AT&T Tech Support 360
- Related Stories
-
Piecing together Windows Vista
November 8, 2006 -
McAfee knocks Microsoft over Vista roadblocks
October 2, 2006 -
Symantec: Microsoft won't give us key Vista tech
September 27, 2006
Ask around the office. You'll hear the Gen Xers sneer about how Microsoft's operating system is, well, so yesterday. Even a fair number of IT graybeards are warming to the notion that the times, they are a changing.
And so they are. Before closing the books on the Age of Windows, however, let's not get too caught up in the fashion of the moment. The water-cooler crowd may take a dim view of "Win-doze" for all the right reasons. Still, Microsoft's archrivals continue to view it as a product with a potentially make-or-break impact on their businesses.
In fact, two of them--Adobe Systems and Symantec--are lobbying European regulators to get tough on Microsoft. The European Union already has an unresolved antitrust dispute with Microsoft, and Adobe and Symantec would be silly not to play that card for all it's worth.
So this is what they're doing.
The U.S. software makers reportedly want regulators to prevent Microsoft from incorporating competing software for reading and creating electronic documents into the upcoming Vista operating system. Just as bad, from their perspective, Microsoft would include the applications for free. (Symantec has also made the rounds, telling European regulators that Microsoft's designs for Vista will put major hurt on competing computer-security software makers.)
For a moment, I thought I had been transported back in time--only the names had been changed. In 1997, the roster of tech companies complaining about Microsoft's behavior was led by the likes of Netscape and Sun Microsystems, with IBM, Intel, Apple Computer and a host of other Silicon Valley names pulling up the caboose. Joel Klein, then the Justice Department's antitrust chief, finally was persuaded to file the government's antitrust case, and the rest is history.
Nowadays, it's the European Union's Neelie Kroes, who figures as Microsoft's chief nemesis. She's warned Microsoft not to design Vista in ways that would screw the competition. The EU has already stuck Microsoft with more than $600 million in fines. Kroes imposed an additional $350 million because she said Microsoft subsequently refused to change its business practices.
All because of an operating system that so many have deemed to be yesterday's news.
The reality is that Windows remains as important as ever. Web-based AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) applications may be the tech world's future, but there's a long transition between now and then. In the meantime, software vendors understandably dread any plans to "improve feature functionality" in Windows because they remember Microsoft's history.
At the risk of showing my age, I still recall when memory managers, firewalls, hard drive compression and defragmentation software, and any number of system tools, were sold separately (not to mention, of course, the Web browser). Most of those products--as well as the companies behind them--no longer exist because Microsoft has thrown everything it can inside Windows.
I can only imagine that Kroes is getting an earful about Vista. The security guys are seeing red because users will naturally gravitate toward the new Windows security console Microsoft designed for Vista. There's no longer any way that a Symantec or a McAfee can disable that feature. What's more, Europe is home to several antivirus software firms--such as F-Secure, Panda Software and Sophos--that share the same concerns.
Meanwhile, Vista's XML Paper Specification could pose tough new competition for Adobe's portable document format. The fact that Microsoft will include free software for reading those documents threatens quite a lucrative business for Adobe.
Companies usually are loath to air their dirty laundry--especially regarding Microsoft--but the simmering frustration with the way events are heading was on display earlier this week. McAfee claimed in a full-page ad in the Financial Times that Microsoft was purposely trying to hamstring security software makers by denying them access to the core of the operating system.
Only a week earlier, Symantec claimed that Microsoft had withheld important application program interfaces that security makers need to make sure their products are compatible with the anti-spyware product that will be bundled into Vista.
For the record, Microsoft disagrees with the accuracy of these portrayals and says it's maintaining close contact with regulators in Europe to ensure everything is in order.
However this gets resolved, the dustup speaks volumes about the true state of Windows' relevance. Looks like "yesterday's product" still has a few more tomorrows left.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
European Union,
Symantec Corp.,
antitrust,
regulator,
Microsoft Windows Vista
Alot of people say "ahh yeah my linux system come with blah blah, all free, its nice. So MS, include this this and this, its free, its nice...oh hang on...are people moaning because there putting stuff in for free :O...So....moaned at if they dont, sued if they do?
Really I see MS with no way out unless these companies STFU and everyone decides they want **** on there fresh install, or they dont.
It's codebase is and will be rife with security issues that a more mature OS has already fixed. The reason behind this is that MS decided to start from square one so all the mistakes they and others have found and fixed are back out there again.
And for what? The Aero UI, big whoop. The granular user permissions, another big whoop.
This has got to be THE least efficient OS to date because the meager functionality provided compared to the enormous hardware required.
This incredibly sized codebase gives me a real bad feeling that we will need to wait TWO service packs before this OS is stable and possibly secure.
Vista will be a boon to Apple and the Packaged and supported Linux Desktop. I never thought that I would see the Linux desktop gain ground on Windows but with what I have experienced with Vista I will be a part of the gain.
There are fewer IE only websites every day, a fact for which, IMO, we can thank Mozilla / Firefox. You can find almost any kind of program you need if you run a Mac, but not as many for Linux. But the move to browser based apps makes binary programs less and less important. Within a few years the OS you run locally won't matter at all.
I've been running OSX and Linux online exclusively
for nearly 4 years, and have had no problems doing anything (online banking, etc.).
If you want to run Windows today, great. That's your choice. However if you don't want the problems that come with it, that's also your choice.
