to support that claim.

You can claim that the sun goes around the earth if you want to....but we'll still all believe the astronomer, who has the evidence, that says otherwise.

Sorry I obviously didn't explain myself well enough. I tried to cut things down otherwise my posts my as well be novels!

The definitions of what an OS is and more clearly the functions that something has to provide to be considered an OS are the "minimum" requirements. That is, you can fee free to add anything else you want but you have to provide those "minimum" requirements and the additional extras are just that! I'm glad you brought up the example of an automobile. A car is a car wether or not it has an airbag, seat belts, cd player, cruise control, power windows, power steering, ABS, air-conditioning etc etc etc. All those things are added extras which ... guess what ... you pay for on top. If the manufacturer removed those things you would still have a car. It would still serve the purpose of going from point A to point B. It may not be as nice to drive but believe me your car will function perfectly well without those added extras! You also mentioned the "brakes", I argue that brakes are part of the defintion of a car. If it lets you accelerate it has to allow you to stop.

Windows would be no less of an OS if it didn't have a browser and IM integrated. Earlier versions of Windows didn't have a browser imbedded, they somehow still provided the features than an OS has to. Hence proving that the browser is just an added feature to Windows. There's nothing wrong with adding it in per se but realise that it is NOT, I repeat NOT a required part of the OS no matter what Microsoft says (or rather their marketing department as I'm sure that the technical people working at Microsoft would very well tell you that it's an added extra that they've tried hard to imbed so much that it's not possible to remove it).

"You claim that they are lying, but can't provide any information at all to support that claim."

Wow. Your transcendental insight is incredible, since I still ask you why you're putting words in my mouth. Yet, you insist on doing so, regardless of what I'm actually typing. You must be a lawyer. Or at least a washout.

Was my claim that they were lying? Please, direct me to that exact statement. I'll make it really simple for you. You can even copy/paste this into your Find window: "They are lying." Did you find it? What I proposed was a question directed at you asking you whether or not you believe everything people tell you. I would hope not, but your statements lead me to believe otherwise.

The fact that you insinuate your belief in whatever they feed you makes a bold statement about your ideals and level of independent thought. Or is this just with Microsoft?

"You can claim that the sun goes around the earth if you want to....but we'll still all believe the astronomer, who has the evidence, that says otherwise."

And still...I wait for yours.

I remain your staunch admirer.

"A car is a car wether or not it has an airbag, seat belts, cd player, cruise control, power windows, power steering, ABS, air-conditioning etc etc etc. All those things are added extras which ... guess what ... you pay for on top."

Many of those are considered by the mnaufacturers to be integral parts of the car, and you can't buy that car without them.

Could *A* car be buitl without them? Sure. But it doesn't change the fact that they are part of *THAT* mdoel of car, and if you wan tot buy that car, you have to take them.

Can an OS be built that doesn't have a web browser etc? Of course it can.

But just like with the car example, they are part of THAT OS (Microsoft Windows) and if you want to buy Windows, you have to take them.

Or do you feel that the courts shoudl step in and require all car companies to offer all their models with a stripped down option that includes non of these other components? Because it isn't really fair to require OS vendors to do it and not car manufacturers, TV, VCR, DVD, stereo vendors etc.

"You also mentioned the "brakes", I argue that brakes are part of the defintion of a car. If it lets you accelerate it has to allow you to stop."

Ah, but there are many ways of slowing/stopping a car other than "brakes". So why should consumers be forced to take what you think is the best method rather than some other?

"Windows would be no less of an OS if it didn't have a browser and IM integrated."

No it wouldn't. But it wouldn't be the Windows OS.

"Earlier versions of Windows didn't have a browser imbedded, they somehow still provided the features than an OS has to."

and early cars didn't have windshields or brakes.

"There's nothing wrong with adding it in per se but realise that it is NOT, I repeat NOT a required part of the OS no matter what Microsoft says..."

It is a required part of "THE OS" (Windows) just like power brakes is a required part of a Ford Taurus. (You can't get one without it, even if you want to) It isn't a required part of ALL OS's no more than power brakes is a required part of all cars.

Why should you be able to remove it from the OS just because you want to? Why should there be an uninstall option? Is there an uninstall option for the power brakes on a Ford Taurus?

