Microsoft Ties Windows Live Services to OS 248
narramissic writes "Microsoft is tying its Windows Live services directly to Vista — a move that should sound vaguely familiar, as it is precisely what the company did to make IE ubiquitous among Internet users. 'A new unified installer for Windows Live services will help users download Wednesday's updates of photo-sharing, mail, instant messaging, online safety and other services, the company said on its Windows Live Wire blog. The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward.'"
.Mac service (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:.Mac service (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is what I call a complete OS (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully, they will release a Windows Live mortuary sometime soon to make the package even more complete.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just know there is an oxymoron there...
Re:THIS is what I call a complete OS (Score:4, Funny)
windows live (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think "persistent vegetative state" [wikipedia.org] is the word you are looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, it's a web download. Big deal. And it probably saves time for those who use all of MSN's services and needs to install/update them. Doesn't Google do this already with Google Pack (including the auto-update) ?
It's a technically awful thing to do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way, the problem in bundling IE wasn't technical: all they did was add a browser to Windows, and make the components + standard APIs available
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's a technically awful thing to do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a *fundamentally* bad thing to do. It lead to an awful lot of remote code execution exploits. It was originally done in Win95 days--before Windows had any notion of being a multiuser system. There was no privilege separation, so if IE was exploited, no system file, etc., was safe. I don't believe for a moment that Microsoft wasn't aware of this. I think they simply didn't care about their users.
It's *still* a bad idea. In fact, it's a fundamentally poo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Providing a web browser EXE and standard URL parsing (urlmon), Network handling (wininet and now winhttp) and rendering (shdocvw) components + APIs as part of the base OS package is in no imaginable way a bad idea. Don't confuse MS's implementation for the RIGHT way to design things.
The BIG problem with IE4-6 was Microsoft using their brand-new HTML renderer to render *everything* -- as part of the "let's
Re: (Score:2)
It's a *fundamentally* bad thing to do.
Which presumably explains why every other major platform went on to do exactly the same thing, I assume, because all those developers are stupid as well ?
It lead to an awful lot of remote code execution exploits. It was originally done in Win95 days--before Windows had any notion of being a multiuser system. There was no privilege separation, so if IE was exploited, no system file, etc., was safe. I don't believe for a moment that Microsoft wasn't aware of this. I
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this happened the same day nukes got flown on cruise missles across the USA, I think maybe people are just a little bit too focused on the evils of Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Of cou
No! Buried in 4th from last paragraph (Score:3, Informative)
Move along.
A Public Service Announcement From Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Rest assured, my new friend, that smallint cannot truly represent the level of funny I got from this post.
Kudos
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
good choice of words (Score:5, Funny)
When reading this quote, I couldn't help but be reminded that the root of the word "terrific" is terrify. Which makes it pretty accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are both onto something here.
Re: (Score:2)
When reading this quote, I couldn't help but be reminded that the root of the word "terrific" is terrify. Which makes it pretty accurate.
I thought it was 'tariff', as in a cost or fee.
Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the region and age group (Score:2)
When I was in high school and college, AOL Instant Messenger was really popular. It was pretty much AIM or die. The first big thing was ICQ but had a ton of rough edges. You used to have to click or tab to the "send" button and the window would only show one message at a time rather than a log of messages. You were also given a number instead of an account name so it made it much harder to remember other's numbers or even your own. It did have some of the best off-line features though. With people outside
Re:Depends on the region and age group (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well in messenger's defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be 3 different letters, too.
Re: (Score:2)
UK on the other hand seems MSN to me. I have some friends over there and all of them are on MSN.
AOL in the US (Score:3, Informative)
In the united states, AIM is still by far the most widely used chat protocol
http://www.bigblueball.com/forums/general-other-im -news/34413-im-market-share.html [bigblueball.com]
AIM is actually pretty nifty if you don't try to use the new clients from AOL (which installs crap in the backgrount). Most people I know either have an old version of AIM (installers for every version are available online) or use third party clients like trillian, gaim/pidgin/adium.
Google's tr
hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
However - the engineer in me reckons this is more about them wanting to support less platforms and trying to "get rid" (or obsolete) the older ones as fast as they possibly can.
Re: (Score:2)
oh well (Score:4, Funny)
err:module:import_dll Library WINHTTP.dll (which is needed by L"Z:\\home\\kwabbles\\Desktop\\WLinstaller.exe") not found
err:module:LdrInitializeThunk Main exe initialization for L"Z:\\home\\kwabbles\\Desktop\\WLinstaller.exe" failed, status c0000135
No worky. Oh well. Back to reading slashdot.
