i dont understand why Microsoft dont just have the options in the "advanced install" option to remove EVERYTHING! no IE, no OE, no WMP, no Accessories (ok they do have that option!) if they did that i am guessing all the problems would go away!?! am i right? if Microsoft give an option to not install the programs then all they are doing is saving people who do want to use them the time from downloading the program from the net using Windows Update or alike? I think Microsoft should have there own "lite" version for install, just the OS and nothing more. personally i like WMP, IE and OE and all the other little extras that Microsoft give you. it doesnt stop me using other programs tho, i use UltraEdit as my text editor, CoolEdit and not sound recorder, Winamp and not WMP, opera and no IE, Eudora and not OE. just because they are install i dont have to use them. yes they take up memory but computers nowadays have HUGE hard drives and s*** loads of RAM. stop moaning about 100MB it is nothing on a 80GB hard disk that you probably have!

i just dont see why microsoft cannot put THEIR player on THEIR os? y shouldnt they? y cant they? and as alot of people have said, wmp cant play quicktime or real media, so whats the whole point in this anywayz?

yeah, and no other O/S can play wmp. They can all play quicktime, and real. That's what it all boils down to, consumers like myself do not want microsoft to bundle media players and other tools with their o/s because in a monopoly environment such as the one microsoft continues to leverage, mediaplayer would instantly become the "standard" pushing other players, and ultimately other operating systems out of the loop. When you browse the web, how often do you see "requires windows media player"? I sure see it a whole lot, and 9 times out of 10 am not offered an alternative. I want the alternative back that I had just 2 years ago.

oh get real.
no one is FORCING you to ONLY use wmp. its just there as an option. just like when you install linux you get one option for some features, and maybe a few options for other features, just like when you use an apple they give you there programs to use as an option if you want.

ffs, you're argument has no grounds what so ever.

That's funny, I'll bet a whole panel of appeals judges would disagree with you, wait they already do!

The most annoying about yours, and the attorneys office view on Microsoft is the assumption that all we consumer are incapable of making our own decisions.

The mere notion that we actually can make our own decisions about what software we want to use, and the act on that decisions, seems to be a nonexistent possibility for you

How come nobody made a big deal whenever Microsoft decided to package Sound Recorder with Windows 3.1 (or whichever version they decided to package it with)?

because

A. They weren't an illegal monopoly (IE: They didn't leverage their monopoly to instantly gain monopoly marketshare in other markets)

B. They only released bare bones tools with their operating system, see A

C. They concentrated more on the O/S making it worth the cost. Now when you purchase Windows you are purchasing Windows 2000 with a new look and all these other apps!!.. Strip off the apps, fix the bugs, and put some REAL effort into producing a REAL O/S like you did back in the day.

D. Did you use Sound Recorder, and Media Player in 3.1? 'nuff said.

"D. Did you use Sound Recorder, and Media Player in 3.1? 'nuff said."

So it's only a big deal because people are using WMP now?

As I said before I'll say it slower this time. Microsoft was not guilty of leveraging their monopoly o/s illegally in order to enter, and conquer another market. I was joking when I wrote D. but there is a point behind it. They did not touch media player until they decided that they wanted to "own" another market.

"Microsoft was not *FOUND* guilty of leveraging their monopoly o/s"
How do you know what tactics they employed back then? Maybe they leveraged their monopoly a lot more back then they are now.

"I was joking when I wrote D."
And I was to know this HOW? And if you were joking in D, how can I tell if you weren't joking in A, B and C?

"They did not touch media player until they decided that they wanted to "own" another market."
Yes you're right. Is there something wrong with wanting to 'own' another market as you say? Is there a law that prohibits a company from 'owing' more than 1 market?

Look, at the end of the day you and I are going to use the media player you want to use. Wether a particular media player or format is cross-platform doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me, but it may to you. I have quicktime, real, winamp and wmp installed on my machine. Of those only winamp gets used more than once in a blue moon as I use PowerDVD for movies, therefore I have no problem with MS including WMP in the OS.

