U.S anti-trust regulators to test Windows 7 more thoroughly

The three member panel of Technical Advisers (Technical Committee - TC) to the antitrust regulators which monitor Microsoft's compliance with a 2002 antitrust settlement will test Windows 7 more thoroughly, according to a status report filed with the federal judge watching over the company.

The 2002 antitrust settlement requires Microsoft to document the communication protocols so that other developers and competitors can design software to work with Windows. Microsoft and State & Federal Antitrust officials are required to deliver regular reports to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. On December 5,2008, Microsoft delivered to the TC updated technical documents in anticipation of the release of the Windows 7 beta in which it mentioned that changes to the protocols in Windows 7 required 30 new and 87 revised technical documents.

In response to the December 5th report, TC has made changes to the Windows 7 testing strategy. The status report reads:

In the light of the number of new documents that need to be reviewed, the TC is going to shift its focus to direct review of the documents by the TC's engineers as the most efficient method of identifying issues with the documentation. The revised strategy will enable the TC to review the new Windows 7 and system documents more thoroughly than it would otherwise, which is particularly desirable given the significance of these new documents to the project as a whole.

Microsoft is also under the constant surveillance of European Union which recently accused Microsoft of breaking antitrust laws by including the company's Internet Explorer browser with the Windows, which may require Microsoft to install other browsers too and urged Microsoft to follow open web standards.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Gmail goes offline

Next Story

EFF launches campaign to free phones from software locks

43 Comments

View more comments

spd21 said,
Why is there always one person that brings ANOTHER OS into a thread about ONE particular OS? It's just plain immature.

Comparing and contrasting is immature? Just because you did it in grade school means it can't still apply to your adult life?

Shadrack said,
Comparing and contrasting is immature? Just because you did it in grade school means it can't still apply to your adult life?

Blame LTD for that.
He is the standard, "that thing only applies to Microsoft, so spare my Apple!!!"

thenonhacker said,
Blame LTD for that.
He is the standard, "that thing only applies to Microsoft, so spare my Apple!!!"

Apple currently doesn't meet any legal standard of "monopoly." What I want or don't want has nothing to do with that.

thenonhacker said,
Blame LTD for that.
He is the standard, "that thing only applies to Microsoft, so spare my Apple!!!"

Seriously, can we stop this? I don't even like the guy, but this is getting pretty out of hand.
LTD didn't start the conversation about OS X, nor did he post anything particularly controversial. Some of his opinions concerning certain fruit-based companies can be a little, ah, rose-tinted, but it doesn't mean that every time he speaks in a conversation any resulting arguments are his fault, regardless of your personal opinions.

If Vista made it through this review so will 7, if anything 7 has left out some stuff that is now optional and part of Windows Live. This is just a bunch of beuaracrats trying to look like they are doing something.

I'm sure the idiots on that panel don't even have a highschool degree. I hope features don't get stripped because of this. MS should buy and island and make it's own damn rules.

Luis.A said,
I'm sure the idiots on that panel don't even have a highschool degree. I hope features don't get stripped because of this. MS should buy and island and make it's own damn rules.


Wouldn't work because if they have to sell it in America, american laws apply, in Europe, europe laws apply, etc

This anti-trust BS is a joke..... Everyone knows MS has the biggest cookie jar, and they all want to stick a hand in it..... And because of one ruling a few years back, they'll get whatever they want. Pretty soon, the amt of money they've extorted out of MS will be enough to buy a country...

Just stop selling computers with any pre-installed software/operating system then there won't be a problem and we won't get all the extra crap software which is either useless cos its only demo crap or "lite versions" which seriously how many people use that crap software that comes pre-installed on new computers....

Also then I won't have to buy a off the shelf copy of windows since the restore Cd's / dvd's that come with new computers have that crap on as part of the restore and I like a clean system with only the software I want installed on my computer and if other people want to use Linux or whatever then they can buy a copy of the self since it does sit right next to all those other operating systems (cough cough) oh yeah forgot they don't know how to advertise or package there software like Microsoft they need big brother to hold there hand and make Microsoft include it with there software...

Surely we could sue these dumb arse gov departments for implying we are to stupid to know about other software company's and only believe there is Microsoft software...

nottie said,
Surely we could sue these dumb arse gov departments for implying we are to stupid to know about other software company's and only believe there is Microsoft software...

Regarding the first part of your comment: you can't.

Regarding the second part: Yes. A lot of people are.

In general, isn't this about having no hidden API's that would give MS Software an advantage (easier to code against Windows 7) compared to competitors who would have to use only published API's which may make things harder to do?

If so, then fine - I agree. It's pretty underhand to have secret API's to give other departments in your company a helping hand.

However removing items such as WMP, Outlook Express, IE and other applications I disagree with. Microsoft should be able to add what apps they want as long they can be replaced with 3rd party applications with ease. (e.g. Firefox, RealPlayer etc.)

I've given up replying to LTD's comments. Courts and Judges make mistakes. They can be bribed. They don't always have the public's best intentions at heart. People and businesses get retractions from courts all the time. They are not definiative and any judgement doesn't not automatically make the judgement correct. We acknowledge that our legal framework isn't perfect, therefore LTD, looking at the comments in most of the threads about this I think we can safely assume that the majority of the public disagree with the ruling so far.

stevehoot said,
Courts and Judges make mistakes. They can be bribed. They don't always have the public's best intentions at heart. People and businesses get retractions from courts all the time. They are not definiative and any judgement doesn't not automatically make the judgement correct. We acknowledge that our legal framework isn't perfect, therefore LTD, looking at the comments in most of the threads about this I think we can safely assume that the majority of the public disagree with the ruling so far.

