Neowin.net

Blame the courts for it not microsoft. Remember microsoft is always getting bashed for being a monopoly.

It was annoying in the days of dial-up but honestly, the entire update takes most users maybe a few minutes now. As long as they make it easy for people to download and install the features they want it's really not an issue. It only has to be done once after all, and for the majority of consumers not at all since this stuff will already be done by the OEMs.

You might not have to actually download them if you do a clean install, and I'm sure MS will have deals with OEMs for them. They can be on the Windows disc, and if you want them at install time then they're installed.

Isn't this what more people wanted anyways?

It's what I wanted. There will still be links to download the programs, as was the case with Messenger Live in Vista, but it won't be tied to OS design anymore. As stated, it doesn't seem sensible to maintain two separate programs that do largely the same thing, particularly when the one built in doesn't see much development.

Microsoft isn't doing this to punish users - this is being done so that people will always have to download the latest version, always more up-to-date. It also means that apps can evolve independently of Windows, meaning you install the same version on Vista and Windows 7. Not to mention it makes things better from a monopoly perspective. This benefits everyone, including the end user... as long as Microsoft streamline the amount of effort it takes to download them.

Seems to me, it's about time they do understand this. But then maybe outside pressure (maybe like the E.U.) has force them finally see the light.

That's right, this is not MS fault at all. It's the courts. I'm waiting for them to pull IE next and make it a exe on the desktop, along with FF and others before you start your Internet.

Whateverrrrrrr.

That's all I need: a bunch of browsers included on the install which will probably become out of date relatively fast. God forbid they'd just leave IE8 on there and let us download Firefox/Opera/etc (latest). Should we want to get rid of IE8 from there, we should be able to. However, most of us need IE since some sites are designed to work with IE only.

It's too bad there's no way to update Firefox and other browsers. Maybe they could even make a way to have them check online for updates automatically.



Ah, I see. Because IE never needs updating. Gotcha.



Sorry, are you from the past?

[quote=Skyfrog said,#1.8][quote=Dakkaroth said,#1.7][quote]However, most of us need IE since some sites are designed to work with IE only.[/quote]

Sorry, are you from the past? [/quote]

It's true, I worked on a system that utilised stuff like "Modal Dialogs", which are IE only.

Oh I know there is still some specialized stuff that requires it, but he said most of us need IE which I think is unlikely.

You can't please everyone, but consider why programs like vLite are so popular. I say good move! Less shovelware! More consumer choice!

These live apps will probably be on the Win7 DVD so you can install them when you install windows, that's how I'd do it anyways. Then after you setup your Internet connection they can be updated if needed.

If not you can just download them later as well. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

[i]Lets be honest, MS always half-asses apps bundled with the OS anyway...]

Windows Media Center is kinda nice. Leaps and bounds better than Front Row.

But its still half assed. Its a pity its probably the best out there

While media center is actually quite good, there are better ones out there. BeyondTV and sagetv are two great ones.

if you get them to work , the big advantage of media center over these two is simple: if you have the right hardware, it just works out of the box, even a monkey can set it up

Except that it's full of DRM. Not good !!

DRM? where? I have ripped music, I have watched movies (downloaded ones as well as from DVDs) and have not encountered an issue with DRM yet ...

It's not full of DRM. People often confuse things that have playback support for protected media as something evil that will take away your mp3s, delete your hard drive and report you to Big Brother. I got so tired of hearing this about Vista. The only thing it does is allow you to play content that is protected with DRM, or if you choose to add it to your own content perhaps. Otherwise those Blu-Ray movies you may have purchased would be coasters. Oh and that DVD player on top of your TV? Guess what, it has DRM support too! Oh no!

It has nothing to do with your ripped music or movies, you can still do anything you want with them.

BeyondTV FTW!

I wasn't talking about Vista, the discussion was about Media center, and it is full of DRM, that other don't have. One example, Media Center respect the do not record flag, which are not part of the accepted standard. Some networks choose to use it in spite of that and Microsoft respects it.

Anyway If you really want to do a good PVR, choose a solution that run in Linux. Much better and faster.

Oh, you just played the wrong card. The "EU" card can only be played on an "EU" turn. This is a "Windows Corporate/Marketing" turn for all markets.

Draw another card. Lose a turn.

It is very much about the EU. With Windows 7 it is not possible to enhance the existing built-in applications without incurring the wrath of the EU and anti-monopoly groups. This move will bypass all of them. I expect that manufacturers (dell, HP) will be encoraged to include some sort of windows marketplace, where these apps can be installed for free.

I can only see good thing coming out of this.

As it should be.

mmm windows 3.11 good times..

Win 95 had it also.

You're so cute. I bet you think this will reverse the market and OSX or Linux will end up with the Windows user base...

Your razor-sharp wit and sarcasm is mis-directed. Klownicle seems to be a solid Windows (XP) user. Not Apple. Not Linux.