Not Vista ... to Windows (Score:5, Informative)
I hope I'm not misreading the article, but the summary appears to be incorrect. As I understand the article, Microsoft is integrating Windows Live more within Windows ... but I didn't see that it was being tied specifically to Vista. In fact, the article says "The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward."
Call me confused, but I think Windows Live will still install on XP. You don't need to upgrade to Vista to run Windows Live, if you already have XP.
Re:Not Vista ... to Windows (Score:5, Informative)
The title of this Slashdot thread is FUD.
Re:Not Vista ... to Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Much to my surprise, this time the FUDsters aren't the slashdotters; the FUD (including the title) is in the FA, which, probably being new here, I did read. The whole article (available here [itworld.com])is pretty much a lot of BS, but it sounded anti-MS enough that it was picked up and dumped on the first page by the crack team of
Not unusual (Score:2, Insightful)
Google pushes for their gMail, gOffice (or whatever it's name is), just they don't "own" an Os (yet). When they do, besure as hell they will push and tie those service to it. Hell, I'm even tired of their too
Re:Not unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
Theres a difference between unethically leveraging a product and illegally leveraging a product.
Both suck, but both are completely different beasts.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this help Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that making something easy to use makes it more likely to be used. But unless MS force feeds it to you when you boot or install Vista and XP, why would people choose Live over the more established brand names such as MySpace and YouTube?
MS would need a big marketing push to gain mind share, and I don't think an optional web install will do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, "Live" is starting to remind me of when MS added ".Net" to every product they had. It got to the point that no one knew what ".Net" was or what it was good for.
How many companies have a well known brand names that covers multiple fields or product areas? Kraft is known for certain food products. Ford is known for cars. I'm pretty sure that most executives would never try to extend the Kraft brand name to include cars, and ditto for Ford and food products. If 'Live' stands for everything, then it
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually Xbox Live is the same service as "Games for Windows Live". (one subscription covers both). Windows Live itself is just a rebranding of most of MSN. This seems likely part of a long term strategy to kill off the MSN service entirely. The "Office Live" service is a completely unrelated service. (Not related to any other "Live" service, or even related to Office).
Also for what it is worth, Microsoft is working to tie the Windows Live and Xbox Live services a bit closer (hence the windows live m
Screwing up XP? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Go on, I'm waiting.
Real curious.
Windows Live - obsolete (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spam is certainly not unique to Hotmail users. I pay Postini $2/mo to filter my email, and that only weed out about 95% of it. Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, their users all get spam too.
About the only "backroom deal" that Microsoft is likely to get is from Microsoft itself. And one could easily argue that they're entitled to send you their own spam if you're using thei
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To be fair, Hotmail didn't start sucking until a few years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This /. entry is inaccurate... (Score:2, Informative)
"in future", not "going forward" (Score:2, Funny)
Live Monopoly Reflex (Score:2, Insightful)
And why should we stand for it?
Re:Live Monopoly Reflex (Score:4, Insightful)
Conclusive evidence of more of that Linux-biased, Microsoft-hating Slashdot meme at work.
(tongue so far into my cheek that it hurts, on this one.)
Microsoft needs beta testers for .Net, Silverlight (Score:2)
these tools are nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's less a matter of what software should strive to do, as it is what Microsoft is striving to do to us with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So is Microsoft an enemy? Depends: if I were a company trying to get into the operating system or office suite business I'd certainly have to contend with the barrier to entry posed by Microsoft. They aren't my personal e
Not like anyone else cann use Windows updates... (Score:2)
Re:Not like anyone else cann use Windows updates.. (Score:2)
Re:Not like anyone else cann use Windows updates.. (Score:2)
It could be worse (Score:2)
Just makes you think if that whole Netscape antitrust thing hadn't happened just what they could be doing with Windows Update. Firefox Removal Tool as standard? Clippy popping up and saying "It looks like you're dual booting between a sanctioned Windows OS and another, dangerous OS! I've removed the offending partition
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who wouldn't?
Who's just going to roll over and die? When somebody lable's you as a monopoly that means that you are an extremely agressive company and doing so well that everybody is scared of you. Why would a company in that situation just give up and let everybody take back their market share? I don't understand why people act surprised that MS would continue to constantly test their boundaries.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's author seems to be utterly and completely clueless about everything mentioned.
There's not a single thing that justifies the word "tying" that I can see. Microsoft have some OPTIONAL add-on set of services that you can install if you feel like it. It's not mandatory and they're not saying it will be. It's no more "tied" to Windows than any other piece of software.