(Not picking on Ford, it was just the first car model that came to mind)

"Was my claim that they were lying?"

Yes. It was.

"Find window: "They are lying." Did you find it?"

I don't have to. It was a statement with an implied meaning that "any reasonable person" would have understood.

Your attempt to weasel out of it won't work. Had you tried it in a courtroom the judge would have slapped you down fast and your original statement (with it's implied meaning) would have remained on the record.

"'Was my claim that they were lying?'

Yes. It was."

And still, you are wrong. Persistent. Yet wrong. I did not claim they were lying. For, what, the fifth time - I asked if you believe them because it's what they told you. Take your own advice and stick to the facts. This is getting boring. Do you frequently hear the wooshing sound of points flying over your head? Or do you just miss them entirely?

"I don't have to. It was a statement with an implied meaning that 'any reasonable person' would have understood."

I find it striking that you would even use those terms with regards to your arguments. Clearly, you are not representative of that segment.

"Your attempt to weasel out of it won't work. Had you tried it in a courtroom the judge would have slapped you down fast and your original statement (with it's implied meaning) would have remained on the record."

Do you sit at home watching reruns of L.A. Law and take notes or something? That was pretty laughable. I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. I stand by every word I've said and every intent therein. And now I see that not only are you putting words in my mouth, you're also purporting to know the very words that would come out of a judge, whom is completely fabricated in your own imagination.

You know, the scary part about this whole thing is that I'm beginning to believe you are serious and actually believe what you're saying. Truly frightening.

Mice words all you want.

As far as knowing what a judge would say about it.....I do.
(you see, some of us have real world experience with these types of matters, rather than just sitting at home pretending)

The core topic was your statement "Regardless of how they have been needlessly integrated, they are NOT part of Windows the operating system. They are applications, not integral operating system modules or components. Windows would be no less Windows if you deleted those programs."

Until you can furnish some evidence or proof to support your claim, that's all it is, an unsupported claim.

Microsoft has stated the opposite and has provided evidence for such in court. (see transcript for details)

Microsoft is also the ONLY party that gets to define what the "Windows OS" is and isn't. (note that they are not defining what all OS's must contain, just defining what their specific ones contain)

You seem to claim that you have some authority to define what "Windows" is and what it isn't. What authority or knowledge do you have? Because the courts have already acknowledged that Microsoft has the right to define "Windows" as anything they want....including any components they want to.

Depending what they included, it could violate anti-trust laws and sale of that version of "Windows" could be stopped. But at no point has any court even suggested that anyone other than Microsoft has the right to define what "Windows" includes.

So on Microsoft's side of the argument we have actual evidence......on yours we have.....what?

Broken record.

That's because we are still all waiting for you to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claim:
"I disagree. Regardless of how they have been needlessly integrated, they are NOT part of Windows the operating system. They are applications, not integral operating system modules or components. Windows would be no less Windows if you deleted those programs."

You made that statement, yet have nothing to support it.

I was hoping that you had some justification for your allegation that someone other than Microsoft now has the right to define what is, and what is not, "Windows". (because the law directly contradicts your stated opinion)

"I was hoping that you had some justification for your allegation that someone other than Microsoft now has the right to define what is, and what is not, 'Windows'."

This illustrates the exact reason this discussion has gone no place fast. You've just put your fingers in your ears and started up the "la la la la la" chant of a 4 year old.

I see no valid reason to continue wasting my time with a person who can't see beyond his own nose and speaks for the sole purpose of hearing himself talk. I'm sure you'll make one final comment, since you seem like the typical "I have to have the last word" type of person. Go ahead and get it over with because this is as far as I'm going.

Interesting Exchange...
the arguement comes down to, Does MS have the right to control their product?? or does the courts??

to Innovate MS must change what the definition of an OS is inorder to make a better OS.. This may not be what you want but it's just one product and one view of what an OS is...

Now onto the Sun deal...
The whole reason why Sun objected to MS's Java was because they were taking Java calls and selected parts of Java and integrating them into their OS...
Sun's arguement was if it make a call for a Java command it should be interpreted and executed with Sun Java...