Good god. Heaven forbid someone post an opinion here without someone doing a knee-jerk reaction and pouring derision down their throat after making incorrect assumptions. I can see one comment where he proclaims loyalty to XP for his OS of choice with a positive nod to OSX for being "pretty".

But jumping on someone's post while your preconceived notions were 180 degrees wrong is just... well... typical of you.

But he has a (albeit poorly-worded) point - this isn't about the removal of promised features or crippling of the OS or anything like that, it's simply Microsoft separating two distinct lines of products. The Applications are still available to anyone that wants them, they just wont be installed by default. To me, this makes MUCH more sense - I don't think I use any built-in windows apps aside from Notepad and Paint.
Plus, there'll probably be lots of shortcuts to the downloads in place of the applications themselves, so joe average user will not know much difference.

I was wondering if I was the only one annoyed by the long and silly names; I always rename them after I install. Aside from being too long I just think the names are dumb and confusing for many people. What makes these programs "live"? I really wish they would drop it and go back to the simpler names like Windows Messenger, Windows Mail, etc.

Are you listening to your selfs? You're complaining over file names..

Just rename the damn thing and your done.

seriously.. gah sh*t man

It's called expressing an opinion; take a pill and calm down.

You have more choice because you can choose whether to install them or not. Why would I want Movie Maker on my system when I never use it? Why would anyone want multiple apps of the same type when they only use one? Absolutely nothing is being taken away here, if you want them you can install them.

Good one.

Movie Maker is a crucial utility? Seriously?

I have no idea what your whole litigation rant is about, but it's explained pretty clearly why they're doing this. There is no point bundling these programs when they have near identical replacements available in the Live Suite. It also makes Windows simpler for them to develop. Absolutely nothing was said about lawsuits, what are you talking about? Anyway I think having Microsoft start moving in the right direction for a change, bundling less stuff into Windows and giving us the choice as to whether we want them or not is far from pointless. Just goes to show though that some people will whine about anything.

Last edited by Skyfrog on 23 Sep 2008 - 12:49

It's a very important move. Microsoft has a very large market share and Windows is used by the majority of businesses and consumers alike. By forcing applications to be installed they undermine the ability of other companies to compete and can impose measures that work against the interests of the user. For instance, Microsoft could lockdown WMP to only play files created by Microsoft - users could always install alternative programs but because it's there and convenient many, or most, will not and that stifles competition. A move like this demonstrates that Microsoft understands this and is doing something to address concerns (as well as having a convenient way to force the latest version of software upon users).

So, people care because it's a VERY important issue that has considerable impact upon competition and even the economy itself. It's a shame that people can understand this, instead choose to moan at every opportunity. Countries have competition laws to protect people, not simply to punish businesses and end users - it's just that the EU is more strict about it, while the US is all about big business (judging by the state of the economy it's pretty obvious which is the better approach).

To be honest, I find it somewhat annoying to have an email client sitting on a new system. If I had never touched a computer in my life it might be useful, but at this point I already have a history of email that I carry around with me when I move to a new computer, and it's all in the format of my preferred mail client. I could convert it, but why? I just download the mail client I've always been using, and use that.

Newer computer users have even less of a use for a mail client because they're all using webmail. Practically everyone I've seen simply logs into their Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo! accounts and they manage their email there. What use is a mail client there?

The only potentially useful thing to include with a system would be an Office suite. As of now I've only seen demos for Office suites (usually Microsoft Office) on systems, which is also an annoyance. OpenOffice could be put onto new systems, but then you'd get people complaining that they already have or prefer Microsoft Office, and OpenOffice is just junkware to them. Looking to the future, Microsoft and Adobe seem to want to follow along with web-based services like GoogleDocs. Just as the mail client has been made obsolete for mainstream users thanks to webmail, office software suites and the like may become obsolete as well. The only bit of software that would be justified, then, would be a web browser.

As for your argument that OEMs will be encouraged to bundle more crapware, that's a bunch of rubbish. You really believe that if Microsoft claims "this is our most slimmed down OS ever - it allows you to only put on what you need" OEMs will suddenly see it as a green light to load up more BS? The OEMs are already receiving criticism for the amount of crap that they put on new systems. If Microsoft slims down or completely removes all of their own excessive pre-installed garbage, it will be entirely obvious who 100% of the blame should shift to.

Exactly. The mail client is no longer anywhere near as relevant as it once was. I use Outlook myself, which also negates the need for a built in mail client. I really like where Microsoft is taking the Windows Live platform, even if I barely use it myself.

Nice, someone with real insight into how 100% of the Windows user base use their OS and its applications.

Know what I hate? When people don't even read the article before making crazy comments.

QFE old news. Stupid for Cnet to rehash and rebadge it as if microsoft is doing something criminal. This was the plan from the begining and its just now reaching peoples eyes. IF you wanted to complain you should have done it a long time ago.

Good move MS.

OS X *kind of* makes you pay for iLife. All Macs come with the latest iLife, but updates to iLife are separate from OS X. So in a sense, yeah, Apple makes iLife an add on.

