Taken from an article written by Mary Jo Foley on "Talk Back "



On September 17, the European Court of First Instance will decide whether or not to overturn the European Commission’s 2004 antitrust ruling against Microsoft. A number of company watchers are painting the ruling as a watershed event that will have lasting impact on Microsoft and its customers.

I disagree. Despite Microsoft flying lots of its legal and marketing teams to Europe to prep for potential PR damage, I think Monday’s ruling won’t have much, if any, new impact. And I also disagree with Microsoft competitors like Salesforce.com’s CEO Mark Benioff who claim little, if anything, has changed and that Microsoft would like to halt innovation, if it could.

Having reported on Microsoft since the early 1990s, I can say I’ve seen a lot of change, regarding Microsoft’s business practices and behaviors. These changes aren’t out of the goodness of Microsoft’s heart; many are happening because times have changed. But Microsoft also has altered some of its less-than-ethical ways as a result of court rulings in the U.S. and overseas. (Do you think Microsoft wanted to institute a flat price list for Windows among the Top 20 PC makers? Voluntary principles spin aside, they had no choice.)

I’d also argue that Microsoft has changed as a result of the departure from the company of a number of Microsoft managers who believed Microsoft was above the law. Some of those who stayed seemingly have gone to charm school to undo old habits.

Today’s Microsoft isn’t yesterday’s. Sure, there are still a few of the old Microsoft guard left who think customers and partners are so dumb and scared that the Redmondians can get away with anything. Microsoft’s vague threats of Linux patent violations meant to scare customers, and its refusal to make Open Document Format (ODF) support a built-in Office feature right alongside its own Office Open XML (OOXML) prove that these attitudes are still alive and well at Microsoft.

Oftentimes, Microsoft’s weak communications skills make the company look even more sinister than it is. A couple of recent examples: The recent Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) outage and this week’s disclosure that the company has been updating Windows Update on users’ machines without their knowledge/consent.

But the “cut-off-their-air-supply” Microsoft just ain’t what it used to be. If today’s Microsoft were the same unbowed and unbridled company it was back in the 1990s, I think we’d see some very different business practices in place. A more cutthroat Microsoft would:



Preview: Big ruling in Microsoft's EU antitrust case
A court decision next week in Microsoft Corp.'s long-running European antitrust case promises to shape future Windows development and determine how far regulators can go in their attempts to rein in the company. Then there's the small matter of nearly $1 billion in fines – and the threat of more in the future.

That's what hangs in the balance as the European Court of First Instance prepares to issue its decision Monday morning.

Microsoft is seeking to overturn the European Commission's landmark March 2004 antitrust ruling. That ruling, by ordering the company to offer a version of Windows without its standard media-playing software, went further than any other in its effort to keep Microsoft from using the dominant operating system to unfair advantage in other parts of the software market.

The court also will rule on a provision requiring the company to share technical secrets about Windows with its competitors in the computer server market. In both ways, next week's decision could set precedents for similar situations in the future.

"The implications of this for the consumer are immense," said Jonathan Todd, spokesman for European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, in a phone interview Thursday.

"Basically, what's at stake is whether Microsoft can regulate the market by imposing its products and services on people, or whether the market is allowed to function properly, so that users can benefit from choice, more innovative products and more competitive prices," he said.

Microsoft contends that the commission is wrongly trying to limit the company's ability to improve Windows with additional features. In that way, the European case echoes the company's U.S. antitrust case, in which it was ultimately allowed to keep Internet Explorer a part of the operating system.

"It is vitally important for the development of the software industry that every firm be able to continue to innovate in its products," said Dave Heiner, the deputy general counsel in charge of Microsoft's antitrust legal group. "We're very hopeful that the court will see things that way and will issue a ruling that protects the ability to innovate without risk of legal liability."

On the question of the EU mandating that Microsoft license its server protocols to competitors, Heiner said, "We'd much rather see it play out by market forces. It seems to us that the trend in the industry, at many different levels, is toward interoperability."

Whatever the outcome, it may not mark the end of the controversy. Either side could appeal the Court of First Instance's ruling to Europe's highest court, the European Court of Justice. In addition, the commission is considering the European Committee for Interoperable Systems' complaint about Microsoft Office, but it hasn't yet decided whether or not to open a full investigation on that matter.

Posted on September 13th 2007 ( I will be keeping an eye on this one )

Coverage note: The decision will be issued Monday morning out of Luxembourg (around 12:30 a.m. Pacific time here in the U.S.). I'll be reporting on the developments as they happen here on the blog, so please join me if you're in the mood for some (very) early morning news




Controversy over 'stealth' Windows Update installs

Microsoft says it's reconsidering how it updates a key piece of Windows plumbing after a newsletter questioned the stealthy manner in which the company delivered a recent batch of software fixes.

An article in today's Windows Secrets newsletter presents evidence of a recent case where Windows downloaded and installed a set of fixes, without notifying PC users. The article says this happened even when users specifically set the operating system's Automatic Updates panel to check with them before downloading or installing updates.