Are the Courts right or wrong?? tuff call.. wether MS stole tech from Sun is hard as well, I don't know the specifics of Sun or MS java...

to reiterate, MS has full control over their OS, they decide what kind of browser it has and it's functionality in that browser...
to use a Car analogy, the Car company chooses to use Bose radios, if you don't like Bose, you'll have to buy the car and then install your preference..
Many cars these days you are not able to order without a radio...

Wow, you sound just like fewt used to.

You throw out an allegation.....then when you are asked what evience you have to back that allegation you run in circles, tap dancing around the question.

If you have no evidence to back you allegation, but it's still your opinion, then be strong enough to stand up and say so. There's nothing wrong with that.

"Now onto the Sun deal...
The whole reason why Sun objected to MS's Java was because they were taking Java calls and selected parts of Java and integrating them into their OS...
Sun's arguement was if it make a call for a Java command it should be interpreted and executed with Sun Java..."

Whoa. Go and read the case documents. They are available from a number of sources, but Sun collected most of them here:
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/

Sun did not oject to Microsoft "...taking Java calls and selected parts of Java and integrating them into their OS..."

As a matter of fact, Microsoft did no such thing.

Microsoft created a Java Virtual Machine, just as their contract with Sun specified.

Sun objected (correctly) because while the contract allowed Microsoft to extend Java, as long as it still fully supported the Java 1.1. spec, it did not allow Microsoft to use the "Java compatible logo" (that Sun had copyrighted) once they departed from the absolutely pure Java spec.

Microsoft included the MS JVM in IE 4.0 with the "Java Compatible" logo, but had not completed the version 1.1 "Java Compatible" tests.

(for more details, see "Amended Complaint filed with the court on October 14th, 1997.")

Microsoft alleges (and they have SOME evidence for this, not a lot, but some) that Sun specifically changed the 1.1 Java Compatibility test suite with the express purpose of causing the MS JVM to fail. Supposedly the motivation was to "punish" Microsoft for their platform specific extensions (which were not prohibited by contract).

Mirosoft primarily bases that claim on statements made in e-mail by Eric Chu (Sun's Java product marketing director) including:
"If negotiation with [Microsoft] is not going well, we can possibly "enhance" the Java Test Suite to invalidate any Java implementation that doesn’t support certain desired new feature." (Exhibit SUN99-001626 from the trial)

The "desired new feature" that he referred to was JNI. JNI was listed in the Sun internal documentation and the Java 1.1 spec as an "optional secondary API", but Sun wanted to force Microsoft to include it. Tim Lindholm, a Sun Engineer, even asked the question "What do our licensing terms permit us to say about conforming to these secondary APIs? They are not part of the AAPI [applet application programming interface] which we have successfully guarded. Are we in any position to require people to support our secondary APIs whether or not they have alternatives?"
The answer was that no, the licensing terms in the contract did not allow Sun to mandate conformity to the Secondary API's. So Sun added a check for JNI to the 1.1 Java Compatibility test suite.

Thus, the "incompatibility" that Sun alleged was Microsoft's refusal to include support for JNI. Microsoft refused because it was "optional" in the spec. Sun insisted on the grounds that they "own" Java and can change the spec at any time.

The case never reached a verdict. It was finally settled by Sun and Microsoft.

Sun and Microsoft agreed to void the original contract.

Microsoft agreed to pay Sun 20 million dollars.

Sun agreed to allow Microsoft to continue shipping the 1.1.4 MS JVM until 2008.

Microsoft agreed to not use the "Java compatible" logo.

Microsoft agreed to not make any changes to the MS JVM except critical security changes, and even those they could only make up until 2004.

Both parties agreed to dismiss any and all future claims against each other related to Java and the original contract....EXCEPT that both parties held onto the right to sue the other for specific ANTITRUST related claims.

Which, of course, is why Sun has to make an antitrust argument central to any lawsuit related to Microsoft, Java, and the MS JVM.

Sun is now claiming that Microsoft violated antitrust laws when they extended Java in the MS JVM and that they were harmed (to the tune of one billion dollars) as a result.

It'll be an uphill battle for them to argue.....it it was harming them so directly....why did they participate in a court settlement specifically allowing the distribution of the MS JVM that was harming them?

