If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. I searched your article for "deadline", and couldn't find anywhere an actual date in the future.
So I don't understand why you say the deadline hasn't passed.
In any event, we all know MS is tasked with doing the near impossible. However, it should be possible for any decent software company whose source base is more organized than a spaghetti bowl. And that's really the whole point. They brought this on themselves.
I mean no disrespect and don't want to start a flame, but I have serious questions with your claim about the deadline date. Please respond if you have some reference that says something different.
Walter_E_Wallis
· 3 years ago
I believe these fines should be paid solely out of the proceeds of European sales.
Walter_E_Wallis
· 3 years ago
AND - I believe we should require European manufacturers to make available any information needed to facilitate American manufacurers making substitute spare parts.
Steve R.
· 3 years ago
At this point, I cannot really make a well-analyzed statement on whether the European Commission (EC) is flawed or not. Nevertheless, my read of the article "Kangaroo Court in Brussels" leads me to support the position of European Commission against M$. Further Sonia's statement "the idea of offering consumers a product with less functionality" is flawed.
A well-designed operating system should be developed in layers. Windows Media Player as well as Internet Explorer are really not part of the operating system, but are additional layers to the operating system. These components should be able to be removed and/or added, as the consumer wants. M$ does have a "crippled" and highly limited version of this approach in the Windows Control Panel. M$ has unfortunately taken the incorrect position that these components are integral to the operating system and cannot be removed. This is pure bunk, a red herring.
Additionally, I find software companies "routinely" offer consumers so called "upgrades" where previous features mysteriously "disappear". I smell a double standard. If a government proposes something that in theory limits a computer application it is bad; but if a private company does it is good!?!? I acknowledge that Sonia did NOT imply the previous statement; it is simply an extrapolation of a pet peeve from having been burned on this issue.
All Comments
posted about this. I like this blog, and someone needs to point out
stuff like this.
You claim the deadline hasn't passed, yet every source I've read says
the deadline was December 15, 2005. I reference the following links:
http://news.zdnet.com/...........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/............
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/..........
If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. I searched your
article for "deadline", and couldn't find anywhere an actual date in
the future.
So I don't understand why you say the deadline hasn't passed.
In any event, we all know MS is tasked with doing the near impossible.
However, it should be possible for any decent software company whose
source base is more organized than a spaghetti bowl. And that's really
the whole point. They brought this on themselves.
I mean no disrespect and don't want to start a flame, but I have
serious questions with your claim about the deadline date. Please
respond if you have some reference that says something different.
A well-designed operating system should be developed in layers. Windows Media Player as well as Internet Explorer are really not part of the operating system, but are additional layers to the operating system. These components should be able to be removed and/or added, as the consumer wants. M$ does have a "crippled" and highly limited version of this approach in the Windows Control Panel. M$ has unfortunately taken the incorrect position that these components are integral to the operating system and cannot be removed. This is pure bunk, a red herring.
Additionally, I find software companies "routinely" offer consumers so called "upgrades" where previous features mysteriously "disappear". I smell a double standard. If a government proposes something that in theory limits a computer application it is bad; but if a private company does it is good!?!? I acknowledge that Sonia did NOT imply the previous statement; it is simply an extrapolation of a pet peeve from having been burned on this issue.