I do because when I choose to go to a website that doesn't support anything but WMP, I am stuck unless I switch over to my windows system. That's just not right.

So it's Microsoft's fault that the porn site you chose to visit only supports Windows Media? It wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the webadmin on that site, would it?

porn? who mentioned porn, you need windows media to view porn sites, well that sucks too, but I didn't know that. I was thinking more along the lines of yahoo's broadcast site, nbc, movies.com. Sure complain all you want, the standard answer: "We use Windows Media because the majority of computer users have Windows Media installed. We are sorry you can not view our media."

And when I go to Apples website to veiw movie trailers I have to have Quicktime istalled or I can't veiw them. The Paramount website only supports Quicktime as well.

You can uninstall WMP from XP, right? As long as you can install it, I don't have much of a problem with bundling it. It would be nice, however, if I could get a version of XP that doesn't include IE or WMP for less than the "regular" price (removing the development costs of them) since I don't use them anyway.

Actually they would have to charge more.

Removing these would mean a new build and a new CD and that means a different box as well... So they would have to have DOUBLE production and that would mean that since only a few would actually buy it with out the bundleing they would charge you more for it to make up the profit

Microsoft I think are being put under pressure for the wrong reasons. Bundling an updated, improved Windows Media Player is "not" a bad thing. If it is then should Apple not be in a similar position for bundling Quicktime with the Mac OS? Aren't they also competing unfairly again WMP & Real player.
Besides, as others said, WMP 8 cannot play real audio or quicktime files.

Apple is not a monopoly, and can not restructure the market by simply packaging a product with it's O/S. Microsoft can, and does.

Can you buy hardware for your G4 from a variety of suppliers/manufacturers? Of course they're a monopoly! Just like Qantas and Ansett are a duopoly here in Australia (untill Richard Branson brought in Virgin Blue) in airlines.

Sure I can (if I owned a G4 which I do not) I understand that they use standard off the shelf components with the exception of the motherboard. Who doesn't make their own motherboards? HP does (except for the new LP1000 and 2000R series it seams they are made by asus) Compaq does in their home market PC's (The Deskpro EN and EP use what appears to be a standard ATX motherboard however) uhhh Dell! YES they make their own motherboard, so they are a monopoly in the DELL computer market too right?! Your arguement has been nullified

This whole thing over the Windows Media player being included in XP was so stupid, its pathetic. Its typical of something you would see from someone that is computer illiterate.

Anyone with any common sense knows you can install whatever media player you like in XP, or any other version of Windows. Just because Microsoft bundles THEIR media player with THEIR operating system, means nothing. They have every right too, and its to our benefit when they do.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows MP won't play Real Audio or quicktime format will they?? So in a way, all three are usefull.

yup, they sure are, wmp is very useful to microsoft, it allows them to continue to control markets, who will leave MS's O/S if they can't play media on any other O/S? Quicktime and Real are playable on operating systems other than windows, with WMP you don't get a choice. Don't say apple either, they are on Microsoft's payroll, remember the millions they were handed just a short time ago.

In all this, what about WinAmp? It can be installed on any MS OS, and used as Default player, leaving WMP not used. So, what is the point of all the arguing?

The point is that wmp is a tool that allows microsoft to continue to leverage the desktop market, I mean who would use FreeBSD or BeOS if they can't view the news feeds that are handed out in windows media only? Who would use Linux if pages refused to open because they didn't have IE, and they couldn't play that new clip your sister emailed you because it was recorded in wmp format. Sure, there is Winamp, I wouldn't have a problem if they bundled it with the O/S because there is also XMMS which is basically winamp for unix, buut winamp isn't bundled with windows, and there isn't a wmp player for any of alternatives (again, Apple doesn't count, it may as well be a MS O/S)

IE6 is a lot more standards-compliant! One of my javascripts didn't work properly because an older DOCTYPE was specified, but that's another story!