Well, that's probably more information than most people ever wanted about Sun -vs- Microsoft. Sorry for the flood, I just don't like it when people state "This is what happened" and have the facts wrong.

"All this over a Plug-in"

What’s to keep the government from making it mandatory that a monitor program be placed on ALL of our machines to keep us legal?

Copyright Laws… or Homeland security...

This isn't about forcing Company A to include Company B's product in their operating system C.

This is about Microsoft breaking the law, being found guilty and walking away without even a slap on the wrist and then Sun saying "woooah hold on... They did x, y and z to try and kill java off, then they decided to bring .NET out... wherever did they get such an idea from... and pushing their technology whilst not touching java as they knew customers would come to hate a jvm that was x years old." This is about Sun demanding that something be done to "put right" what was done wrong to them in the first place.

Whoever you think is right defines what side of the fence you sit on.

Whoa, pretty good twisting/misrepresentation of the facts there chris.

"...and pushing their technology whilst not touching java as they knew customers would come to hate a jvm that was x years old."

Let's see, Microsoft did not update their JVM because Sun took them to court and as part of the settlement forced Microsoft to agree to NOT make any changes whatsoever to the MS JVM except for critical security related patches...and even those for only two years.

So the MS JVM not being updated was directly requested, granted, and caused by Sun......not by Microsoft.

"This is about Microsoft breaking the law, being found guilty and walking away without even a slap on the wrist and then Sun saying "woooah hold on..."

There has been no finding whatsoever that Microsoft damaged Sun in any way or that Microsoft's violation of thge law harmed Sun. That's what the current trial is to determine. Isn't it a little premature to order the punishment BEFORE the trial/verdict?

"They did x, y and z to try and kill java off, then they decided to bring .NET out... wherever did they get such an idea from..."

So far these are only just claims made by Sun's lawyers. The trial has not proceeded far enough for any of these to be found as "facts" by the court. Again, isn't it a little eary to order the punishment/compensation/reparation BEFORE there has been any finding of harm?

"This is about Sun demanding that something be done to "put right" what was done wrong to them in the first place."

And Sun is entitled to that IF and ONLY IF a verdict is reached at trial showing that Microsoft harmed Sun threough illegal acts. That has NOT been determined yet.

"So the MS JVM not being updated was directly requested, granted, and caused by Sun......not by Microsoft."

Completely agreee, never said otherwise, but like I mentioned... it really couldn't have worked out any better for Microsoft when Sun gave them that choice... the could look like the good guys, the ones following the agreement whilst knowing that users would be stuck on jvm 1.1 with their hatred growing about java... all whilst they could push their own solution out.

"There has been no finding whatsoever that Microsoft damaged Sun in any way or that Microsoft's violation of thge law harmed Sun. That's what the current trial is to determine. Isn't it a little premature to order the punishment BEFORE the trial/verdict?"

Once again, completely agree... never said otherwise. They were found guilty before and walked away without a slap on their wrist and Sun is claiming in this law suit that they were indeed harmed by Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly.

"So far these are only just claims made by Sun's lawyers. The trial has not proceeded far enough for any of these to be found as "facts" by the court. Again, isn't it a little eary to order the punishment/compensation/reparation BEFORE there has been any finding of harm?"

Of course these are just claims... that's all they will ever be unless someone from Microsoft comes out and admits that as being the truth! Probability of that happening is fairly low though. What's your point?

"And Sun is entitled to that IF and ONLY IF a verdict is reached at trial showing that Microsoft harmed Sun threough illegal acts. That has NOT been determined yet."

This is getting boring now. We all realise this, you're not telling us anything new, I was simply stating why Sun are going ahead with this law suit and that it isn't mearly about includeing Product A with Product B as some people automatically assume when they make comments like "ooh, I'm going to force Microsoft to include my version of notepad with Windows".

Obviously these are just claims as made by Sun and we'll have to wait until the final verdict (which will be for Microsoft... why punish them now! ).

Then how can you say that "This isn't about forcing Company A to include Company B's product in their operating system C."

All of the other things you tried to say it was depend of whether or not Sun's claims are proven true in the courts.

Until then it's just Sun demanding that Microsoft be forced to include their product in Microsoft's product.