Automatic Updates options in Windows XP.The story, by Windows Secrets associate editor Scott Dunn, raises questions about the practice, and how it might be used in the future.

In a blog post today, Microsoft's Nate Clinton, Windows Update program manager, explained and defended the practice in this particular case. But he also acknowledged that the company is now looking at ways to make the process more clear to the end user.

Brian Livingston, Windows Secrets editorial director, said via phone today that his concerns remain.


"If you can turn off the (automatic) installation of updates from Microsoft but Microsoft does it anyway, that really hurts people's trust in the company and their willingness to let updates come automatically from Redmond. We want people to get security updates, so I think it's very important for Microsoft to make its security procedures completely trustworthy ... If Microsoft can change things on your PC, after you've set it up to only take changes when you want them, that gives people a lot of fear for what might happen to their PCs in future months."

That's the gist, but this is a story with a lot of nuance. Read on for details.

The first twist is that these updates were for the Windows Update software itself, the very program on the PC that checks for and downloads Windows fixes over the Internet. In his post, Microsoft's Clinton says Windows Update updates need to be distinguished from other types of Windows updates. He writes:


"Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications. That result would not only fail to meet customer expectations but even worse, that result would lead users to believe that they were secure even though there was no installation and/or notification of upgrades."

Next, while the language in Windows Vista and Windows XP is different, there are four basic settings for Automatic Updates, as explained in Clinton's post: "1) Install updates automatically, 2) Download updates but let me choose whether to install them, 3) Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them, and 4) Never check for updates."

In the Windows Secrets story, Dunn writes that Microsoft is silently downloading and installing the fixes even when people have "turned off auto-updates." The use of the phrase "turned off" might suggest that Microsoft was downloading and installing these updates even when people had chosen No. 4, "never check for updates."

However, I spoke with Dunn on the phone, and he said that's not what he meant to imply. Instead, he was referring to option Nos. 2 and 3.

Microsoft's Clinton addressed that issue in his post, writing that Windows Update "does not automatically update itself when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the customer is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of updates." Windows Secrets' Dunn said he didn't have any evidence refute that.

But all of those details shouldn't obscure the bottom line: According to the evidence assembled by Windows Secrets, these updates were silently downloaded and installed, without notifying end users, even in cases where those end users had specifically told Microsoft, through their PC settings, not to install updates without letting them choose to do so.


I still haven't been able to install "fixes" for XP, it now totals 78 ................ I think it is time I look towards Linux !

I just had to delete the entire contents of my hard drive and reformat it.

So now what?

I have to buy a new copy of Windows because my old copy was “preinstalled”?

That’s not right!

I already paid for Windows once (many times actually). Why should I have to buy a new copy of windows just because my drive needed to be reformatted thus erasing the preinstalled version that I had already paid for?

That’s not right!

That’s not right!

That’s not right!

Abracadabra,

That's not Microsoft's fault. The company you buy the compute from should give you the registration number for the copy of Windows that is installed. Then you can contact Microsoft and request a replacement disk based on that registration number.

Spider wrote:
"That's not Microsoft's fault. The company you buy the compute from should give you the registration number for the copy of Windows that is installed. Then you can contact Microsoft and request a replacement disk based on that registration number."

Thank you Spider I didn't know I could do that. I actually have three computers that I bought new that all came with Windows XP installed. All three of them need a complete reinstall from an external source. So I'll look into seeing if I can get replacement disks based on their registration numbers.

Two of them are Hewlett Packard Pavillions and the other one is a Dell Notebook. I bought the HPs new myself, and bought the Notebook from my cousin who had originally bought it new.

I would really like to reinstall Windows XP on all three of these machines. I just want to bring them back to they way they were when they were new. I'm not looking to "upgrade", I just want the original software to be reinstalled clean.

I didn't know that I can get replacement OS disks.

If that's the case then I take back what said about things not being right.

Abracadabra,

That's according to a friend of mine, he said that Microsoft will charge you between 5 and 10 dollars for the disc + shipping. I lost my Windows XP disc, but I haven't called them about it yet.

Ok, I didn’t bother calling Microsoft, but I did all Dell.

I just got off the phone. The people at Dell are unbelievable NICE!

I told them that I bought the computer from my cousin, and had to reformat the hard drive. So he asked me for the service tag number on the back of the computer. Once I have him that he verified the original owner, he accepted my claim that I bought it and treated me like the new owner with no questions.

He transferred the warranty info over to my name, he’s sending me an new OS disk for no charge, and he just spent the better part of 20 minutes explaining how to properly download all the drives from Dell’s web site and install them in the correct order, ect.

Of course, I’m getting the new OS shipped for free because the computer is still under warranty. I’m not sure how this would have worked if there was no warranty on the computer.

I never knew life could be so simple.

My two HP computer are no longer under warranty, but I might be able to use this same OS disk to repair them. After all, they both had Windows XP on them when I bought them so I should be able to reinstall it on them again with no license infringements. I don’t where the OS comes from, I just want to reinstall it.

So I’m a happy camper now.