As long as people get along with Microsoft then everyone can win. Basically people have just switched over to open source solutions while XP played catch up with Windows firewall and some new security tools. Plus the added benefit at pressuring MS to maybe go open source in the future and rely on a SAAS or SOA model.
It's also a personal preference like as far as commands or the command line. I know people think they don't use commands in Windows but that's the core of any OS and MS still bases allot of their functionality around their simplistic cammand line structure that doesn't take too much training to understand.
Also most people can admit that the Windows GUI is pretty good and easy to get around in. For the most part it is better then KDE 3 but KDE 4 will be very good if not have a very embedded feel to it.. Vista should be allot better although I still don't think that have multiple desktops. The Windows UI is singular with allot of outside companies participating in extending it. The new UI is completely 3D in XML unlike Linux (XML based XGL is partial) and extremely user friendly based on XML including the registry. Any novice can whip up 3d graphics just by typing in a few XML commands and have it fully part of the Windows UI.
I hope they've done as much under the hood as to the cosmetics. It's Microsoft, you know it'll be pretty even if it doesn't run. I've no plans to run it as my primary OS but I welcome a new msDos to explore (when they leg go for the legacy code, I'll stop calling it Dos).
In terms of security
Incorporating Explorer as a "feature" of Windows was a dirty trick when confronted with Netscape. This is security however and is not the same. Security is a core function of the OS these days; interface applicatons with hardware, authenticate and secure processes. It's about freaking time MS put some pre-development throught into security. We're not talking about cosmetics and user level applicatoins that bar competition, we're talking about OS core. I don't think they should be selling antivirus services but it is absalutely applicable as a free inclusion to patch over the years of shotty programming. Malware isn't some special creation by divine intervention, it's indaviduals exploiting a flaw in the OS programming; this makes it a warrenty support issue.
In terms of the parasites
The sooner MS' amoral business practicies and preditary licensing schemes bight them in the ass, the better but again, that's seporate from the the Antivirus parasites. The parasites have gotten nice and fat of fear marketing and the larger regularily named folks have gotten bloated and lazy about it. There are plenty of AV companies that work just fine with current versions of Vista. Write your software for the OS, don't demand the OS be flawed to make a place for your old code.
An OS that can meet all of the consumers needs right out of the box is an amazing selling point for MS. Apple is growing, and more people are experimenting with Linux. MS has to do something. Europe knows nothing about capitalism. America grows much faster then they do.
Maybe we should all give Vista a chance before we start ripping on it and calling MS the devil?
I was very happy with Apple but as the Mac got more and more expensive, I shifted to WinTel world.
Considering Microsoft's history, I'd bet on their replacement being open until it's taken PDF's spot as the number one document spec. Then it'll suddenly be closed off to anyone who isn't Microsoft, forcing people to gravitate to Windows to use it.
And it wouldn't be the first time.
Kettle's callint the Pot [b]BLACK[/b]!
As was stated in the article M$ has already put other companies out of business. Why should they be allowed to continue building their [u]MONOPOLY[/u]????????
M$ is being allowed to do this, Ma Bell is re-uniting under the new moniker: at&t....
What ever happened to Anti-trust laws? I guess they're just "g-d pieces of paper", too.........
Yes, MS Windows Vista should be built full of security holes so that these companies can continue to milk the money machine! Why don't these companies go after Apple for making such a "secure" OS (truth be known, no one wishes to target such a minor player!) that they can't sell their bloatware for that OS as well?!?
mark d.
MS should be under no legal obligation to preserve this niche market at their own expense.
As long as MS creates software that does not infringe on the copyrights and intellectual property of other software companies, they should be free to do as they please.
This is called CAPITALISM, and in this form of economic governance, MS should not be required to give away its intellectual property just so another company can feed off its table scraps.
It is a poorly copied version of other operating systems.
What we need is a software governing body that would regulate software pricing. This would obviously throw open-source into disarray, but competition and innovation will be born. Example: A web browser must be sold for $5.00. The web browser market would then become feasible for several companies to enter and there would be a flurry of innovation.
Obviously the problem comes in when software needs to touch the core of the operating system. Since ordinary law makers don't have great knowledge of this complex world, we need to create a software regulating body comprised of legal experts as well as technical experts.
On the other hand we could really throw a wrench into the works by requiring that all software, regardless of platform be open-source. Lets just do it and get over with it despite the financial implications that it would have for a few fat cats.
A good analogy is the automotive industry. You can strip the engine of a car and see how it's built, but companies aren't all copying the most powerful or fuel economical designs. They're competing and innovating and surviving.
So it's time for the law makers to step up to the plate or IT experts to get law degrees!
out one software company after another. It's obvious they want
to be the ONLY supplier of software for the world. The bigger
and pushier they got the more I hated using their products. Well
less than a year ago I took the big step and gave the Mac a try.
Less than a week later I knew I had found my salvation. Not only
do I feel better using a Mac but the Mac is increadibly better at
doing everything I enjoy doing on a computer in the first
place..!! Oh and not to forget.. Apple makes the sexiest
computers around, even when it's not turned on it's a fashion
statement just standing there.
- Only Microsoft
-
by broman07
October 7, 2006 9:48 PM PDT
- ...can take a problem and turn it into a revenue stream. Why make
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 80 Comments >>your OS more secure when you can sell an antivirus package. It's
like McDonalds selling antacids. If corporate IT departments wake
up to this garbage, then and only then might we be free of the M$
stranglehold on the OS market.