Because a lot of people see that Sun is taking Microsoft to court to include their JVM and ratehr than going into the reasons WHY Sun is doing it or why Sun may have reasons for doing so they are ignoring all the details and assuming that this applies to any two companies and any two products, and that simply isn't the case.

"All of the other things you tried to say it was depend of whether or not Sun's claims are proven true in the courts."

I didn't try to say them I did say them. And I was only trying to explain what this case is about to 'donpacman' whom I was actually replying to.

"Until then it's just Sun demanding that Microsoft be forced to include their product in Microsoft's product."

Why do yuo keep on repeating yourself? Have I not made it clear that this is the case? I'm just pointing out what Sun's claims are. Whether they will get anywhere with those claims is another matter.

"Because a lot of people see that Sun is taking Microsoft to court to include their JVM and ratehr than going into the reasons WHY Sun is doing it or why Sun may have reasons for doing so..."

True, Sun did not file the lawsuit with the original intention of forcing Microsoft to carry their code. They filed it in an attempt to blame someone else for their own bad business choices, hoping that they could jump on the "Bad, bad, Microsoft" bandwagon and milk money out of it.

"... they are ignoring all the details and assuming that this applies to any two companies and any two products, and that simply isn't the case."

Actually, since Sun has not shown any real evidence of direct harm or intent yet, they really do still fall into the category of any other company with any other product.
Once they have shown something specific to back their claims, then maybe the case will progress into something justifiable.

... to be compliant with the true java. Now we on Linux (and other non-windows OS, also with people using other-than-ie browsers on windows) will be able to launch and work with all java on the net!

A really good news!!!

Something implicit in this ruling is rather insulting: as consumers, we're too ignorant to know which product is best.

Right now you can do download the Sun VM and it will work fine with XP. You can also not install or enable the MS VM. Legal steps should be taken to avoid MS from crippling the SVM on XP and other MS operating systems, but the forcing of the Sun VM into windows is a bit stupid.

The Judge is basicly saying "the consumer is too stupid to chose which VM is best, so we'll make it for them".

The unfortunate reality is that a great number of people are indeed unable to make a decision like this for themselves because they don't know any better. How many "average" users even know what Java is?

"The Judge is basicly saying "the consumer is too stupid to chose which VM is best, so we'll make it for them". "

And your point is?!? Wake up and smell the coffee! The consumer is ignorant and stupid! YOU may know what's best for you and what this 'Java' thing is and what it does and where to download it from and what to do with it... but your average "The internet is IE" consumer does not.

And how many care which one they use as long as it gets the job done for them? I sure don't. Why *should* they care? They have no money invested either way. Right? Or is Sun's motive to remove the free and start charging everyone for Java? Then where are you? Another monopoly, that's where!

I for one could care less which version it's using as long as it works as it should. Normally I install Sun's on my machines just because. No real valid reason. Personal preference. If I had the IBM or Blackdown version installed, it would probably suit me just fine given how much I use Java.

Hmm...

So you believe the government should decide what is best for the people without giving them a choice? That sounds like we are wandering into dangerous territory. The judge didn't say that just some people are too stupid, he ruled that all of us are too stupid.

So, what else are we too stupid to do? Too stupid to choose an elected official? Too stupid to have privacy?

"Too stupid to choose an elected official?"

Hehehe, I guess that depends on who you voted for =) But my answer to this is YES. Stupid isn't the right word in this case, ignorant and lazy are better words. Let me explain. Whenever there is an election you will always have people voting that enjoy politics, are up to date on politics, feel strongly about politics and then go out and vote. But at the same time you also have people voting that have no idea about politics or simply do not care or are not interested in politics. You also have people voting because they like someone's surname or face or whatever. Do you want your elected official to be chosen by these people? I'll give you an example, here in Australia a referrendum was held last year? 2 years ago? for us to separate from the UK and have our own "president" or similar titled person. At that stage there wasn't any decision on how this person should be selected but one of the ideas was that it should be a person voted on by the people of Australia. Several poles were done by the media here and they all just about came back with the same thing. All the older people voted for Ray Martin, a host of a tv current affair show. I'm not sure about you but I wouldn't want my enemy's country run by a tv host!

"Too stupid to have privacy?"