Send Bill Gates my best.

I actually do like Microsoft software and I have never had a problem with Windows OS directly. I just like to reinstall it once in a while after reformatting a hard drive or installing a new motherboard, and I don’t want to have to buy the OS all over again.

If you still have the hologram label on the computer, take the long number down, give Microsoft a call, tell them what the problem is, sometimes they can be helpful, unless you get through to one of their call centers in India I bought a used computer from my local college( they normally sell them off for as little as £25) I couldn't get the updates, as a hunch I rang Microsoft's office here in the Uk and spoke to yes, a very pleasant young man. He asked for the registration number on the hologram label, he confirmed that the computer was already bought and paid for and had exchanged owners. He then gave me a serial number, thus enabling me to acquire the relevant downloads. Still haven't changed my mind that Microsoft products is nothing but a bunch of c**p !!!!

I think it’s wrong for any single company or person to hold the rights to any computer operating system.

What I don’t understand is why the government or even computer manufactures like IBM didn’t just step in and disallow private ownership for the copyright of Operating Systems. To allow a single company to own the rights to a computer operating system is like allowing a single company to own the rights to selling gasoline for cars.

Operating systems should have been declared by both computer manufactures and by government to be out of the reach of copyrights and in the public domain.

The only thing that should have been permitted to be within the reach of copyright should have been applications programs.

Had that happened correctly early on, Microsoft would have never become the monopoly that it is.

I don’t blame Bill Gates for running with the ball. Anyone would! But I do blame companies like IBM and the government in general for not demanding that computer OS must be in the public domain.

Allowing someone like Bill Gates to own the ‘gasoline rights’ to IBM computers was the stupidest thing IBM ever did. It’s no wonder the Bill Gates is the richest man on earth. It’s not because he was a savvy business man. He simply got away with murder and other people weren’t smart enough to realize what they were allowing him to get away with.

I’ll never understand why IBM or the government didn’t make the connection between a computer Operating System as the ‘fuel’ that makes them run. IBM really dropped the ball on that one. I mean, if they had a clue they would have at least ran with it themselves. They obviously didn’t have a clue, yet they were in the business of manufacturing computers!!!

I’ll never understand how they dropped the ball on that one.

In general, I like Microsoft software. I just don’t like the idea that they have a monopoly on the OS.

Computer operating systems should be in the public domain (like Linux). But Linux won’t run Microsoft Applications. It also may not work properly on many machines that are build to run Windows.

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/4126/5/

Abra, that link may be of interest to you. You can use CodeWeaver's Crossover Office for running MS Office, but from what I see, there is some work involved.

As you have more than 1 computer, perhaps you might want to try Linux on one of them. Have you tried OpenOffice 2.3.?

It has a similiar look to windows and it is improving. The Calc module is similar to excel. The only disadvantage for me at the moment is I am used to VBA in Excel and the Calc uses Java. So I could not transfer Excel files to Calc (and vice versa).

If it makes you feel any better I think Bill is now downgraded to the 2nd richest man in the world.

Just to add in my 2 cents here. Operating systems have been licensed and owned for a very long time. Even though the BSDs are Unix descendants and Linux is a clone, you can't call them Unix because it is a registered trademark. And Unix is the "grandfather OS" (for those interested in the history http://www.levenez.com/unix/). I am very strong believer, that the user should be able to determine their personal computing experience, not a single company stating "this is how computing is done, deal with it". I choose to run OSS on my computers because, personally I feel I am more productive when working on them. It is also nice having a computer doing exactly what I tell it, not what it thinks I meant, or as in Vista, "are you sure you want to delete this program"..."are you really sure you want to delete this program"..."are you.." ect. That is what privilege separation is for (sorry I am starting to rant).

But as Spidy's Uncle Ben says "With great power comes great responsibility"

suggestion

for what its worth

make a copy of your hard drive b4 you start loading a bunch
of stuff on it

then if you lose your drive

you can reload the content form your copy

i just went threw a motherboard change (same hard drive)
and added dvd burner

when was ready to reboot

got an unauthorized version of windows message

called microsoft threatened them with attorney general call

they reauthorized it

it took about 15 minutes and treating the customer service person like a 5 yr old

but hey what do i know

ya should partition yer drive as well

say 25 gig for nothing but programs

and use the remainder for content

then it is a bit harder to corrupt it

and error check does not take as long

just a thought

hope it helps

Microsoft sucks!! It always has, and, it always will...

Geez.I hate Microsoft..and XP!!!

Microsoft is the evil empire!

Yep, Bill Gates probably heads up the illuniati. I don't care what Microsoft does because they wil always do exactly what they want such is their sway on the worlds ecomony.

Sorry for the Illumiati typo lol

Awhile back I bought a used dell system that came with a preinstalled windows xp on it. The previous owner made a mess of the operating system, so I had to reformat the hard drive. I was told that I had to buy a new CD key because the computer was no longer under warranty.
So, microsoft and dell sucks.
I have been using Linux Ubuntu since then and am more happier with it than I have ever been with windows.