I think I'm going to start a blog where I too post nonsensical tech stories with headlines solely designed to push the buttons of reactionary Slashdot readers, then clean up on the Google ad income.
G.
Here we go again (Score:2)
"Tied" how? (Score:2)
And? (Score:3, Funny)
Ford or GM doesn't do that, nor does GE.. Yep, this is really surprising.
Re:Another reason.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is for Vista and XP from what the article seems to infer/state.
Regardless of what the other guy who responded to you said, Yeah, it is optional now... but it is also still in beta. Only time will tell whether this becomes another "Automatic Update" item... ah well...
The Slash-FUD rolls on.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Puleeez! Stop, relax, then get a clue... there was no FUD involved in my speculation - just simple track record, and plenty of facts that I go into below.
MS has OFTEN tied their services together (MSN, IE, components of Office, etc). Almost every part of their new little package is something they are trying to tie to Vista.
It currently isn't part of "Automatic Update" - but it IS still beta. That it ISNT a part now, doesnt mean that it WONT be... kinda like the whole Messenger thing for a while. Oh wait, I thought you said they dont do things like that since it's a different product group. Just like how their original intention with other parts of Windows Live (from different product groups) was to tie them into Vista. And how they have filed patents to tie them all together - and into the OS - for the purpose of gathering demographics and other info on users of any of their products.
While my post was speculation; they've already filed patents that support it, they've already done similar things with products from other groups in the past (and antitrust pressure seemed to be the only thing slowing it), and the software can easily (as they mention) update the applicable components - of which, numerous are not subscription based (and some of those, like Passport used to be in order to use many services, can become required subscriptions).
Your only supporting speculations seems to be:
Sorry, that's what I read in your post...
-Robert
Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on.... (Score:5, Informative)
For the idiot mod who thinks the above post was trolling...
MS Advertising Patent [theregister.co.uk]
In order for this to work, MS needs to tie together all their diverse products from all their product groups... This was the patent that was previously discussed on /. that I was referring to.
Please feel free to point me to where I am wrong...
And no, I am not going to quote the specifics of the patent any farther than I have discussed them. If you don't have a clue about a topic, don't moderate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my profile should confirm I am not twitter...
And my next post on this topic should point you in the right direction to point out it is perhaps far more than speculation - since MS patented something that requires them to do everything the poster I was replying to said they wouldnt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Jon,
Read the article on TheRegister - or the two patents they reference (one is in another article - and is also very relevant to Windows Live Services). My speculation on your thoughts is more accurately my re-wording them to conform to 2 (or more) patents MS has already filed for that indicate such intent. :-)
-Robert
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure... they were one post up I think....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/18/microso f t_advertising_pc_patent/
Part of which state:
Microsoft has filed a patent (here) that threatens to breathe life into Bill Gates' and Ray Ozzie's Frankenstein-like Windows Live "vision", unveiled in November 2005, for putting annoying, in-your-face internet adverts inside your most important Windows applications.
Which references this Patent:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1 =PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO% 2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070157227%22.P GNR.&OS=DN/20070157227&RS=DN/20070157227
The patent and the article go into more detail... but some neat parts are section 8 and 11 - as well as the
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that they would have some significant hurdles to overcome... but the problem(s) I see is they wouldn't have filed the patent if they didnt intend t use it, they already announced (MS China) working test models, and they frequently (as DOJ and EU cases prove) release things of questionable legal nature and then deal with the backlash later.
And yeah, there are probably people who would welcome it.... but to the level of intrusiveness MS is discussing (emails, documents, music, Live related data) I t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd go for FMT:
Fear, Materialization, Told you so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
OMG Windows Live! More like Windows Death, those monopolistic tyrants!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another reason.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually the clearest evidence of Microsoft's monopoly we have.
In a competitive market, producers are forced to continually improve their products so customers will buy them in preference to anyone else's.
In the computer OS market, Microsoft is having to coerce people into "upgrading" to their newer versions because there's no improvements their customers actually want.
Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_maker [wikipedia.org]
A concise, widely accepted and universally taught analysis of why monopolies are bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss [wikipedia.org] The deadweight loss is what you and I lose in dollars and units under Microsoft's market control.
The first is legal; the second is not.
Let's leave "legal" and "illegal" to the lawyers and increasingly the politicians who control the DOJ.
Please divorce yourself from these politically expedient
Re:Another reason.. (Score:4, Insightful)