Nope. We're definetely not too stupid for that. We all know that we want our freedom and our privacy. But what happens when someone says something in the order of "we're going to limit your privacy or freedom just a little bit... nothing for you to worry about... but it's all in order to protect you against terrorism... it's for yuor own good". Not so clear anymore.

So getting back to the topic on hand. Are customers too stupid to pick a VM? Yes they are! Are customers too stupid to know what they want? No... they all know what they want! Are customers too stupid to know what directly benefits them right now? No.... they know exactly what will and what will not benefit them now.......
Are customers too stupid to understand the completed implications of Microsoft being able to bundle everything into Windows and imbedding it 'for the benefit of the customer' IN THE LONG RUN? ... I'll let you decide that one. Think of wether customers think into the future and how their choices may or may not change or be limited in the future... or wether they just think about right here and now.

Having used both Sun JVM and Microsoft JVM, It's excellent news for end users that Microsoft are being forced to ditch their old Java 1.1 based VM, for the "proper" java.

I can only see benefits for end users:

1/ Sun JVM is MUCH faster
2/ Sun JVM uses less resources
3/ Having only 1 JVM in circulation means better compatability (including cross platform, something Microsoft JVM is not).

If the whole point is to increase competition, whats the point of only having one VM in circulation. We've just substituted one VM for another, one monopoly for another.

The point is, having 1 JavaVM, means that Java goes back to it's cross platform roots, not the twisted single platform joke that the MS JVM was. Java programmers and applet designers had to decide if they wanted to support the common Windows VM (MS), or the most compatible cross platform VM ( Sun), of course they selected the first option, meaning that Linux/Mac users being left out in the cold. (which is what Microsoft wanted). No there is 1 JVM for all OSes, java programmers only have 1 JVM to write for....

Good points markngillespie. Glad you think so.

Because every single one of those points applies exactly to web browsers as well.

And operating systems. And ISP's.

So, apparently in order to minimize disruption, everyone should use Internet Explorer with Sun Java on Windows with AOL as an ISP.

What happened to the whole idea for consumer choice which was what these litigations were supposed to help? I don't want Sun's crappy software on my computer. I want the right to choose. Tell Sun to keep their hands off my computer!

Your absolutely right. I dont want Sun's crappy SLOW software on my computer. The MS Java works fine for me.

Read the full article before posting comments:
"Even when the updated service pack includes Sun's technology, customers have the option to load or not load Sun's technology," he said.

The whole idea of forcing MS to bundle Sun's JVM is to have a JVM which complies with the established "standard" (for lack of a better word), and also to prevent MS from increasing their market share with .NET over Java.

MS isn't prevented from appealing the ruling, but what this measure does do is to stop Java's position in the market from falling as quickly while the ongoing legal wrangling between Sun and MS continues.

Does consumer choice also apply to operating systems?

Microsoft have been crippling java for several years now, by not updating it, all the meantime Sun have been updating theirs. What this means, is that Microsoft have been using YOU to hold back java development and keep the Linux/Sun beast away...

Alot of java apps and java applets are suffering because theu have to be compatible with the MS JVM, which is now very old, not because it's any good, but because it's so widespread

The only reason that Microsoft has not been updating their Java VM is that Sun prevented them from doing so by taking legal action. First Sun sued to STOP MS from using Java, and then they sued to force them to use Java.

When the MS Virtual Machine was released, it worked much better than the Sun product of that time. And if MS had been allowed to update it, it would still work better, I'm sure.

Sun has been a real pig about this. So, now we are going to be subjected to Service Packs dictated by lawyers, instead of techies. That's just wonderful--not.

Since when has Microsoft given you choice? You mean when they ask you which Screen Savers you would like to install but don't do they same thing for Messenger etc?

Yes, but I have to download it first, then tell my computer to ignore it. Waste of bandwidth and my time. Thanks, US legal system!

Yes, but I have to download it first, then tell my computer to ignore it. Waste of bandwidth and my time. Thanks, US legal system!

1. Force MS to stop bundling their version of Java - Good

2. Force MS to bundle a competitors product - Assinine

1st post!

serves them right ot being anti-competitive...

anybody switching to Mac, Unix or Linux?