No. the majority of the public doesn't really care about these rulings or any other ones relating to Microsoft. Unless you count Neowin and the blogosphere as the majority. That's why there has been absolutely no public outcry against any of the rulings. It has nothing to do with jobs, healthcare, budgets, or the national deficit. It has nothing to do with what the "majority of the public" actually cares about. In fact, if anything, it tarnished MS' image with the public, i.e., more "big corporation" wrongdoing. No one is going to feel sorry for a multi-billion dollar multinational!

The "majority of the public" doesn't post on Neowin. They don't build computers. They go to their IT guy at work so he can "clean" their Windows box, and they couldn't care any less about which browser ships with Windows.

So you can't "safely assume" anything because you don't seem to have a grasp of what's going on outside your front door.

C_Guy said,
I see there is no shortage of paranoia around Microsoft. Can't we just get over it already?

Paranoia rofl

You are SURELY without any doubt one of the naive people who think DirectX 10 was not made for Windows XP because it was impossible to do it.

Open your eyes you really need to do it.

LaP said,
Paranoia rofl

You are SURELY without any doubt one of the naive people who think DirectX 10 was not made for Windows XP because it was impossible to do it.

Open your eyes you really need to do it.

DirectX is just an API. Of course they *could* port it to XP. But at what cost to it? They'd have to leave out all GPU scheduling and virtual memory capabilities, for example (XP's kernel can't support them)

LaP said,
You are SURELY without any doubt one of the naive people who think DirectX 10 was not made for Windows XP because it was impossible to do it.


And it would be totally possible to backport the DWM, the new audio stack, the new network stack, the new video stack (of which DX10 depends on), the new servicing stack, the improved mult-core support, the MinWin work, etc, as well as the new stuff in 7 like the new taskbar, device stage, better SSD handling, native bluetooth stack, native HDMI support, etc to XP, but how are the people that wrote the code that went in to DX10, and all those other features supposed to support their families if all their work is given away for free?

Some very interesting things and some very valid points are being said here. My personal take on this is that Microsoft should not be punished for bundling a bunch of software to make their PRODUCT better. In my opinion DOS was an operating system. The Linux kernel is an operating system. However, Windows, OS X and the various flavors of GNU/Linux are more like a product rather than just an OS. The way I see things, Microsoft is selling a Product that lets people be more productive. And if they didn't bundle a Web Browser with their OS then how the hell would people be able to get on the Internet to get a different Web browser for instance?

That being said, I don't certainly agree with a lot of their practices of conducting business but business in general in today's world is a dirty game. The way I see it, they should let them bundle whatever they wish with their product but given their role in the global market, they should provide an easy and obvious way for their customers to be able to learn about and get to other products and services. They could for instance extend the Windows Marketplace and let all vendors to publish their products there and let the users rate and chose which product to use.

Honestly, I don't think Internet Explorer is such a horrible browser like a lot of people say and I am a web developer by profession. I, for a change, think IE7 was a decent browser and they are doing some good progress with version 8. Yes, older versions sucked in terms of standards compatibility and such but in IE 5/6's era most sites were done using tables, some CSS and some basic JavaScript. I think IE6 should have been what IE7 is and IE7 -> IE8 (then even the version number was going to follow the OS version number too).

Obry said,
Some very interesting things and some very valid points are being said here. My personal take on this is that Microsoft should not be punished for bundling a bunch of software to make their PRODUCT better. In my opinion DOS was an operating system. The Linux kernel is an operating system. However, Windows, OS X and the various flavors of GNU/Linux are more like a product rather than just an OS. The way I see things, Microsoft is selling a Product that lets people be more productive. And if they didn't bundle a Web Browser with their OS then how the hell would people be able to get on the Internet to get a different Web browser for instance?

That being said, I don't certainly agree with a lot of their practices of conducting business but business in general in today's world is a dirty game. The way I see it, they should let them bundle whatever they wish with their product but given their role in the global market, they should provide an easy and obvious way for their customers to be able to learn about and get to other products and services. They could for instance extend the Windows Marketplace and let all vendors to publish their products there and let the users rate and chose which product to use.

Honestly, I don't think Internet Explorer is such a horrible browser like a lot of people say and I am a web developer by profession. I, for a change, think IE7 was a decent browser and they are doing some good progress with version 8. Yes, older versions sucked in terms of standards compatibility and such but in IE 5/6's era most sites were done using tables, some CSS and some basic JavaScript. I think IE6 should have been what IE7 is and IE7 -> IE8 (then even the version number was going to follow the OS version number too).

I'm a web dev too working for a medium sized company (100000 visitors (sessions) a month).

IE 5 was okay for its time. It was a good improvement over IE4.
IE 7 is not that bad honestly and definately a big step forward.

But IE6 was a really bad browser honestly with awful CSS support and not standard compliant. There's still cie on Windows 2000 so there's still people out there using it for intranet purpose and internet too. We are still on Windows 2000 (we will switch to XP this year) and when i'm working on the intranet i need to make it works for IE6 but i also need to make it works for IE7 since we will switch to XP. And since a good share of our visitors still use IE6 i need to support it when i work on our Web site.

I'm ok with IE7 honestly. But IE6 was a big mess.

Commenting is disabled on this article.