I guess it's because they need to pander to the masses and sadly, the masses don't know **** about installing windows.
Getting them to reinstall the OS would be difficult enough, then bombarding them with a series of options, any one of which they could accidentally uncheck and then be on the support line because Movie Maker "isn't there".
Simply installing everything ensure most people will get what they need and the worst anyone can say is that the programs are taking up space.

I agree, though, I'd prefer a customised install myself, I wish they'd at least have a "simple" and "advanced" install for those of us who know what we're doing. But then again, if you know what you're doing, you can customise your installation even without tools like n/vlite (those are just frontends for officially sanctioned Microsoft tools).

That's because you have only 32kb of memory in your head and constantly forgetting things.

Compare the install time of XP vs. Vista.
Vista is not "installing", it's "unpacking".

Because Vista's installer simply extracts a disc image to the hard drive when installing the OS, you can't really tell the installer not to extract a specific file/app onto the hard drive. They could, however, bring up the "Turn Windows features on and off" dialog either before or after the setup to allow users to choose what they want on their system.

Maybe that would be the best compromise... except there STILL will be some people complaining that the WMP/IE/WLM/whatever binaries are on the disc, THAT'S A MONOPOLY!

Any particular reason why PC makers would choose something other than Microsoft's own Live suite of programs? If they wanted to include even more crappy shovelware they would, this isn't really going to change anything there. They are in the business of having happy customers so I'm sure they'd choose Windows Live Mail over Abdul's Shareware Mail client extreme v0.38 beta. They seem to be cutting down on the bundled junk due to complaints.

Plus this is Microsoft we're talking about, I have a feeling they'll gently suggest that the OEMs include their programs.

How about reading the article?



Unless Windows Live wouldn't be free, I don't understand why they would continue developing two almost identical programs. I didn't see much difference between Windows Live Mail and Windows Mail.

There actually is a big difference. The names might be close but Windows Live Mail is like a rewrite/new mail client while Windows Mail is just a minor updated version of the outdated and lacking Outlook Express.

Windows Mail was a half hearted attempt in updating Outlook Express. Windows Live Mail, on the other hand, does everything well and has a nice UI to boot.

The latest Windows Live Mail beta takes this a step further and integrates Windows Live Calendar. Maybe with this, Windows Calendar may cease to exist and instead be merged into WLM permanently. If they do that, the client should be renamed to not confuse others; after all, this app does almost four different things: mail, calendar, RSS, and newsgroups.

All of the programs they are unbundling will still be freely available. The only thing they're removing are the programs included in Windows Live, so no one will have to buy Office or anything else if they still want them. They're just separating them from the OS, which I agree is a great change. I noticed that the bundled programs were seldom if ever updated while the Live stuff got refreshed quite often. I just wish they would make Internet Explorer a part of the Live suite and make it an optional install also. They already untied it from the shell in Vista, might as well go all the way.

If no browser comes with OS then 90% people will not know how to download anything - not even a new browser.

A simple link on the desktop would remedy that.

Actually it should reduce confusion, because there will be no more Windows Gallery, Windows Mail, etc. There will be only the Live programs.

Congratulations, you win the stupidest post of the day award. It's not even in beta yet and you are making ridiculous unfounded assumptions about it. Oh and the "next Windows Me" thing got really old when everyone was saying it about Vista, and XP before that. Can't you go troll somewhere else?

Eh? firstly "MinWin" is the Vista/7 kernel stripped down to it's bare essentials, so 7 essentially does (and Vista for that matter) have it. What you mean not a single new feature added? that is bold statement considering 7 hasn't even reached Beta 1 yet. The dropped applications is a great idea, it removes redundant applications and the Windows Live versions do not all include ads. Only Messenger has an ad banner, I've yet to see single ad in any other Windows Live product. 7 isn't even finished yet and your proclaiming it's WinME 3.0?! what is with people and these stupid comparisons? all these "backseat" developers who seem to think they know more then everyone else, how about they join together and make a better OS? instead of constantly complaining/shooting MS down for every tiny little thing....that is the end of my little rant , take with a grain of salt.

What's wrong with that?

never ask trolls logical questions, for example, ask xavalon what is wrong with the NT kernel and he might explode because his brains can't cope with facts

What could possibly be more important?

People will not not know how to download anything if they do that.

Desktop, link, install Internet Explorer. Those of us who actually know how to work our computer machines could install Firefox or Opera, etc. They could also include IE on the setup disc and give an option to install it. Besides, most of these people you refer to don't know how to install Windows either, they buy their computers from Dell, HP, etc with a browser and everything else already installed.

It will probably be more expensive! Lightened supercars are a prime example of less = more (dollars). Maybe that wasn't the best analogy to use, but I hope someone gets what I mean? maybe...

They used to do this in older versions of windows' installers but they stopped doing this for some stupid reason. I would love to have this feature back instead of having to download or not download things.

You really might want to read the entire article before shouting FUD.