That would be no

That would be a faily recient .YES!In fact, the family only uses windows these days via Virtual PC 98 for rare use.
I suspect that the next i-mac to come out will take the place of our multi user PC.After 6 years of constant hassels with our church's computers, I look foward to the day that I can switch the XP units over to OS X and not have to worry about constant the weekly plagues of something not working again.The only thing that we may miss after the final switch at home are some games that see rare use.Alas, my oldest daughter loves her Sony RX755 and it has provided 7 months of trouble free use @ college.
That machine is a shining example of what a PC can be as long as NOTHING is added after it is rock solid and Norton is ran in the background keeping her machne clean.
Just thoughts of a enlightned user.
Don

I manage and control several windows XP pc's, both Professional and Home, as well as a Server running Win.Net 2003 RC2. I've had absolutly no problems except when I get a faulty piece of hardware. The problems I've seen are usually hardware, unless some idiot goes and wanders the registry or deletes a piece of software without uninstalling it.

I'm willing to bet Macs work better because of the monopolistic hardware chain that insures high quality. The choice of OS is personal. Some will always lean mac, some windows.

As to the suggestion above of using Unix? Why would I run Unix on my laptop? That is as ridiculous as running Win98 as a webserver.

Since I can't edit my post, i have to make a new one:

This PC has seen the addition of RAM, an upgraded HDD, an extra removable HDD, a firewire HDD, a printer, a digicam and USB key drive (usb hub), as well as a modular DVD drive. I also use it extensively to display images on a TV. It's connected to a network constantly. (with a firewall of course). I removed MS Works and instlaled Office XP Pro.

Nothing has ever gone wrong. Give me, a relative ignoramus at OSX, a mac (despite my Linux knowledge) and I bet I can make something go wrong. Major OS's are good enough know that competant users can keep them running perpetually.

I'm with you, I've ran Windows 2000Pro and now Windows XP Pro since they both went RTM, and the only problems i've ran accross were related to bad drivers for hardware and once when I screwed up the registry really bad. That was my own mistake and not because the OS crapped out on its own somehow. Also I don't run any type of anti-virus software on my systems, I do the internet scan every now and then, but if you stay up to date with the newest patches and SP's and set your e-mail client to not d/l and run attachments, I really don't see any way you can get effected by a virus etc unless you do alot of downloading from P2P networks like KaZaA.

And as far as the Mac and OSX goes, there have already been loads of updates to that OS and if you ran v10.1.x and wanted to go to 10.2 you also had to throw in an extra $100+ for something that used to be totally free. Stability and performence on the mac is also different then the PC, the hardware is controlled totally by Apple, and if you want to sell your stuff for the Mac you have to pass their tests and make it fit into their little hardware world.

In the end this is why you don't get as meny hardware related problems etc on the mac, but with PC's you have a different story. Now with OSX being unix based does help it but it does also hurt it, there are loads of bugs in unix and linux found all the time, lots of which don't get any news coverage like Windows bugs only because Wiodows is used by 80%+ of users.

I'm with both of you.
I've had Windows 2000 and then Windows XP from as soon as i could get my hands on them... only time i had a problem was with some drivers around the time when Win2k first came out, but that problem fixed itself pretty soon.
I had a friend of mine (big Linux fan) complain about the stability of Windows... he said even WinXP had horrible stability. He didn't believe me when i said my computer had never crashed since i installed XP the most recent time (in April). I couldn't think of a way to prove to him, so i used the uptime program from MS to at least get a good idea. I had 98.436% uptime since August. That's pretty good considering this is a development machine with multiple interactive users. Most of the reboots have been when i had to install non-MS software that required a reboot, or a couple things from Windows Update.
I manage a network with a Win2k server and all WinXP machines, and none of them have ever caused problems. Heck, even when it was an NT4 server and Win9x machines i rarely had problems.
I'm convinced (though there's no way to prove it, and i'm sure MS-haters (and some MS fans) will disagree) that the problems people talk about with Windows are user error (hell, i'd say 95% of computer problems are user error anyway).
All i can say is i've had very very close to zero problems with Windows in the years i've been running it. Why would i want anything else?

I'm just glad they're not trying to for me, the consumer, to install the JVM. Sure they can put it on Windows Update, but I don't have to install that specific update. And so I won't.