ZDNet has its own analysis loaded with quotes from the usual gang of lawyers, including the ubiquitous Rich Grey of Menlo Park, California. A consensus is emerging.
Grey says--and he's not alone in this opinion--that Gates effectively portrayed the states' proposal as overreaching and impractical. But by getting Gates to admit that you could configure Windows XP Embedded to run on a PC without IE, Windows Media Player, Outlook Express and the rest of what lawyers call "middleware," the judge could order Microsoft to offer Windows XP Embedded to OEMs as an option on PCs that would allow them to replace the middleware with third-party alternatives.
I suspect Microsoft wouldn't object to this as a solution, because no OEM in its right mind would want to buy it. Why not? The answer is provided in another part of Gates' testimony that received only occasional mention in news reports: Windows XP Embedded does not include the ability for end-users to install new applications. OEMs could still add their own applications, but most users would expect to be able to buy new programs and install them at some point.
The obvious next question is why Microsoft doesn't add an installer. In fact, if this question wasn't asked during the trial, you really have to wonder why. Thing is, embedded systems like ATMs and routers aren't meant to have end-user applications installed on them during run-time. An embedded OS is designed for OEMs to be able to define a specific configuration, and test it in defined circumstances.
In the end, and based only on news reports--on which I don't normally rely--I don't see the Judge buying this argument of the states. Gates' argument--that he needed an order that was very clear so that it would be clear how Microsoft could implement it in good faith--is a compelling one, and there's no way the Judge can do that in the states' scheme.
Is she really going to design a new operating system based on a different one designed for different circumstances, but with some modifications that she will specify? Perhaps Gates should resign and Judge Kollar-Kotelly should start drawing a salary as chief software architect at Microsoft. Somehow I think even Judge Jackson wasn't stupid or biased enough to do this.
Then there's the "co-mingling of code" issue. The proposed settlement of MS/DOJ/O9S (other 9 States) provides that Microsoft can remove end-user access to certain "middleware" rather than actually removing it. The states are upset about this, although there's no good reason for it. If end users can't access it and OEMs can install alternatives, what's the value in getting upset about the bits still residing on the disk?
Is it the space they consume? Check out ZDNet Shopper: These days you can get 80GB hard drives for about US$120. And there's value to the user, if only because the presence of the code may prevent some potential problems with third-party software that requires the missing "middleware."
There is no remedy for any case.There are solutions and set of cses where the solution helps. The note seenms not to be constructive because it is not distinct what the author wants finally.
My experience proves that Windows XP simple porting of MS applications using multithreading and ActiveX technologies to achieve mode of work which may be considered like RT and embedded . It is very important integrating set of components of RT processing(like muOS-II, XLINX, Microblase,controllers and data transmission over Nw, allows to minimize size and coast of system, make it more productive without unnesessary services.
Of course I have many critical remarks but not of the type "It is not the remeady"- it is pronounced not seriously.