Originally posted by Nodsu
What essential or even useful features of the Windows OS absolutely depend on WMP?
Thank you Nodsu!
I've been too busy with some papers I had to complete to answer this post, so it was nice to see someone else stepping up to the task (and doing a better job of it than I probably would've done).
Though there are a couple of points I'd just like to emphasis some more.
Originally posted by Nic:
What is so good about a cut down version of windows xp?
When I buy an
Operating System, I want just that (a program to operate my system), not a program that tries to (inadequately) do everything I use my system for.
That means a program without all the extra "frills" I have no need for, and actually causes security problems instead.
Originally posted by Nic:
I certainly wouldn't buy it, or run it. Any takers here on TechSpot?
As has been pointed out, we would've been shocked if you did...
Originally posted by Nic:
As it stands, consumers still have a choice to add their own browser (I did - Opera7) and media players (I use Quicktime, RealPlayer and Windows Media Player) if they don't like the versions supplied with windows.
I don't just want to
add I want to
remove!
Why should I be stuck with a POS browser or media player, if I don't want to use them?
Sure, I can add another browser and media player, but I'm still vulnerable to exploits for the integrated versions since I can not remove them.
Originally posted by Nic:
Imagine having to part with extra money just to make your OS complete.
Imagine using a free program? How much do you have to pay for Opera, Mozilla (/Netscape/FireFox/...)?
Or DivX player (which supports most formats)? Or any of the other freeware/opensource programs available?
Originally posted by Nic:
For the technically challenged, or those without broadband, this would be a very bad move indeed.
But if you're technically challenged, would you build your own computer from scratch? Nah, you'd buy pre-built (Dell, Gateway, Compaq etc), which would either give you a specialized setup where you choose what Browser, Media player, email client etc. to use, or select their standard package (which the computer maker would be free to create and add unlike now).
Ok, so you don't have broadband... How are you ever going to get all the security patches for your integrated software that leaves your system open to anyone?
Oops, I guess you're in trouble no matter what aren't you? Nah, I forgot that most technically challenged without broadband has no clue that their system is open to world+dog, and that they open every email with "I love you" in the subject field....
So in fact, it would be better if they didn't have 2 security holes integrated into the system from the start...
Then whatever they'd choose to use for email and inet browsing would be a bit more secure than it would otherwise...
Originally posted by Nic:
Imagine Microsoft having to cater for all the possible permutations/implementations of such software if supplied but other vendors. It would severely limit the development of good software because features would be missing and developers would have to code for the lowest common denominator.
Why would MS have to cater for all the (im)possible permutations that would crop up?
Are the programmers/support dept.s of other companies so bad that they can not do that themselves?
Since when did MS get the exclusive deal on good support?
I would (as you probably expect by now) argue the opposite that we'd see much more good software on the market, because the software would be written from the ground up with quality in mind, and not "how can I take over more of the computer software market" mindset that MS seems to subscribe too...
And that new software wouldn't be full of security holes, because if it did, people would choose to use another program instead...
Originally posted by Nic:
We all want powerful easy to use software, and in this respect having commonly used items supplied as part of the OS is the best way to ensure everyone is running to a minimum standard.
Yes, we all want powerful easy to use software. But do we all want to use windows? Or do we all want to do the same thing? Where is my MS Java IDE? Or MS 3D Studio? They can be just as "basic" for some as Media Player is for you...
Or what about Excel? Or Word? Those are commonly used programs, which according to what you say should be included in the OS... Or?
Originally posted by Nic:
It also means that Microsoft can produce better software that integrates and builds on all the various features.
Ah, yes. They could then add in even more "basic features" and build on all the bugs they have from previous versions...
Take a look PowerDVD, WinDVD, WinAmp or any other popular media player. How many security fixes are released for them every year? Compare that number to how many are released for for Media Player and tell me, where is this wonderful software that you describe?
MS has been allowed to integrate both media player and IE for several versions so far, and I've still to be convinced that either of them are secure, not to mention has as good a feature set as other competing solutions!
Originally posted by Nic:
This is something that isn't possible with bolt-on solutions. How can you innovate if you are waiting for others to catch up?
You're right! MS should stop developing DX until all game devs are using the latest version, and ATI, Nvidia, S3 and XGI has gotten all the feature set working at similar speeds!
Or... That doesn't make any sense. Why can't you innovate? Just because you're program would be more advanced than any other doesn't mean you have to wait until they catch up with you before continuing. If it had been the case, the "computer revolution" would
never have gotten as far as it has today.
Competition is a good thing!
Originally posted by Nic:
I don't think the EU has thought this through.
Ditto.
Originally posted by Nic:
Cheaper software is something I am in favour of, but removing essential features is not something I'd be too happy about.
But who get's to decided what is essential features?
And what companies are to give up their products because MS wants to take over that segment...
You'd always be able to download it freely from MS if you wanted it back.
That is the whole point. IF you want to use it, you can. But you won't be forced to do so!
Originally posted by Nic:
Oh, and lets not forget that with IE and Windows Media Player, we don't get bombarded with spyware or adware as we do when installing other third party software.
That might be true (see Nodsu's post), but it does give us the need to download all those lovely security patches and still let us run insecure systems.
Now let's weigh those two agains eachother:
For
- (Possibly) no adware or spyware
Against:
- Need to download many security updates
- Still not secure from virus or general exploits
Doesn't make it a hard choice does it?
Originally posted by Nic:
What would be the advantage for the average consumer?
I dunno... A healthier market with more and better products to choose from? A more secure OS which are less likely to give away your credit information?
Now, with that I should be done with my ranting... For now at least
Quotations fixed
--Mictlantecuhtli