"Who would use Linux if pages refused to open because they didn't have IE"
Shouldn't you blame the web designers for those IE only pages? Or are you like the average-Anti-MS person who is under the belief that anything remotely to do with Microsoft is automatically their fault. Not sure what I mean? Here's an example....BSOD...Must be buggy Windows again right! I mean it wouldn't/couldn't possible be some 3rd party application that's leaking memory and crashing all over the place.

"who would use FreeBSD or BeOS if they can't view the news feeds that are handed out in windows media only"
Why don't you ask the source to stream their feeds in an alternative format?

"new clip your sister emailed you because it was recorded in wmp format"
Tell your sister to encode it in a format you CAN use!

'Russia launches nuclear weapons against the US....fewt blames MS'

'Russia launches nuclear weapons against the US....fewt blames MS'

That's funny, I'm not blaming them for everything, but I like that..

Bug in Microsoft's database server causes Nuclear weapons to launch. (Yes, I read the news too) Microsoft ADMITTED to the bug, then told them if they wanted it FIXED they needed to PURCHASE a NEW VERSION?! WTF? I'd suggest that the Russian government sue the hell out of them, since when is ANYONE allowed to sell a defective product, then sell it's patch. I'd laugh my *$% off if the US government issued a recall on XP, 2000, ME, 98, NT 4 or hell, just recall 95, that'd cost microsoft enough money to make it hurt (who uses windows 95 anymore? my point exactly they would have to spend a TON of money to figure that out)

You coaxed me into going there, remember that ;-) I wasn't even going to mention BSOD, I have this problem with Windows 2000 service pack 2 though, I lost 4 servers that just quit loading most of their services after the installation, really sucks too. Two of my co-admins lost their boxes because of odd issues too. But yup, great products ;-)

I'm glad you enjoyed that =) And yes, you do seem to be blaming Microsoft for anything you can.

You lost 4 servers as a result of Service Pack 2. Care to explain that a bit more? How exactly did you 'lose' them? Did all the data just 'vanish' on 4 separate servers as a result of Service Pack 2 alone? Or are you spreading more FUD about Microsoft? And I have no problems with a BSOD, it's called a kernel panic in your language =) I'm sure you would have seen a lot more of those in your time, especially if we're talking about Linux. And let's not go and compare Linux to Win9X - bit of an unfair comparison. It's a bit like me comparing any of the BSD family to Linux and pointing out that Linux has more holes and swiss cheese in comparison, and stability?! HA! compared to *BSD - that's a joke. Oh and finally, given the brilliant file system that comes by default (ext2), careful not to just turn your computer off without shutting it down, data has a habit of dissapearing.

So before you start pointing fingers at everyone else, have a good look at what you are running. And if you're thinking of coming back at me saying that your personal AIX and Solaris servers are really stable etc - come back with that argument when both of those (or any other commercial *nix you wish to name) are suited for the desktop and come with a comparable suite of software.

Actually it's a BSOD in my language. See my other posts.

"You lost 4 servers as a result of Service Pack 2. Care to explain that a bit more? How exactly did you 'lose' them? Did all the data just 'vanish' on 4 separate servers as a result of Service Pack 2 alone? Or are you spreading more FUD about Microsoft?"

Yes, as I stated I lost servers, they "quit serving" post SP2. They are database servers, and the database services no longer start. They "quit with no errors" uninstall SP2, and WOW they started working again, just like that. LOL

Both of the other guys desktops decided after SP2 that they only needed 20MB or so of page file, no matter what they set it to! LOL Every time they booted they got the "You are Dangerously low on virtual memory" box, and what?! it's set at 20MB again! LOL The fix? Uninstall SP2.

There are a few more issues we've had, but I think that's enough for you to chew on for a while. I sure don't see any FUD in that LOL There's a reason that they are so close to releasing SP3 this soon after releasing SP2. It was the same ordeal with NT4, pre SP3 it was useless, wasn't stable, or really considered in the server room until SP4. Why can't they get it right the first time? (Ohh now there's that whole quick to market before the DOJ gets them issue with XP)